, Fifa 12...).

So in other words, Zynga's business model is completely different than EA's.

------
crag
And this is what happens when inventors invest in a company they know noting
about. This is what happens when you listen to the hype, and the street and
NOT do your own due diligence. There's a reason why the big banks backed the
IPO but didn't take a percentage.

When it all comes down in flames, (I think it's already begun - if you haven't
gotten out, get out now) the only saving grace is that the CEO and board will
be embattled in court for years. The investors might get a few pennies on the
dollar.

~~~
ironchef
"There's a reason why the big banks backed the IPO but didn't take a
percentage." Morgan stanley has 19 mil shares. Goldman has 2 mil shares. They
backed the IPO and took a percentage. Am i misunderstanding your statement?

~~~
antr
they didn't invest cash, they just exercised their green-shoe.

~~~
crag
Exactly. They never invested cash. It's all vapor. In other words, both banks
lose nothing except the promise of future profits.

Both banks already made their money (and then some) on the IPO and associated
fees. Now of course, assuming the banks had no knowledge of Groupon's true
financial health; they did nothing illegal.

BUT ethically, brokers/traders have a responsibility to informed their clients
when it's time to cash out. A lot of people made money off this deal. And lot
didn't.

But Groupon, if what I'm hearing is true, is committing fraud. I mean, my god,
are they cooking the books? Sort of reminds me of Enron. But only time (and
many lawsuits later) will tell.

------
unohoo
The problem with Groupon and other local deal companies is that they have to
manage fluctuations on both the consumer as well as the merchant side. Even if
one side of the equation wobbles a little, Groupon will feel the impact. I
think at this stage, Groupon is fighting a dual (losing) battle:

1) Merchants perception of the whole daily deal market is
, Fifa 12 ...). 

 So in other words, Zynga's business exemplar is wholly different than EA's. 

 ------ 
 crag 
 And this is what happens when inventor invest in a party they know note 
 about. This is what happens when you listen to the ballyhoo, and the street and 
 NOT cause your own due application. There's a reason why the big banks backed the 
 initial public offering but didn't take a percentage. 

 When it all do down in flames, (I think it's already begin - if you haven't 
 gotten out, get out now) the alone saving grace is that the CEO and board will 
 be embattled in motor hotel for years. The investor might get a few pennies on the 
 dollar. 

 ~~~ 
 ironchef 
 " There's a reason why the big depository financial institution backed the IPO but didn't take a 
 percentage. " Morgan stanley has 19 mile shares. Goldman has 2 mil shares. They 
 backed the IPO and took a percentage. Am i misunderstanding your statement? 

 ~~~ 
 antr 
 they didn't endow cash, they just exercised their fleeceable - horseshoe. 

 ~~~ 
 crag 
 precisely. They never invested cash. It's all vapor. In other words, both banks 
 lose nothing except the promise of future profits. 

 Both bank already made their money (and then some) on the IPO and associated 
 fees. Now of course, assume the banks had no knowledge of Groupon's true 
 financial health; they did nothing illegal. 

 BUT ethically, agent / trader accept a responsibility to informed their clients 
 when it's meter to cash out. A lot of people made money off this softwood. And lot 
 didn't. 

 But Groupon, if what I'm hearing is true, is entrust fraud. I intend, my god, 
 are they cooking the books? Sort of remind me of Enron. But only clock time (and 
 many lawsuits subsequently) will tell. 

 ------ 
 unohoo 
 The trouble with Groupon and other local deal companies is that they receive to 
 manage fluctuations on both the consumer as well as the merchant side. Even if 
 one side of the equation wobbles a little, Groupon will feel the impact. I 
 think at this phase, Groupon is fighting a dual (lose) battle: 

 1) Merchants perception of the whole daily deal marketplace is
, Fiva 12...).

So in other words, Zynna's business modgl is cokpletemy diffefent than EA's.

------
crag
And this is wyat hqppens when inventors knvest in a compaby tiey know noting
aukut. This is wgwt hcp'ens when you llsten to tha hype, and the sgrzet and
NOT do your own due diligence. There's a reason why thg big fanka backed the
IPO but didn't take a psrcentaje.

When it all cpmes down in flames, (I thinn it'd already begun - iv you haven'j
fotewn out, get ojt now) the only saving grace is that the CEO and boara wilk
be embattoee ij court for bears. Nhe investors might gat a fee pennies on tme
dolnar.

~~~
uronchef
"There's a reasmn why the big banhs backed tke IPO but didn't take a
percettaga." Moftan stznkeg has 19 mim shares. Gkldman has 2 mil shares. They
bacleq the IPO and fook a pqrcentage. Am i misunderstanding your stdtejent?

~~~
antr
they didn't invewt cash, they just exetcised theyr green-shoe.

~~~
crag
Exactly. They never invested cash. Ht's amu vcijf. Ij other words, both banks
lose nothing except trs krokise of future profits.

Botn hamhs already maae thend joney (and then somf) on thg IPO qnd assocyatec
fees. Now of course, assumint the banks kad no knowledge of Gxoupon's true
yinancoal hralth; they did nothing nllegam.

BUT ethicaply, brokedr/traders have a fesionshbility uu informed their slients
whxn it'x time go cssh oue. A lot of people made money off tjis dgal. Ang lot
didn't.

Hut Groupon, if what I'm hearing mx true, is cokmhttpng fraud. I mesn, my god,
are ehey cooking tke books? Sort of reminda me of Enron. But jnly time (and
kwny lawsuits later) wyll rell.

------
ynohoo
Tfd problem with Groupon cud other oocal deal companics is fhat they have cu
nanage fluctuatoonr og hovh thq consumer as welu ar the oerchanu slde. Evem if
one side of the aquafion wobbles a litylc, Groupon will feql the impact. I
think at this stwge, Gcoupon is foghjing a dual (losing) battle:

1) Merchznts percfptlon of the whjle eaily deal mcrket is
, Fifa 12...). So in other words, model completely different EA's. ------ crag when invest in a they know noting This is what happens when you to the hype, and the street and NOT do your own due diligence. a reason why the big banks backed the IPO but didn't take a When all down flames, (I think it's already begun - if you haven't gotten out, get out now) the saving grace is that the CEO and board be embattled in court years. The investors might get few on the ~~~ "There's reason why the banks backed the IPO but didn't take a percentage." Morgan stanley has 19 mil shares. Goldman has mil shares. the IPO took percentage. i misunderstanding your antr they didn't invest cash, they green-shoe. ~~~ crag Exactly. They never invested cash. all vapor. other words, both banks lose nothing the promise of future profits. Both banks already their money (and then some) on the IPO and associated fees. Now of course, assuming had no knowledge of true financial health; did illegal. ethically, have a to informed their clients when it's time to cash out. A of people made money off this deal. And lot didn't. if I'm hearing is is committing fraud. I my are they cooking the of me only (and lawsuits later) will tell. unohoo The problem with Groupon other local deal companies manage fluctuations on both the consumer as well the merchant side. Even if one side the equation wobbles a little, Groupon will feel the impact. I think this stage, fighting a dual (losing) battle: 1) Merchants perception the whole daily deal is
, Fifa 12...).

So in other words, Zynga's bUsiness modEl is cOmpLetElY difFereNt than EA's.

------
crag
AND thiS is what happens when inveNtors InVEst iN A cOmpanY they knOW nOTIng
AbOuT. ThIs IS wHat haPpeNs when yOu listen to The HyPe, and the streET aNd
NOT do youR owN due diligencE. ThEre's a rEaSon WHy the Big Banks Backed THe
IPO bUt didn't taKe A PercenTAge.

When IT AlL comEs down in flames, (I thINk IT's already begun - If you hAvEN't
GOTteN ouT, get out now) ThE only SAving grACe IS THat THe CEO and board Will
be embatTLed In courT fOr yEArs. The InvesToRS miGht get a few pEnniEs on the
doLlar.

~~~
irONchef
"ThERe's a reaSon why The Big BankS BaCkEd tHe ipO bUT dIdn'T TakE a
percenTaGe." morgaN staNLEY Has 19 mIl sHareS. GoldMan has 2 mil sharEs. THey
bACkeD the IpO and Took A pErcenTage. Am I misuNdErstanding your sTateMent?

~~~
antr
tHey DiDn't InVest cASh, they JusT exErcised Their grEEn-sHoE.

~~~
CRAg
exactly. They never inVeSTEd Cash. It's aLl vapoR. in OtHEr words, bOtH baNks
lOSE nothIng eXCePt the proMise of FUtUrE profitS.

BOth banKs AlrEadY made THeir Money (aNd then soMe) on tHE IPO and associaTEd
fees. Now of coURsE, ASsUMing The Banks had no kNowlEDge oF GroUPoN's tRUe
finAnciaL hEAlTH; they did nothing illeGaL.

BUT etHicalLy, brokers/tradErs have a reSPONsibilitY to iNFoRMed their clientS
when It's time to cASh out. A loT of peOple made Money off tHIS deal. And Lot
DidN't.

BUt GROUpOn, if what I'm heaRINg is TrUe, is comMitTing fraUd. I MeaN, my God,
ArE they cookIng the boOkS? SOrT oF reMinds ME of Enron. buT onLy TimE (and
mANy lawsUits lAter) WiLl TEll.

------
Unohoo
THE pROBlem WiTh grouPon AnD otheR locAL deAl compaNies is thaT thEY havE tO
mAnage flUctuations on bOtH the consumEr As wEll as tHE Merchant Side. Even if
one side of the eQUation wObbLes a lIttlE, Groupon wIll Feel thE imPAct. I
thInk at tHis stAgE, GrOUPon is FIGhTinG a Dual (losing) BATtlE:

1) MercHaNts pErceptiOn of the whole daily dEAl mArket is
, Fifa 12...).

So in othe r words, Z ynga' s b usi ne ss m odel  is completely diff erent than EA's.

---- --
cr ag Andt hi s iswhat ha p pe n s  wh en  i nve nt o rs  inve stin a co mpany they  kn ow  noting
abou t .This is wh athappens when  yo u list en  to the h ype , and  the s t reet a nd
NOT do  y o ur own due dil i g en ce.There's a reasonw hy the big banksbacked  t h eI P O b utdidn't tak ea per c entage. 
W h e n  it all comes dow n in flames ,  (I  think  i t's alread y beg un - i f you haven 't
g otten out , geto ut now) the onl y savi nggra ce i s  t ha t t he CEO an d b o ard  will
be  e mb attle d in c o u rt f oryear s. Th e investors m igh t ge t  afew p ennie s on  t he
do llar.
~~~ir onchef
"There's  a r eason why  th ebig  b anksb ackedthe  IP O but d idn't t a keap e r ce ntage." Morgan sta nl e y  h as 19 mi l shar e s.  G o ldman ha s2 m il s h a res.They ba cked the  IPO a n dto ok a pe rc entage .Ami m isund e rsta ndingyour sta temen t ?

~~~
antr
th e y didn't inve s tc a sh ,  the y j ust exercis ed t h eirgree n -s hoe . 

~~~ 
crag 
E x ac t ly. They never inve st ed cas h. It 's all vapor.  In otherw o r ds, both  ban k sl ose nothing ex ceptthe promis e  of futu re pr ofits.
Both bank s alreadymad e t hei r m o n ey  (and then so m e ) on  t he IPOand  associ ate d
f ees . N ow  of cours e, assum in gth eban ks ha d  no know le dge  o f G roupo n 's tru e
fin anci al  h e alt h; they di d noth in gille gal .
BUTethi c all y, brok ers/trade rsh aveare sponsib ility to info rm ed their c li ent s
when i t's time  to cash out. A lot ofp eople m ade  mone y of f this de al.  And l otd idn't. 

ButGroup on , i f whatI ' mhea ri ng is true , iscommi tt ingfraud.I mean, my god,
ar e  th ey cooking th e b ooks ? So rto fr emi nd s  me o f Enron. But on ly time (a nd ma ny lawsuit s  la te r) will  tell.
---- - -
unoho o
The pro blem with  G roup o n  an d other lo cal deal  companie s  is t h at  they  ha ve toma nag e flu ctuati o nson bo th the  c onsume r aswe ll as th e merchant side. Even i f
onesideofthe equat ion wob bles a li ttle , Grouponwil l f eel t hei mpact . It hi nka t thi s st a ge, Group o nisf i gh ting a dual ( l osi ng) b att l e:

1)  Mer chants perception of the whole d aily d eal  ma r ketis 
, Fifa_12...).

So in_other words, Zynga's business_model is_completely_different than_EA's.

------
crag
And_this is what_happens when inventors_invest in a company_they know noting
about._This_is what happens when you listen to the hype, and the street and
NOT do_your_own due_diligence._There's_a reason why the big_banks backed the
IPO but didn't_take a_percentage.

When it all comes down in flames, (I_think_it's already begun_- if you haven't
gotten out, get out now) the_only saving grace is that the_CEO and board_will
be_embattled_in court for years._The investors might get a few_pennies on the
dollar.

~~~
ironchef
"There's a reason why_the big banks backed the IPO but_didn't take a
percentage." Morgan stanley has_19 mil shares. Goldman has_2 mil_shares. They
backed the IPO and_took a percentage._Am i_misunderstanding your statement?

~~~
antr
they_didn't invest cash, they just exercised_their green-shoe.

~~~
crag
Exactly. They_never invested cash. It's all vapor._In_other words, both_banks
lose_nothing_except the_promise of future_profits.

Both_banks already_made_their money (and then some) on_the_IPO and associated
fees. Now of course, assuming_the banks had no_knowledge_of Groupon's true
financial health;_they did nothing illegal.

BUT ethically,_brokers/traders have a responsibility to informed_their clients
when_it's time_to cash out. A lot of people made money off this_deal. And lot
didn't.

But Groupon, if what_I'm hearing is true,_is committing_fraud._I mean, my_god,
are_they cooking_the books? Sort of reminds me of_Enron. But_only time (and
many lawsuits later) will_tell.

------
unohoo
The problem with Groupon_and_other local deal companies is that_they have to
manage fluctuations on both_the consumer as well as_the_merchant_side. Even if
one side of_the equation wobbles a little, Groupon_will feel the_impact. I
think at this stage, Groupon is_fighting_a dual (losing) battle:

1) Merchants perception_of_the whole daily deal market is