But Angie’s List hometown paper The Indianapolis Star does a poor job with its story. It mentions the company’s price-to-sales ratio, but doesn’t report anywhere that the company loses scads of money—a baffling omission. It’s particularly bad form since stocks tend to be disproportionately held where companies are located. Time, in talking about the IPO’s “enormous success,” doesn’t mention that the company loses money, either.*

The Los Angeles Times includes a skeptical voice, but doesn’t note that the company is unprotable until the seventh paragraph of its story. Investor’s Business Daily does better, noting it in the third paragraph.

Reuters is pretty good, running with this lede:

Shares of consumer review website Angie’s List surged as much as 44 percent on their market debut Thursday as investors continued to lap up internet offerings, but concerns about the company’s profitability could loom on the stock.

But Bloomberg doesn’t do well, dropping the company’s unprofitability down in the eighth paragraph of a thirteen-paragraph story, and offering no skeptical quotes.

When a company is losing lots of money in the hopes of possibly making money at some unknown-but-distant point in the future, it’s a particularly speculative stock. That’s worth closer attention and a skeptical eye.

* I added the sentence about Time half an hour after originally posting this.

Ends today: If you'd like to help CJR and win a chance at one of
10 free print subscriptions, take a brief survey for us here.

Ryan Chittum is a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and deputy editor of The Audit, CJR's business section. If you see notable business journalism, give him a heads-up at rc2538@columbia.edu. Follow him on Twitter at @ryanchittum.