SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : LinkedIn Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (92)7/9/2011 10:07:19 AM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 272
 
Waiting for Gravity to Hit LinkedIn

By JAMES B. STEWART
New York Times
July 8, 2011

Facebook’s valuation in the private market this week was approaching $100 billion. Twitter is in the midst of a round of private fund-raising on terms that value it at as much as $8 billion — more than double its worth a mere seven months ago. The Internet coupon distributor Groupon filed in June for a public offering that could raise $30 billion, and the online game networker Zynga followed this week with a potential $20 billion offering. [GP edit: Stewart is confusing rumored valuations with the prospective size of the offerings; the (current) proposed offerings for Groupon and Zynga are $750 million and $1 billion, respectively.]

After living through two destructive financial bubbles in the last decade, what explains the frenzy? LinkedIn, the professional networking concern, rekindled memories of the late-’90s technology boom and bust when its stock leaped from the offering price of $45 to $122.70 a share on its first day of trading on May 19. “Our mission is to connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful,” its prospectus proclaims. “Our vision is to create economic opportunity for every professional in the world. ...We believe we are transforming the way people work by connecting talent with opportunity at massive scale.”

As the first of the social networking concerns to issue shares to the public, LinkedIn makes a good test case for the existence of a social networking bubble. There’s widespread agreement that bubbles occur when a speculative mania causes the price of an asset to soar far above its intrinsic worth. After the mania runs its course, and investors finally recognize the divergence, the bubble typically bursts, causing prices to plunge. Early bubbles were the famous 17th-century Dutch tulip mania and the 18th-century trading in Britain’s South Sea Company.

Spotting a bubble before it deflates has proved difficult, if not impossible, since otherwise bubbles wouldn’t still occur with dismaying frequency. Academic literature is accumulating on the subject, including research into the monetary and fiscal conditions for a bubble and the psychology of herd behavior. Here’s a look at three key bubble symptoms as they apply to LinkedIn:

¶ Are LinkedIn shares priced far above their intrinsic worth?

Valuing a new and potentially disruptive company like LinkedIn is a challenge for even the most sophisticated analysts. After more than doubling on the first day of trading, the company’s shares have continued to continued to gyrate wildly — dropping below $61 at one point, and then rising again this week, closing at $99.60 on Friday.

LinkedIn’s share price should be the present value of its future earnings. Its price-to-earnings ratio, a common test for an overpriced stock, is in the stratosphere. But LinkedIn is too new to have reliable earnings, given its heavy capital investment. So let’s ignore earnings and focus on revenue, which will ultimately be the source of LinkedIn’s profits.

LinkedIn’s revenue for 2010 was $243 million. For the first quarter 2011 it was $94 million; extrapolating from the first quarter, a reasonable estimate for 2011 revenue seems $450 million, or nearly double. At this week’s valuation of $8.8 billion, that represents a current price-to-sales ratio of just over 30.

How does this compare to similar companies? No other company is quite like LinkedIn (which is part of its appeal), but Monster Worldwide and Dice Holdings are two major competitors in the Internet job search arena. Monster’s current price-to-sales ratio is 1.89 and Dice’s is 6.58. Both companies are more mature and slower growing than LinkedIn. Monster reported annual revenue growth for the most recent quarter of 21 percent; Dice reported 49 percent. So given LinkedIn’s revenue growth rate, its price-to-sales ratio should be about twice that of Dice (or about 13), and five times Monster’s (or 10).

But LinkedIn’s ratio of 30 is far above those levels, suggesting that by this measure, LinkedIn is substantially overvalued. At a price-to-sales ratio of 15, LinkedIn shares would be trading at $44
— about where the underwriters priced them. Give it a more generous ratio of 20, and shares still would be just $58.

Even the most bullish of Wall Street’s analysts — Justin Post of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, whose firm helped underwrite the initial public offering — came up with a target price of $92 a share. Ken Sena at Evercore Partners, a firm not involved in the I.P.O., derived a $65 “base case” based on a discounted cash flow analysis. He told me he thought LinkedIn had “tremendous potential if they do the right things, which I think they will.” Even so, “You have to make some aggressive assumptions to get to a stock price north of $70.”

¶ Does a paradigm shift suggest that valuations don’t matter?

Most bubbles are accompanied by grandiose if plausible claims that the world has changed, and with social networking companies, it’s the notion that advertising will be revolutionized. LinkedIn’s prospectus is nothing if not sweeping in its aims. Its business model is impressive, with significant and growing revenue streams from “hiring solutions,” aimed at job recruiters; “marketing solutions,” offering targeted advertising to “one of the most influential, affluent and educated audiences on the web,” according to a LinkedIn slide presentation to investors; and “premium subscriptions,” aimed at individual members willing to pay for more information.

LinkedIn promotes the huge financial opportunities still to be exploited, with a potential membership of over 640 million professionals worldwide and a global job placement market amounting to $85 billion in annual revenue and a global advertising market of $69 billion. If LinkedIn can grab even a small piece of these markets, its lofty valuation looks cheap.

All of this potential could be realized. But at this juncture LinkedIn’s growth potential seems little more than intelligent speculation and a dash of wishful thinking. It’s one thing to talk of “massive scale,” another to achieve it. This isn’t to say that LinkedIn hasn’t been a huge success. But throwing valuations out the window on little more than faith in a stirring mission statement and a rosy future is a classic bubble symptom.

¶ Have LinkedIn boosters silenced the doubters?

Many commentators on bubbles have pointed to the psychological importance of a rising asset price that reinforces a euphoric outlook. Gradually, those who disagree are marginalized, even ridiculed, as their prophecies of doom prove unfounded and those who have bet on the asset gloat over their good fortune. Eventually every optimist has invested every dollar available, and there are no buyers left. The bubble collapses.


In LinkedIn’s case, an Internet search for “LinkedIn” and “bubble” returns a wide array of commentary suggesting that LinkedIn shares represent a bubble: “Alarm bells are ringing” (The Wall Street Journal), and LinkedIn “will heighten fears the bubble is back” (The San Francisco Chronicle), to cite just two. Skepticism is pervasive. The doubters are in full chorus.

And then there’s the price action of the stock. After its bubblelike pop the first day of trading, the stock started a monthlong decline, hitting a low of just over $60. This is hardly euphoria-enhancing price behavior. Since then it has bounced back, fueled in part by the bullish analyst reports (four of them issued by the same firms that underwrote LinkedIn’s public offering). But no one is boasting publicly that they bought LinkedIn shares at $100 or more.

The bottom line is this: Is LinkedIn overvalued at Friday’s $99.60 a share? Probably. Are many investors ignoring valuations because of faith in a social networking revolution and LinkedIn’s disruptive potential? Yes. Have the doubters been silenced? No.

So LinkedIn shares meet only the first two of my criteria, and thus don’t represent a bubble about to burst — at least not yet. As strange as it sounds, bubbles usually don’t burst when lots of pundits are still calling something a bubble, as they are now.

But if other social networking concerns go public at even loftier valuations; if its critics retreat and start pretending they were backers all along; and if LinkedIn shares start climbing even farther into the stratosphere — watch out.

E-mail: jim.stewart@nytimes.com

nytimes.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (92)7/19/2011 1:52:16 AM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 272
 
LinkedIn's Valuation Disconnect

By MIRIAM GOTTFRIED
Barron's
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2011

Though LinkedIn is on the job, growing its business smartly, its stock looks expensive.

The social-networking boom (bubble?) of 2011 got taken up a notch when LinkedIn, the Facebook for professionals, went public in May. We thought it looked pricey then, and now the market may be starting to agree with us.

J.P. Morgan downgraded shares of LinkedIn (ticker: LNKD) to Neutral this morning and kept its price target at $85, citing the stock's 44% climb over the past three weeks.

Shares were down 5.3% at $104.20 in midday trading.

Shares may have further to fall. As Barron's noted back in May (see Feature, "Is LinkedIn Already Tapped Out?," May 21), LinkedIn is a business with plenty of potential, but its valuation has gotten way ahead of even its fast-growing revenue.

With a $10 billion market capitalization, LinkedIn trades at 41 times 2010 revenue of $243 million and 618 times 2010 earnings of 17 cents a share. This year, the company is expected to lose six cents a share on $471 million in revenue. And even accounting for rapid growth, shares trade at a steep 328 times expected 2012 earnings of 32 cents a share.

"We continue to believe LinkedIn is disrupting both the online and offline job recruitment markets, and a deeper penetration and increasing member engagement will drive strong results over the next few years," wrote analyst Doug Anmuth in the downgrade note. "Our move to Neutral here is based more on valuation than fundamental concerns."

LinkedIn's business model of selling access to its member data to potential employers and advertisers appears sustainable, but the stock doesn't lend itself to conventional analysis because its current profits are low. For the second quarter, LinkedIn is expected to post a loss of two cents per share on revenue of $106 million. This year, the company is expected to lose six cents a share on $471 million in revenue.

Of course, that revenue figure amounts to an increase of more than 90% over the first quarter of last year. But revenue growth has yet to translate into profits, and nearly all of LinkedIn's lofty valuation is based on the expectation of higher earnings down the line. Investors are making a bet that LinkedIn will be the job-search and recruitment tool of the future, and any stumbles along the way—perhaps from ongoing weakness in employment numbers—could cut its stock price down to size.

As Barron's pointed out in May, the operator of the leading online jobs site, Monster Worldwide (MWW), has a market value of $1.7 billion (17% of LinkedIn) and has $1 billion of annual revenue. Monster was once thought to be the heir apparent to classifieds for the job-search advertising dollars, but the stock has fallen more than 80% since the heady days of 2000.

For perspective on LinkedIn's valuation, Anmuth of J.P. Morgan looked at Netflix, which has a market cap of $15 billion.

"Based on our estimates for both companies, Netflix will have seven times the revenue and seven times the Ebitda of LinkedIn in 2012," he wrote.


Smart investors should be wary of LinkedIn's precipitous rise and hold off on buying in until the company proves it can earn the profits that Wall Street expects.

online.barrons.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (92)7/22/2011 9:54:58 AM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 272
 
LinkedIn should acquire this site:

workersnow.com

Social networking for bricklayers

Proven.com aims to build the link for employers and skilled workers to connect on jobs.

By Alex Konrad, contributor
Fortune Magazine
July 21, 2011: 5:03 PM ET

FORTUNE -- Proven.com wants to prove there's a job site for skilled tradespeople somewhere between the white collar networking of LinkedIn and the anarchy of Craigslist. A site focusing on the workers' end has been up since last year. The employers' end has been active since May under that site's old name, WorkersNow.com. Now both sides are good to go under the Proven banner. According to co-founder and CEO Pablo Fuentes, 400 new workers are creating profiles a day. More importantly for its new phase of growth, employers are joining the network at a clip of a little over 250 per day.

Workers create an account and list a skill set, along with any certifications and references verifiable to Proven through trade degrees or video samples of a worker in action. One unique feature that sets the site apart from LinkedIn: Workers can set their "Crew" of people with whom they enjoy working. Then it's on to an interactive map to find employers and submit profiles, regardless of whether they're hiring at that moment. Workers get five submissions per day.

Employers have to undergo a verification process before they can list whatever skills they seek on the map. Workers in those skill sets see employers as blue; outside that skill set they are gray and without a contact link. A company that is currently hiring appears as green and can privately choose from the profiles submitted to it.

Joining the site is free for both workers and employers, but Proven plans to roll out optional premium accounts for employers in the near future, as other sites like LinkedIn (LNKD) have offered. Those accounts will pay to use more advanced filters to best find workers in their particular skill set. Premium-level worker accounts would only pay to cover the costs of opt-in verifications such as background or DMV checks, and even then Proven plans to allow users to earn credit through site activity such as referrals. Fuentes said Proven also expects to make money through partnerships with certain trade schools.

Proven recently paired up with SkillsUSA, a national non-profit with over 10 million alumni since 1965. The group works with more than 300,000 students and instructors a year to launch students into trade and industry careers. Students from 130 skill set areas can create Proven.com accounts for free. Meanwhile Proven can build relationships with SkillsUSA's thousands of business partners. SkillsUSA's alumni coordinator can then use the site to track alumni's job successes and make it easier for future alums to find similar employment.

Proven currently has a staff of 14 based in San Francisco. CEO Fuentes met COO Joe Mellin in a Stanford graduate program. The two connected through an entrepreneurship class, where design and business students rubbed shoulders and talked startups. Proven later picked up its third co-founder, Sean Falconer.

The site's funding, currently a little less than $2 million, comes from a group of angel investors and "super-angels" with strong track records in Silicon Valley, including Tim Draper of Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Stephen DeBerry at Kapor Capital, and Dave McClure of 500 Startups. Fuentes said the company expects to grow five or six fold in the next several months before another round of financing later this year.

Given the newness of the site, many employers registered on Proven contacted by Fortune said they had not yet used the service to find employees; some managers even expressed surprise to find their HR staffers had created accounts. The reaction, however, was largely positive for such a service to gain traction.

But construction is an industry that has long relied on on-the-job experience for employment -- not videos of someone swinging a hammer. Contractors, the prized accounts for Proven.com to expand, may take some time to warm up to the site.

"I'm kind of nervous about hiring new guys," one San Francisco contractor admitted. "The idea is good, but the devil's in the details." For him the logic is simple: "Quickest way for us to find out if it works is to just hire someone." He did say he would try Proven.com at least once, though.

Sidney Feldenkreis, a 15-year journeyman carpenter, has gotten a number of gigs through WorkersNow but said he'd take jobs wherever they came. The site's challenge, he says, will be to maintain consistency. "There's always a better job, and if you know contractors, they can then reach you directly," thus circumventing continued use of Proven. But, he added, "It'll be an introduction."

tech.fortune.cnn.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (92)11/5/2011 10:02:23 PM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 272
 
Reid G. Hoffman, the start-up whisperer of Silicon Valley

A King of Connections Is Tech’s Go-To Guy

By EVELYN M. RUSLI
New York Times
November 5, 2011

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.

THEY come for his money. They come for his advice. They come — duh — for his connections.

But mostly they come, with all the élan of Dorothy on her way to Oz, for a chance at some face time with Reid G. Hoffman, the start-up whisperer of Silicon Valley.

Mr. Hoffman made his name and fortune as the co-founder of LinkedIn, the social network that went public five months ago. But he has also emerged as something else — — as the man whom Internet entrepreneurs call when they dream of becoming the next, well, Reid Hoffman.

Want to brainstorm about new technology? Build a business? Raise a cool million — or billion? Mr. Hoffman is a man to see. If he can’t help, he probably knows someone who can. He is, as you might expect, a seriously linked-in guy.

On this particular day in July, a rising entrepreneur named Brian Chesky has come calling. Mr. Chesky, the co-founder of Airbnb, an online service that matches people looking for vacation rentals with those with rooms to rent, wants some pointers about expanding into China.

Mr. Hoffman, 44, leans back in his chair. Then he lets fly: Airbnb will need a team in China, a robust Chinese-language platform, Web filters to keep Beijing happy, he says. It might also need a joint venture partner. He rattles off a few names.

It’s noon, and this is the third of nine meetings that Mr. Hoffman has scheduled today. He is trying not to sneak a peek at his smartphone — or, rather, his four smartphones. He fields upward of 400 e-mails a day, not counting all the stuff that streams in via Facebook, Twitter and, naturally, LinkedIn, where he had 2,536 connections at last count.

These days, Mr. Hoffman finds himself, a bit to his own surprise, at the center of the social media universe. He has a second full-time job as a partner at Greylock, the venture capital firm. He serves on the boards of eight companies, including Zynga, the hottest game company on the Web, and Mozilla, of Firefox fame. He is also involved in three nonprofits.

Oh, and there’s that little company called LinkedIn, which, as of Friday, was worth about $7.9 billion in the stock market. Amid all the meetings and messages and tweets, Mr. Hoffman, the executive chairman, must persuade Wall Street that LinkedIn will prosper and that its lofty valuation is not just another sign of Internet mania.

For the moment, Mr. Hoffman seems to give off a golden aura, at least to many in Silicon Valley. Everyone wants a piece of him.

“He’s the first stop for every hot deal,” says David Siminoff, a technology investor.

Gina Bianchini, the founder of the Internet start-ups Ning and Mightybell, says: “He’s like an early warning system for something great in Silicon Valley.”

Cyriac Roeding, the founder of Shopkick, a mobile shopping app that has been bankrolled by Greylock, adds: “I’ve never made a significant move, decision, without consulting him.”

Hearing Mr. Hoffman wax philosophical about technology, it’s easy to understand why so many here seem to view him as something of a yoda. When he talks about “scale” — Internet-speak for having enough people use a network to make the network actually useful — he often invokes Archimedes, the great mathematician and inventor in ancient Greece.

According to lore, Archimedes created a device with a revolving screw-shaped blade to pump water against gravity: the Archimedes screw. Mr. Hoffman urges his followers to find their own levers and devices to encourage people to adopt their technologies. Entrepreneurs, he says, often spend too much time creating products and too little figuring out how to get people to use them.

Archimedes is reputed to have said that, given a lever big enough and a place to stand, he could move the world.

“It’s not really quite true, once you understand Newtonian physics, but it is an accurate metaphor,” Mr. Hoffman says. “Build a compact piece of work with the right leverage, and you can solve a very big problem.”

LONG before LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman was just another kid in California obsessed with playing games. He grew up in Berkeley, bright and precocious, despite B’s and C’s in middle school. His father, William Hoffman, a real estate lawyer, recalls that his son always showed remarkable focus.

When Reid was 5, for instance, his father read to him from “The Lord of the Rings” before bed.

“Apparently, I wasn’t reading fast enough,” William Hoffman recalls. “Whenever I picked up the book, the bookmark moved further and further ahead.”

When he was 12, Reid Hoffman arrived unannounced one Friday at offices of Chaosium, the game maker behind RuneQuest, the fantasy role-playing game first published in 1978. He thrust a manual, marked with his suggestions in red ink, into the hands of a game developer.

The man leafed through the pages and asked Reid if he wanted something else to do. He nodded — and reported to work that Monday. A few weeks later, he received his first paycheck, for $127.

“It changed my father’s view of what I was doing,” Mr. Hoffman recalls. “He realized I could make a living out of this.”

Mr. Hoffman was basically indulging his obsession for games, or, more specifically, his fascination with multiplayer game mechanics, and the way that social systems come together. The question of what brings people together still fascinates him.

In 1985, Mr. Hoffman enrolled at Stanford, where he majored in symbolic systems, the study of the relationship between computing and human intelligence. He soon befriended a fellow student, Peter Thiel, who would go on to found PayPal. Mr. Thiel, a libertarian, describes Mr. Hoffman as standing on the opposite end of the political spectrum — “politically, kind of a socialist,” he says.

But the two became close and often spent hours debating politics, economics and philosophy. One time the topic was a quotation from Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Mr. Hoffman vehemently disagreed.

“He believed Thatcher’s maxim was wrong,” Mr. Thiel recalled. “Reid was always interested in creating communities.”

In 1990, Mr. Hoffman went to Oxford as a Marshall scholar to pursue a master’s degree in philosophy. He seemed headed toward a career in academia.

“I had this aspiration to participate in society as a public intellectual,” he said. His thesis explored the limitations of thought experiments. By his winter term, he realized that life as a professor would, in many ways, feel confining.

Again, the issue was one of scale.

“When you write a scholarly work, it tends to be understood by very few people, and has one publication point over time,” he said. “But when you build a service, you can touch millions, to hundreds of millions of people directly.”

WHEN Netscape went public in 1995, in a defining event for the Web, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Thiel were watching. Mr. Hoffman had a hunch that the social media were going to be huge, along with gaming companies that had social media embedded in their DNA.

His gut was right, but his first foray into social media flopped. In the summer of 1997, he started SocialNet, one of the first networks of its kind. It largely focused on online dating and matching up people with similar interests, like golfers who were looking for partners in their neighborhood.

To lure users, SocialNet partnered with an Arizona newspaper. The partnership yielded two customers in the first month.

“We had it completely wrong,” Mr. Hoffman said. The ability for a product or service to go viral, he learned, must be built into the way that the product or service works.

Frustrated, he left SocialNet in 1999 and joined Mr. Thiel at PayPal.

PayPal was wrestling a host of challenges, and Visa and MasterCard didn’t know whether to view it as an ally or an enemy.

As an executive vice president, it was up to Mr. Hoffman to manage external relations. “He was the firefighter in chief at PayPal,” Mr. Thiel says. “Though that diminishes his role because there were many, many fires.”

Mr. Hoffman emerged as a connector and high-level strategist. He packed his schedule with meetings, charmed credit card companies and soothed the regulators.

PayPal survived, and when the company went public, in 2002, Mr. Hoffman and many of his colleagues became multimillionaires.

Mr. Thiel splurged on a Ferrari. Mr. Hoffman wanted to buy an Audi but instead invested his newfound riches in one of the first solar panel companies to come out of Silicon Valley, Nanosolar, and bought an Acura instead.

“I started to think about the value of money,” he says. “I thought if I only had $75,000, would I rather invest in a luxury car or make a play in changing the world?”

Nanosolar became a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

SILICON VALLEY has long since gone Hollywood. Everyone from Lady Gaga to Ashton Kutcher invests in tech start-ups nowadays. Bravo is rumored to be casting for a reality show here.

But Mr. Hoffman remains decidedly unglamorous — a nerd’s nerd. He is wide at the waist and fluffy at the top, with a slightly disheveled heap of hair. His uniform is frumpy, even by the valley’s standards. He still drives the same metallic green Acura.

Today, LinkedIn, the professional social network, is a rising giant, a monument to the emergence of the social Web. Founded in 2002, the company has ballooned to more than 1,700 employees. It has more than 135 million registered members across 200 countries. It has turned a profit in six of the last seven quarters.

Mr. Hoffman, the start-up shepherd, is now helping his friends find their way to the public markets. He is a close adviser to Groupon’s 30-year-old chief executive, Andrew Mason, and a board member of Zynga. Groupon went public last week and its stock soared, giving the company a market value of almost $17 billion. Zynga is expected to go public by year-end.

Despite such euphoria, it wasn’t always clear that LinkedIn would survive. The first year was the darkest. At the time, Friendster was the most popular social network, and by comparison, LinkedIn, a platform built on business connections, seemed dull. Mr. Hoffman was a relentless evangelist, but he had his doubts.

“One of the things I thought of every week was, ‘What happens if we don’t make this? How do we die gracefully?’ ” he said.

It took five years for the company to turn its first profit. Mr. Hoffman struggled to steer his own company even as he mentored others. In 2003, Sequoia Capital, an early backer of Google, invested $4.7 million. One of its partners, Mark Kvamme, joined LinkedIn’s board.

The moves were a coup for LinkedIn, but the relationship was strained at times, according to several people close to Mr. Hoffman. And during the early years, he and Mr. Kvamme occasionally locked horns.

“Reid is not a business-running kind of guy,” says Mr. Siminoff, the tech investor. “He likes to take off his shoes, think of the world broadly and not worry about corporate spend and margins.”

But as the economy deteriorated in 2008, more people joined LinkedIn for its premium job and recruiting services. Mr. Hoffman, who had briefly ceded his role as chief executive to Dan Nye, a former Intuit executive, took back the top job, with the intent of finding another C.E.O. Within months he hired Jeff Weiner, a Yahoo veteran.

Several years wiser, Mr. Hoffman — as the executive chairman — focused on his strengths: product and high-level strategy. It also gave him time to accept a job at Greylock.

Today, Mr. Hoffman splits his time between Greylock’s offices on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif., and LinkedIn’s headquarters here in Mountain View. Again, he senses that a new Web is stirring. In the same way that social media redefined the Internet, he sees another tectonic shift on the horizon.

This one, he believes, will be driven by data. Mr. Hoffman has been investing in companies that are data-driven or starting to work with data in interesting ways
. For instance, even though two Greylock investments, Shopkick and Groupon, focus on retailing, both aggregate a huge volume of information on user spending habits. LinkedIn, too, has been trying to leverage the data on its site by, for example, making it more searchable.

IN Silicon Valley, it’s often said that the founder is the start-up. Friends of Mr. Hoffman describe him as a walking version of LinkedIn — data-intensive, straightforward, useful. In some ways, Mr. Hoffman and his company face similar challenges.

LinkedIn, which has soared in value, is under increasing pressure to perform. Though its membership has roughly doubled annually for each of the last seven years, many wonder if the company can possibly sustain its momentum. LinkedIn can’t afford a bad quarter: one miss could hobble the company, analysts say, by slamming its share price and encouraging its best engineers to jump to the Next Hot Thing.

“The problem is, most people are not like Reid,” said Joichi Ito, the director of M.I.T. Media Lab, who has known Mr. Hoffman for many years. “Most people waste their time, so the question is, can a work-oriented site become extremely popular, when many people are not as invested in productivity?” Mr. Hoffman himself is feeling the squeeze. But he tries not to pay attention to the markets and says he has checked LinkedIn’s stock price only six times since May.

“The thing I’m working on with LinkedIn in is to create something massive and effective; the strategy horizon is three to five years,” he said.

The public markets may be less patient. Meanwhile, he also has to answer to his investors at Greylock, who are likely wondering whether he can keep the hits coming. His reputation is an advantage, but also a liability. He is so busy trying to filter out the noise that he has little down time at all — at most, a few hours on Friday and Saturday evenings. This past August, he went to Australia for his first real vacation since 2002, the year he founded LinkedIn.

Before he left, even the hyperkinetic Mr. Hoffman conceded that he could use a break — at least a small one. “I’m functioning at 60 percent capacity,” he said.

nytimes.com