Agree. That's why we're calling it a "bubble": the sheer disproportion between revenue, employee number and brand value, and price tag. I'm merely putting things in perspective, not writing a "market analysis". :)
My point is that those metrics are not always valuable to rely on. Unlike hard science, you don't have to prove their significance through statistical analysis, but you should be able to state why market cap/employee is a reasonable valuation tool.
IMO, Facebook would not have paid less for 15 employees or more for 100 employees so it seems like a poor metric.
Comments
Agree. That's why we're calling it a "bubble": the sheer disproportion between revenue, employee number and brand value, and price tag. I'm merely putting things in perspective, not writing a "market analysis". :)
My point is that those metrics are not always valuable to rely on. Unlike hard science, you don't have to prove their significance through statistical analysis, but you should be able to state why market cap/employee is a reasonable valuation tool.
IMO, Facebook would not have paid less for 15 employees or more for 100 employees so it seems like a poor metric.