Mick Weinstein

Mick Weinstein
Contributor since: 2005
Thanks for responding, orihamori.
1. The initial market cap will depend on where shares price. Renaissance Capital: "At the midpoint of the proposed range, Wix.com would command a fully diluted market value of $719 million."
2. Not sure how to reconcile what Wix has in the F-1 with this Wix blog post from 2011, which explicitly states: "We recently raised a fourth round of venture capital, attracting $40M... This brings total venture investment in Wix.com to $61M."
3. 150% revenue growth in 2010>2011 to ~80% growth since is a deceleration.
4. Agreed.
I can understand your enthusiasm. It will be interesting to see how the company develops after the IPO.
That comment from the Foursquare CEO (Dennis Crowley, I presume?) is remarkable and somewhat surprising. Crowley didn't qualify it as a planned opt-in feature?
Flickr as case in point - prob is ALL our family pics are on Flickr and there's no easy way to transfer out to another service :/ http://gizmo.do/K8APkI
I'm wondering if the comparisons to MarketWatch and CNET on the basis of revenues only are appropriate. MarketWatch was in rapid growth stage still at the time of its acquisition, and I think it's broadly understood that CBS overpaid for CNET on a multiple basis at $1.8 billion. But DJ wanted a property like MW to access that specific market with that model, and CBS Interactive under Quincy Smith wanted the reach that CNET brought. What assets along these lines would TSCM bring an acquirer?
That could indeed be a challenge, though as indicated the Toronto-traded shares are far more liquid and are available to most US investors through your broker.
Correction made - thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Frank Betz was told by Buffett that he receives over a hundred letters a day - and reads them all. Likely many of those are investment ideas.
Buffett didn't invite her to Omaha because it was news - he did it because he was impressed with her research and process.
Frank, EEM lagged its benchmark by a full 6.7% in 2009 - doesn't that concern you?
Good piece from Felix Salmon today on this
referencing Ian Salisbury at the WSJ
Thanks, donzelion - really appreciate the feedback on the series and that you find the investment theses interesting and rewarding.
Carl is joining us, chano. And Ernie is a very smart writer on Apple - I look forward to hearing his response to earnings today.
It's not clear to me that someone who scans headlines on Google News or any other headline aggregator is 'taking a significant share away' from the end source. This is not necessarily a user of that end source, now or ever, so how can you consider it a lost user? Aggregators have been part of the web since its inception - this is a way to consume content on its own.
This reminds me of the discussion over piracy (though I think nothing ethically questionable is happening with aggregation) - the person who downloads a .mp3 without paying was not necessarily ever going to pay for it elsewhere, so it's not reasonable to consider it 'lost revenue' to those legit sources, as is often claimed.
I asked the questions - I'm the Editor of Seeking Alpha. We're doing a series of such interviews with fund managers, completely on our initiative.
Kris, what research on IPOs do you read, or do you only do your own?
That's metadata that will get increasingly busy, which is probably why Google chose not to show it. For example, the new retweet that Twitter implemented places the retweeter in the metadata, I believe. It has been accepted practice to show this metadata - the Twitter user's client - but it's not clear to me that it adds sufficient value to the user to justify its placement in all contexts, like Google results.
We've corrected the chart with the proper Hennessee data - thanks.
On Nov 30 06:37 PM FINalternatives wrote:
> CORRECTION: Typo in the chart for 1998 -- the Hennessee Hedge Fund
> Index was down a mere 0.28%, not 28%...apologies.
Hi Jim - when we start at the top of the hour, you'll see a place above to leave a comment for the discussion. Those are moderated though, so it won't appear right away.
This addresses another problem entirely from the executive salary-cap at bailout recipients issue, so I don't see why the direct comparison. There's no reason to turn away from the former to consider the latter.
Also, the markets for NBA draft picks and smart graduates are entirely different (former defined by extreme scarcity), and the NBA salary cap - the team-based cap as well - has a entirely different aim than what you're proposing.
Do you honestly want to end the open bidding market for young smart people out of school? If we have a problem now of Wall St taking all the best young minds, why should we make those young people pay the price by limiting their options?
Jeff, apologies for the earlier headline applied to this article ('Why It's Not the Time To Buy Gold') - we've switched it back to your original. We try to apply the most accurate headline we can, but at times the change we make fails to capture the author's intent. Please feel free to contact me or your editor whenever you aren't happy with how we've handled your articles, and we'll deal with it right away.
To address a few other things that came up here: (1) I can assure everyone that the Seeking Alpha editorial team has absolutely no bias or agenda with regard to the direction of gold or any security, (2) in deciding whether to publish a submission or not, we do not discriminate in any way against more popular authors, and (3) Editors' Picks are chosen by the individual editor who publishes the piece, based on the following 3 criteria: rigor of research, uniqueness and quality of the argument, and shelf-life of the article (since EPs stay linked from our sidebars for awhile, we prefer to give them to articles that are not very time sensitive).
~ Mick Weinstein, Editor in Chief of Seeking Alpha
On Oct 14 11:09 AM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> Hi Zell.
> No, they don't edit my text (or that of other contributors) - there
> is simply too much volume for them to do that.
> However, whenever my popularity on the site starts growing too quickly,
> all of a sudden they refuse to publish most of my submissions.<br/>
> Then, once I 'cool down' in their stats my stuff starts appearing
> regularly again - although I no longer EVER get an "editor's pick".
Very entertaining scene, Roger, but I imagine it was closer to this:
Nuveen Exec: 'We're in the CEF business, and some CEFs compete with ETFs - so why does our website provide data, including comparison data, on ETFs?'
ETFConnect Editor: 'Because we provide a popular service that places Nuveen and our products in front of our precise target market on a daily basis, and we get incoming links that make us an important part of the online discussion on exchange-traded products.'
NE: 'But some of these ETFs look a lot better than our CEFs. And I'm not interested in the online discussion - I'm interested in new CEF investors.'
ETFC E: 'If our CEF products are compelling, our position in the online discussion will draw many new investors to them.'
NE: 'Ahem... let's kill this.'
Roger, your description of your investment process at this strange moment in the market, with lessons for all investors, is very much appreciated as always.
Is there any evidence that this will solve any significant systemic problem?
I think the main factor is 'status quo bias' (a force James Surowiecki refers to in his excellent recent piece on healthcare reform: www.newyorker.com/talk...). Many of us set up our portfolios on YF in the mid- to late-90s, when it was far and away the best site to do so, and it takes an awful lot to move your central news and data portal for your portfolio away from there, after that. It has incredible sticking power, like the bank where you do your checking. They need to really drop the ball badly, or face a categorically better competitor, to lose their top spot.
Thanks, we are aware of the malware issue and are documenting our effort to remove it on the instablog of our CTO, Koby Menachemi:
Fascinating data point on Bit.ly and its product idea - and absolutely agree that the hybrid approach to algorithm/human is the sweet spot.
Agree, and this is just a slightly more radical form of where they'll end up anyway, even if those top journalists stay put.
I find your idea of pooling ad sales resources among publishers toward landing the best price for the linked-to article's ad to be very interesting, but that would require a much more formal association among publishers' sales teams, which currently see each other as competitors. And would it handcuff editors - eg. if the editor wants to link to a source with which her sales team doesn't have such an arrangement, what would she do? But intriguing, indeed.
I wonder how much of this goes on in general in VC investing - hard to imagine the best funds engage heavily in this, but as Fred Wilson has stressed, one of the current problems in the field is too many players who shouldn't be there, competing for resources.
It was from Hussman's June 8 letter:
I wonder what the numbers are like for US clients of online brokerages... any reason they'd be significantly different?
Separately, Freya, the Editors' Pick tag does not mean that every factual claim within the article has been researched by our editorial team. It simply means that the editor who posted it thinks it is an exceptional post. While we try to check any facts that look suspect to us at the time of submission, we rely much more on our readers to dispute facts in articles, via our article dispute process: