Groupon moves into online retailing in US

wow

Groupon is a 1999 internet startup that went through a time warp to 2011 and is now running with it. Even Pets.com had a cooler mascot (google Triumph the insult comic dog vs pets.com for a classic video).

What does Groupon have going FOR it?

Considering the Against:

Daily Deal Fatigue Syndrome, a lovely term for the effect on merchants of Groupon and its ilk. www.ddfs.org covers DDFS in depth and entertainingly.

Questionable accounting practices in the initial filing, now "amended" (defined as "heavily re-written with all references to ACSOI expunged"). And is an IPO absolutely certain, or might the SEC still dash that hope forever?

Paying the majority of capital raised to company officers, also some wives and children who have part-ownership of a few of the companies receiving payment.

Dubious evidence for the ongoing sustainability of Groupon's business model, on every level. The pooh-pooh'ed possibility of needing to go on acquiring new customers indefinitely looks rather likely to me, and belies ongoing reductions in marketing expenses, online or on the street.

Even more against:

Mason's leaked email, reeking of smoke and immaturity. It's more disturbing than any news or financial article I've read. Bless the leaker for his good deed to humanity.

Lefkovsky's track record of previous ventures, all of which appear to have followed a similar pattern, and most, if not all, of which failed. It's also enlightening to read his ballmerish interview quotes and email.

And, of course, a seeming inability to take the SEC seriously, including keeping mouths/keyboards shut during the quiet period.

Leak aside, in my opinion Mason had no business, and certainly showed no business sense, sending such an e-mail to thousands of employees in the first place - i.e., to quite a lot of non-insiders, per the SEC's historical definition of "insider."

Are none of these self-proclaimed financial wizards aware of the numerous cautionary precedents? E.g., Wired's much-publicized 1996 IPO, a virtually identical case?

Sadly, I see no evidence to support Groupon's assertions of long-term survival, solidity, or overall competence.

But assuming an IPO:

Aside from shorting the stock (the only realistic way I see for anyone but the officers and their relatives to make a profit)...what am I missing that makes Groupon a good investment? I've found no reputable experts bullish on GROPN recently, and would welcome a few solid "for" arguments as balance.

Besides the one about how people forget history, making it eternally possible to cheat large numbers of them.

Cheers (because spiritual commodities are always a sound investment),

cordwainer