Fyi - RT is paid for by the Russian Government.

What’s you’re point?

Do you point out that the BBC is owned/paid by the British government when someone posts BBC? (or NPR for that matter)

They’re very different. The BBC is an independent organization funded directly by license fees paid by television owners. Unlike RT, it is independent from direct government intervention, and it doesn’t attempt to advance the interests whichever party is in power. The BBC primarily exists to serve people living in Britain. RT is directly funded by the Russian government, and is targeted primarily at other countries outside Russia.

Jee, here I thought the World Service (the only BBC I can get) was targeted at me :S

Radio liberty was forbidden from transmitting in the US by Congress.

I guess that depends on how much you trust a government news source when that government is headed by a guy that murders journalists that disagree with him.

What a load of self rightous BS.

The russkies are pricks. So are we.

In the context of a nation the UK had an adversarial relationship with, yes, that would be a prudent thing to point out.

Every day I drive through the counties that handed Trump his victory. Trust me the decline is real.

Must be nice to worry about the messenger. I’ll worry about the toxins DuPont dumped in the local water or the lead leeching from my tap.

But hey, I can afford to boil pasta with bottled water, so who cares?

Just another reminder to never ever build your company for Wall street. In 2004, Netflix went from 40 to 2 in 6 months. Amazon from 89 to 5. There are entirely zero competitors to Linkedin right now (FB is nowwhere in the space). And while i agree the product has stagnated a bit - this in my view is another example of Wall Street's insanity. (and no, i don't own any shares :)

No sure I understand. Wall Street had certain expectations of LinkedIn's growth. That was reflected in the stock price.

I was incorrect. Q4 earnings were great, it was the fact that LinkedIn released 2016 guidance that was far below market expectations.

[LinkedIn released their earnings and they were way below expectations, so the stock took a massive hit.]

Does that seem unfair to you?

Imagine if I bought "stock" in your job. I monitored your performance and set expectations for your work. You fail to meet those expectations, so as the majority shareholder of your job, I have you fired and replaced with someone else. Or you underperform once and I use this threat every single review.

That's how Wall Street ruins good business.

It's more like if I decide to pay you $300k because I'm pretty sure you'll do great work. If you then turn in a performance no better than a guy I pay $150k, then I'm going to go "oh shit, I was wrong and should pay you a lot less".

The stock market is all about expected future performance. Nobody forces companies to be publicly traded. If you don't want to deal with the expectations game then don't sell shares of your company to outside parties who generally don't care about your actual business.

Or, worse, you have a Really Damn Good Year, but I ding you at your performance review. Even though you were the best you've ever been, and better than your peers, you weren't quite as good as I was hoping you to be, so ... sorry, no raise this year.

On the other hand, you got the raise at the point where I started hoping you'd do great, even if you hadn't yet.

Maybe. It's really hard to set a fair baseline for a performance bonus; being given stock options struck at the current price is a very similar exercise.

I'm not sure I agree with your "bought stock in your job" example.

A better analogy would be: - your performance is great - your boss tells you that you'll get a promotion next year if you keep it up - your performance takes a turn for the worse - your boss tells you your performance is worse and lets you know that the promotion next isn't a sure thing

The stock market is a market that allows people to buy and sell stock at the price they see fit. The market should reflect all available information. I don't see any reason why LinkedIn's stock shouldn't plummet if suddenly their growth prospects went from "spectacular" to "so-so".

The analogy would likely be better if, rather than firing him, you docked his pay.

Every publicly traded company is subject to the other side of the coin too: their stock price rises based on exceeding analysts' expectations. If you want to be publicly traded, then you have to deal with your performance relative to the public's expectation.

But it's an aggregation of sentiment, not just one person.

And if you feel that sentiment is wrong, there's your chance to make money! Start buying stock in that business at the low price the "fools" have set.

Try to avoid concepts like "fair" and "unfair" when dealing with the market. I think this correction is an over-reaction to the guidance and the stock looks like a good buy to me right now.

By all metrics the business is doing great, but stock holders demand more growth and act irrationally over "sentiments". This is not reasonable or sustainable.

No. I think it's other way around. They were priced so high in the first place because they were expected to grow at a very high pace. They have mostly matching those until 15Q4 but the expectations for the next year are drastically lower so they get priced lower. What's so difficult to understand about it.

If you feel LNKD is cheap at this price, it's time for you to go make some money. Buy stock, calls.

Has LinkedIn even had any positive EPS yet?

From what I can tell it has, but I'm not a financial expert.

It wasn't that the Q4 earnings weren't up to snuff, they were, they exceeded expectations. It's that LinkedIn lowered it's predictions for next year.

The job networking site said that revenue for first quarter of 2016 is expected to be $820 million and adjusted earnings per share will be 55 cents. For the full year, revenue is forecasted to be about $3.6 billion. Investors were discouraged by these numbers, because they were expecting $867 million in revenue for the current quarter and $3.9 billion for the full year.

The problem is that their business model is probably more sensitive to overall economic health than most. Premium services that are nice to have for recruiting might be some of the first things to get cut from customers' budgets in a downturn when they're not hiring as much. I suspect that investors are jittery about the economy overall and think LinkedIn might be in for a slow couple of years if the economy stagnates. They're repricing the stock to reflect a slower growth trajectory.

>Premium services that are nice to have for recruiting might be some of the first things to get cut from customers' budgets in a downturn when they're not hiring as much.

I agree.

The binge on linkedin spending can't increase dramatically forever it eventually will follow the macro trends.

In Europe, xing is actually more popular than linkedin. So there is serious competition.

I think that's country specific. I'm in Denmark and I never heard of Xing.

I think Xing is more of a german thing (it's a german company).

UK here. Never heard of it.

It's the same in Spain. I also think it's popular mainly in Germany.

The other way to look at it is that the shares were vastly overvalued to begin with, and the latest financial statement has caused investors to overvalue them by a bit less.

I still think the value is insane, but the insanity is in the opposite direction to you :)

Yes. Still no real movement.

The most genuine, respected person in our community. My heart breaks for Sheryl and her family.

Awesome team. Congrats guys!

You should turn this into a daily digest email. be great to get this in my email box.

Why would you want to get this in an email? I try to keep my incoming email to personal communication, and push any content consumption into RSS. Emails are for urgent stuff, and consuming this sort of content is anything but urgent.

I can give you an Inbox invite if you're curious about what the gmail team thinks the future of email looks like. It is a platform built around various functional groups that email is used for, which may or may not be urgent.

I run something similar, http://hackernewsletter.com, and almost 30,000 people want that email each week. :)

Amazing talks. Alex is the best in the world at this.

amen. Glad you put this out there.