Bonus prediction: "G+ = Ghost town" articles stop appearing in the tech media
Stephen Kemp's profile photoJasper Janssen's profile photoNick Kai Nielsen's profile photoPeter da Silva's profile photo
Yep! Cause now they have a new kid to kick around ;-)
+Julia Piatt Also, they're no longer being 'encouraged' to tear down FBs #1 competitor in the run up to the IPO. Remember; you heard it here first. ;^)
This interests me a little, "For instance, Zuckerberg was publicly chastised for wearing jeans and a hoodie sweatshirt during a presentation to buttoned-down Wall Street investors. His casual appearance left some wondering whether the 28-year-old had the maturity to run a major public company."

Well, you know I love a well-dressed man. And I think how you dress affects a lot of things in little ways. But I don't know if I like the controlling big-decision-making element to this; you don't look just like us so you might be a flake and we'll punish you for it.
It would be nice to see Facebook finally fail.....Zuckerberg is a turd.
People should invest in honest companies with actual assets and a tangible product.
What gets me is the Options market. How do you sell an option to buy something? What if the employee fails to exercise that option? As far as I"m concerned, if you don't own it, you can't sell it. How can the sale of options be legal when it is essentially fraud? (And we wonder how we got into this mess.)
+Peter da Silva Not totally inconceivable.....sites come and go, granted it wont be a quick decline, but its not out of the realm of possibility.
+Julia Piatt Believe it or not, there is actually a sane reason why options were invented. Basically, they help protect farmers & such hedge against going broke if they have a bad season. Unfortunately, traders came up with all sorts of wacky & dangerous ways to misuse them.
Employee options are just one of those things, & are actually pretty harmless.
I understand the need for the futures market to keep the farmer in business. But the buying and selling of stock options is big business and risky as hell if the company goes under... okay, you may be right about it being relatively harmless. But it still strikes me as gambling with IOUs on the table (no real money in the pot).
+Stephen Kemp No, I mean investing in companies with actual products. Sounds dodgy. I mean "Why do you hate America?".
+Julia Piatt You're confusing employee stock options with other kinds of options. The former are harmless (except for scamming the employee), while the latter can range from harmless to staggeringly dangerous, depending on how they're used. If you want to find out about one of the worst varieties, Google for "naked shorting", & read stuff like:
Which is supposed to be illegal. Then an article like this, about how traders do it anyway:
And while I'm on the subject, +Lionel Lauer, if you're wearing shorts you're not really naked.</emilylatella>
+Peter da Silva That last comment made me chuckle a little bit.....I left America last year because I fell out of love with it the day after I got there. ;)
All of it? How impressive of you.
I did somewhat enjoy the 3 years I spent in Virginia Lily, and my vacation in Ocean City, NJ was nice, but yeah, not a fan.
That's interesting. I've lived here for 47 years, in 5 states, in 3 regions, and have visited about 18 other states. But I feel like I haven't touched the surface. Perspective is always a funny thing.
I spent many many years in Florida.....probably all you need to
I would like to see the Everglades, what's left of em. And my dad really enjoyed the Tampa area. I'm sure I could do without a lot of the rest, based on news reports. But every place is like that, with its trash and its treasures.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.....Facebook is a clusterfuck, G+ isnt a ghost town etc.
Options are a contract-to-bearer, just like shares, bearer bonds and banknotes. Nothing wrong with selling them. It's writing uncovered options (promising to give bearer shares which you don't already own) that's really dangerous, and also has been made illegal after the crisis in many places.
This is the story as of this morning It's not so much his dress style as the fact that Zuckerberg and his bankers failed to disclose to the ordinary investor a downward revision of income prospects for the company.
Basically this allowed him and other institutional shareholders to offload shares for prices the figures don't justify...
The figures they did reveal didn't justify these prices either.
Add a comment...