# Twitter (TWTR)



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

Who will play this?


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Count me out.

You?


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

My Own Advisor said:


> Count me out.
> 
> You?


I don't know, on a valuation standpoint... I telling myself NO WAY! but on a momemtum standpoint, why not throw in a small portion just to see how it goes (To prevent myself from overspeculating, I set aside a small portion of my portfolio for ''bets").... I will see... maybe a one day trade.... I telling myself it cannot go under the IPO, underwritters will keep it at least at $26.... worst I will lose $10 on fees (I mean $20 buying/selling)


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

Facebook's open pretty much shattered any desire I would have had to jump on this. Also, I use Twitter and I HATE HATE HATE the ways they've been monetizing so I think it'll be rough going moving towards earnings.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Apparently the IPO was 30 times oversubscribed. Thats a pretty high number; no wonder they raised the value so much.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Indicators are already up to $47 for open.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Forget it.

I'm going to fly far, far away from this one.

"The number one rule of investing is to not _lose_ money."


----------



## rusty23 (Jan 25, 2012)

^

agreed, I'll wait till Feb or May when the insiders are allowed to cash out.


----------



## aok (Jul 3, 2013)

*Twitter (twtr)*

So today twitter's IPO is out and it was recently priced at 26$ a share but right when it went out for trading it jumped to 46$ I just want to hear from everyone on this forum if they think this is a good buy why or not why? there is a lot of doubt on for company but the same response was for facebook but recently they are just picking up


----------



## Kaitlyn (May 13, 2011)

aok said:


> So today twitter's IPO is out and it was recently priced at 26$ a share but right when it went out for trading it jumped to 46$ I just want to hear from everyone on this forum if they think this is a good buy why or not why? there is a lot of doubt on for company but the same response was for facebook but recently they are just picking up


Even though long-term I think even at $46 it's a good deal, but I'm going to wait for a (hopeful) dip in the coming days/weeks... extend any available profits!

I'm not looking to make this a quick play, personally...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

If there is anyway that I'm going to play this stock is to short this fluff. :ghost:


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

this is what's wrong with the rules.... regular investors can't get this IPO but huge firms with huge profits as it is can... why only huge banks allowed to profit from ipos and we are not? this does not sound democratic at all to me


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Right now it is just a speculation with no rational.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

The big firms got this before market debut and now it pops, up 75% on market open. Company has not made a profit yet! Not really for investors like us.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

almost every ipo of known companies pops, even facebook popped when it opened, it's pretty much a guaranteed money maker since there are no shares to short right away....


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

This company has never, I don't think?, made a profit. I don't get the hype. What am I missing?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Everyone is remembering to read the audited financial statements before investing in stocks, right?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

We are in a time-warp. This is Nov. 1999.
Bill Clinton is President, and Britney Spears' _Baby One More Time_ is the top hit single.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> We are in a time-warp. This is Nov. 1999.
> Bill Clinton is President, and Britney Spears' _Baby One More Time_ is the top hit single.


Bubbles pop eventually. :encouragement:


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't see much long term value in companies like Facebook and Twitter. They don't offer anything of real value. There will always be a new up-and-coming site to steal their subscriber base. Teens are already leaving Facebook and Twitter for services like Tumblr, which is exploding in growth -- I'm guessing it will be the next big thing.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I think twitter does have legs being the "new" media/news driver.
People go to twitter 1st now for news(Lang/oleary were talk about this and I agree with Ko)
maybe it's to simplistic but the platform twitter has,with the speed it can deliver has merit)
If you want the breaking story you go to twitter you don't wait for newsprint that is late to the party.i don't think twitter is fad.the stock is likely expensive now but what the business is built on seems to be the new venue to get news/information.I bet nearly all of us here in cmf use twitter for this matter.big story breaks(say ford/crack)it's twitter that blows up and is first to the story.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

As of right now, Twitter's market cap is larger than Manulife Financial, Sun Life, Rogers, Telus, CIBC, TransCanada Corp., and several other blue-chip corporations.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I choose to hold the above companies over twitter.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

My Own Advisor said:


> This company has never, I don't think?, made a *profit*. I don't get the hype. What am I missing?


Not sure about prev. years, but so far in 2013, they lost $134 million and have about 200 million users.

Zuckerberg [so far] has impressed me more than Twitter founders, but time will tell what they can do; I don't underestimate any of them.

So stock opened @ +73%. Did I 'play' it? :rolleyes2::highly_amused: NOPE.

I did book 100% profit on a % of my BAC stock today. Ok., not in one day, but 16 months was acceptable to me.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah but....but none of those companies can have hundreds of millions of people(billions,globally)on the network 10 mins after Miley cirus is photographed naked and drunk at a Hollywood night(people at large really really care about this sHXt)boom-trending worldwide.(farther reach than about anything I can think of off the top of my head)


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

^ Couldn't you have mentioned a more pleasant/useful example? :tongue-new:


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> As of right now, Twitter's market cap is larger than Manulife Financial, Sun Life, Rogers, Telus, CIBC, TransCanada Corp., and several other blue-chip corporations.


I just said almost the EXACT same thing referencing some of the EXACT same companies.

Wow. Mr. Crump, we agreed on something. :encouragement:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> ^ Couldn't you have mentioned a more pleasant/useful example?


Yes, Justin Beiber's drunken debauchery at a Brazilian brothel.
That fine? :rolleyes2: :biggrin:


----------



## Feruk (Aug 15, 2012)

When do options start trading?


----------



## PatInTheHat (May 7, 2012)

Feruk said:


> When do options start trading?


Or even better.. When can I short this thing?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Honey boo boo drunk and naked with her boob falling out lol....better example.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Given its market cap, Twitter should buy out TorStar Corp. (TS.B)
Then the fine "journalists" of the Toronto Star can release their entire stash of Rob Ford videos directly on Twitter, instead of releasing a new video once every 3 months.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

My Own Advisor said:


> This company has never, I don't think?, made a profit. I don't get the hype. What am I missing?


No profits, but I'm not sure how many private companies can say their product was used to overthrow governments. You have to admit, there's something to that.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Has Amazon ever made a profit???? And look at the stock price on that.


----------



## physik3r (Sep 10, 2012)

While I will likely never invest in TWTR, I find it very interesting to follow and watch. I'm actually in the process of starting a new business and we've received 90% of our sales through Twitter alone so I definitely think there's value in this product. What I am highly sceptical about is how they are going to monetize it.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Given its market cap, Twitter should buy out TorStar Corp. (TS.B)
> Then the fine "journalists" of the Toronto Star can release their entire stash of Rob Ford videos directly on Twitter, instead of releasing a new video once every 3 months.


:biggrin:

And so it closed at almost no change from opening price.

I know someone who likely didn't smile 2day: *'Now we have a menace that is called Twitter.'* 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...enace-that-is-called-twitter/article12304876/

The good and bad of social media, but no turning back to the telephone revolution.


----------



## 1sImage (Jan 2, 2013)

I put in an order this morning around 7, my account said I could only buy at market price.

Got canceled for some reason... But, mabe it had something to do with the $26-$40 something price change.

I'm not interested in buying now, that's for sure.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I'll watch the theatrics from the sidelines.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

1sImage said:


> I put in an order this morning around 7, my account said I could only buy at market price.


Interesting...a special notice in my brokerage account said that prior to shares start trading, only limit orders can be placed, no market orders.
It is bizarre that your broker is asking you to place market orders before open.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am very angry with myself over Twitter.......and will sit and sulk instead of buying.

I heard about them when they first popped up.......and registered a twitter name.

I could have had almost anything I wanted.........and what did I pick...........??

Sags............yea, what a dope.

I could have taken loans, mortgages, poker, cars, or something like that........and sold it for a tidy sum, (actually it is against the Twitter rules to sell a name......but people have gotten around it by becoming "employees" of the company and using the name for their new "employer".)

Qwikster, CNN, and Israel all got their Twitter name from someone else who had registered it.

Ah well........opportunities lost.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What a sad first day of trading. All that hype, and it goes down. Typical Wall Street

From what I see on google charts, the first public trades were at $46 at the open and it ended the day at $44.90, down -2.4% in its first public trading session.

117 million shares were traded. Since the public float is only 70 million shares, that means 1.67x the float was traded. This pretty much means that large shareholders immediately dumped their shares to the stupid investing public, who (jazzed up as usual on IPO hype) were willing to grab the overpriced shares.

If twitter shares were such a great investment, why didn't the original shareholders hold on to their shares? Why did they dump them all to the public?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Free money James........nobody likes to pass up free money.......especially the wealthy.

Some probably scalped enough today to buy a new Lamborghini or two.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I really don't understand the way they do IPOs. Instead of having an IPO be 30x oversubscribed, why not use a dutch auction? Then no one can blame the issuer if the price rises or falls on the first day--the bidders set the price.

I just don't get it. Why sell your equity (as an issuer) for half of its market value? Seems like lots of potential for corruption, as well. The securities regulators should mandate dutch auctions.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

The Reformed Broker:

"Art Cashin told us that floor rumors suggested 75% of the IPO's shares went to the 25 largest accounts in the country. Which is at it should be - you didn't think they were paying all those trading commissions for execution in the year 2013, did you? Certainly not for the research either, get real."

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2013/11/07/twitter-ipo-post-mortem/


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

It may not be that people dumped shares, but that high frequency traders were flipping them repeatedly. However, I'm fairly certain there is a non-zero fraction that would have taken the instant 75% gain.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> What a sad first day of trading. All that hype, and it goes down. Typical Wall Street
> 
> From what I see on google charts, the first public trades were at $46 at the open and it ended the day at $44.90, down -2.4% in its first public trading session.
> 
> ...


diversification ... it's a tech company and thus risky ... if it works, it will copied and maybe bettered ... by 2020 we will have seen 10 twitters come and gone


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> 1. What a sad first day of trading.
> 2. If twitter shares were such a great investment, *why didn't the original shareholders hold on to their shares*? Why did they dump them all to the public?


*1.* Sad for those that lost money, and deservingly so I must say; not so sad for those that made money. 
*2.* You would not have sold at +73% profit? :rolleyes2:

After that high opening, little wonder the shares are crashing; already at $42+ [yesterday's opening/closing prices respectively: $45.10/$44.90].

Yesterday was not about investing, but about hype.


----------



## WillyA (Apr 14, 2011)

I heard during the Facebook release that a lot of the institutional investors that bought it before it got to the public had to hold it for at least 6 months after it got to the market before they could sell it to prevent dumping, not sure if the same thing happened here with twitter.


----------



## leoc2 (Dec 28, 2010)

WillyA said:


> I heard during the Facebook release that a lot of the institutional investors that bought it before it got to the public had to hold it for at least 6 months after it got to the market before they could sell it to prevent dumping, not sure if the same thing happened here with twitter.


True-I have a close family relative that works for TWTR.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

blin10 said:


> this is what's wrong with the rules.... regular investors can't get this IPO but huge firms with huge profits as it is can... why only huge banks allowed to profit from ipos and we are not? this does not sound democratic at all to me


Twitter didn't file in Canada so you couldn't get in on it anyways. The underwriting banks had low priority for the stock and weren't able to give to their trading desks. Most just went to big long-standing clients like fund companies and accredited investors. Pro Traders had low priority for the IPO


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

With the ridiculous opening price, not surprisingly, the stock wasted no time to begin crashing; falling below $40 today.

The idiocy here, was not the stock itself, but its price.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

Fain said:


> *Twitter didn't file in Canada so you couldn't get in on it anyways*. The underwriting banks had low priority for the stock and weren't able to give to their trading desks. Most just went to big long-standing clients like fund companies and accredited investors. Pro Traders had low priority for the IPO


Visa didn't file in Canada either and it was available to Canadian on IPO so that's not true. I don't care what priority it is, they should have controlled limit in place


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> We are in a time-warp. This is Nov. 1999.
> Bill Clinton is President, and Britney Spears' _Baby One More Time_ is the top hit single.


I agree. 
From a psychological perspective the apparently nonsensical trading price could be the beginning of a speculative phase of the bull market. It will be interesting to see if this speculative mind set spreads further through out the market. Too, it seems that this is around the time total newbies get interested in stocks: the new and the naive will become aware, via mainstream media, of the almost instant double subscribers got and start thinking they should get into stocks. Too, along side of the twtr ipo was some good job growth numbers. That will embolden the new and naive to get into stocks. They will think that lower and lower unemployment means the market will continue up unabated and, will think, "we better get fully into stocks". Little do they realize, that when things really heat up, the institutions will eventually flood the market with shares, and the new and naive will be left hooding the bag. 

I guess my point is that a speculative attitude added to the mistaken idea that an improving economy means the market is safe and will go up, sets up the new and naive for failure. My general plan is to await the anticipated correction, maybe a 10 to 20 % haircut off the S&P, then maybe buy some growth stock that got hammered, and ultimately sell it into a really hot overvalued market. Gee, if the anticipated correction does materialize, and twtr gets hammered, as seems likely, I might even buy some of it.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> With the ridiculous opening price, not surprisingly, the stock wasted no time to begin crashing; falling below $40 today.
> 
> The idiocy here, was not the stock itself, but its price.


Maybe. I tend to think of the idiocy as being to invest like it was 2000 all over again where making a profit was no longer a factor in "the new economy"!

Speculation is always based on trying to find a greater fool.

(I would have bought the IPO only if there were no restrictions on selling it.)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

CAPE in 2000 was around 45. CAPE today is 24. This is not nearly as bubbly as 2000. That's not to say the Twitter valuation is reasonable (I don't believe it is).


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

did anyone try to short it yet through royal or waterhouse ? wonder if they have shares available to short


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Twitter shares are now available for shorting, but the cost is very high.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...2I20131113?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

JPMorgan announces twitter Q&A session with one of its execs. Hilarity ensues. JPMorgan promptly cancels. :biggrin:

JPMorgan Shows Exactly How To Not Use Twitter


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

At least it shows that Twitter encourages free speech!


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

Last few days was awesome hehehe TWTR went over it's IPO's price it almost hit $60... I didn't take a chance I sold around $57 for a profit of 18.75% which is good in my book for a gamble like this. I know it may go higher but hey I dont wanna greedy, I think with a stock like that I am very lucky to not lose money in the first place and even tho I am still expose to social network since I am long on FB


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Both twitter and facebook ipo's after the intial price was laughed at(look at cmf)just goes to show you how the market in the end has the last say.
If you went with the popular opinion on both ipo you would of lost instead of hung on.
Both are making the smart money look stupid after the fact.Da stock market!Both would of made $$$$ after ipo.
there is a lesson in this


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

donald said:


> 1. Both twitter and facebook ipo's after the intial price was laughed at(look at cmf)
> 2. there is a lesson in this


*1. *The valuations had been insane on both, and that had not been funny. 

I always strongly believed in FB stock & participated from the beginning, first as a trader needless to say, since I never buy/hold overvalued stocks, no matter how hot they may be. 

I was tempted, just tempted to only trade TWTR when it fell below $40, but that was still an insane price; I would buy/hold it at the right price also.

On the 1st day, TWTER had a valuation higher than the likes of NFLX, so did you buy it Donald? 

*2.* Which is?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> *2.* Which is?


there is sometimes money to be made by speculating.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

^ Most definitely! 

Not sure that that's the lesson Donald was referring to.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

For every dollar a person loses in a speculative bubble, another person makes a dollar. It's zero sum.

It doesn't make Twitter a profitable company capable of supporting its current valuation long term.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I am pointing out that metrics can mean zero in Many cases!
I am just saying buying and selling does not always follow any type of analysis(esp tech/social media/ect)
You can play these names on momentum and news.
Not everything that should be happens in the market and you can miss/pay a price if you discount this.
T-gal your a trader!


----------



## MasterCard (Aug 2, 2013)

Hitting $63 now...


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

ya it's crazy, can't believe hedge funds buying this... i'm planning to take a short position after santa clous rally


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

dammnnn!


----------



## MasterCard (Aug 2, 2013)

$69.8 - it will hit $70 today most likely.....
For someone who owns it at $46.93, at what point should I leave lol....


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

MasterCard said:


> $69.8 - it will hit $70 today most likely.....
> For someone who owns it at $46.93, at what point should I leave lol....


It's really hard to tell the stock can skyrock to 100s but can also plundge to 20s IMO, but anyways profit is profit


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

Market Cap hit $40B OMG! that's just insane!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101297282


----------



## MasterCard (Aug 2, 2013)

Bad day, closed at $73 yesterday.
Opened around $70 and has dipped to $67ish.
I got out at $70.
Oh well.


----------



## braintootired (Nov 4, 2013)

TWTR bull trap incoming?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

And further to your charts, a Motley Fool article that could have been titled "Is twitter for twits?":
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/27/twitter-a-perfect-example-of-what-not-to-do.aspx#.Ur4Ud51rbiw


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Wow, twitter is taking a beating in after hours. Almost down 20% in the last couple hours.... how low can it go....


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MasterCard said:


> For someone who owns it at $46.93...I got out at $70. Oh well.


Aren't you glad you got out?

The stock is not even down -20% after its 1st earnings report; I thought it would be down by at least 50%.

Anyway, some sanity at last.


----------



## swoop_ds (Mar 2, 2010)

I wonder where this stock will go tomorrow? Stay around $54? Dip more? Go up?

Do stocks tend to stick around where they drop to in the aftermarket in this scenario?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Least surprising turn of events...


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

boy boy boy!


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

$31.85 after lockup expired! ouch ouch! I went out long before....anyone still?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

SkyFall said:


> I went out long before....anyone still?


^ How many do you think kept their shares [excluding those in lockup] for very long? 

TWTER opened at a ridiculous +74% on its 1st day, and has not yet reached my desired price, which is lower than the IPO of $26, so I have not touched this stock yet.


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> ^ How many do you think kept their shares [excluding those in lockup] for very long?
> 
> TWTER opened at a ridiculous +74% on its 1st day, and has not yet reached my desired price, which is lower than the IPO of $26, so I have not touched this stock yet.


it was just a question to fire the conversation


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

^ Yes, and I fired it up by saying that the [crazy] smart ones had gotten out in time. 

I'm much more interested in the stock now, than I was back in Nov. 

So 1st time you made a near 20% profit; now the stock is down -37%/-47% from your purchase/sold prices respectively. Market timing doesn't work, many say. :biggrin:

You had cojones to have bought after the stock rose 84.6%. Amiright? Hence the crazy part.  Glad that it worked so well for you SF!


----------



## SkyFall (Jun 19, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> ^ Yes, and I fired it up by saying that the [crazy] smart ones had gotten out in time.
> 
> I'm much more interested in the stock now, than I was back in Nov.
> 
> ...


TG you make this thread way more interesting


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Lock-up expired:

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/06/twitter-inc-stock-lockup/

Currently $30.55


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

where is the value in twitter ?
something like 40% of users have never sent a single tweet

this is a platform used heavily by a very small group but has no broad acceptance at all
it has like 250M users versus facebooks's 1.2B or something

i have the app right next to feedly and flipboard and zite on my ipad and i open it about once a week at most, sometimes i go a month without using it

it's an overwhelming mush of mostly useless information except for hardcore users who are mostly in the tech business

i only hold QQQ and wouldn't buy a single tech stock but if i did i would buy facebook over twitter


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

^ I ask same question about the value. Very risky, but IMHO, it's too soon to write off this still emerging stock.

I agree about the FB comments. I eventually locked-in some shares at near IPO prices, but more than a year after it went public [did trade it at various prices from day 1 though].


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> ^ I ask same question about the value. Very risky, but IMHO, it's too soon to write off this still emerging stock.
> 
> I agree about the FB comments. I eventually locked-in some shares at near IPO prices, but more than a year after it went public [did trade it at various prices from day 1 though].


it seems that building a large ad network composed of many different properties is the future since google facebook and apple are all rushing headlong to do so

where does that leave twitter? 
as far as i can see, hanging out its own 

i don't see how they will attract advertising dollars when the same money can easily be placed with much larger mobile networks like the above companies

though clearly they are a ripe acquisition target for all three of these companies 

i agree gal, they are highly speculative, i just don't see the revenue and value at present


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

On CNBC today an analyst mentioned that perhaps Google could see a way to monetize Twitter as they did with YouTube and go and buy it. He said there was a time when there were many different video streaming services like YouTube but Twitter has little competition.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I hate to sound negative but I fear that many of you are going to get destroyed in tech stocks.

Twitter is another one of these companies that does not even make money. Net incomes are negative, with no sign of it heading towards positive income.

Amazon is another one like that. Negative income, and trending down in Amazon's case. The valuations of these tech stocks is ... in the stratosphere. At least facebook has positive earnings.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

That lawsuit against Twitter is bulls*t though.
They are simply trying to earn more marketing dollars.
If that lawsuits gets class action status and/or the plaintiff wins, that can have huge implication for every other social media company.

Pretty much all social media companies are based on the advertising bubble.
Part of that bubble is taking advertising share away from print media.
Most of that re-allocation has already played out, and is in the process of peaking now.

The rest of the bubble is the net new advertising bubble inflated in the post 2007 era.
The belief that via online marketing, data mining, behavior tracking, user behavior predictive models, etc. it is possible to keep growing consumer spending indefinitely.

Regarding Amazon, they are not in the game for making net earnings - they are in the market share game.
They want to drive every other type of retailer - bricks & mortar, online, etc. - out of business.
They have already accomplished most of that goal. at least in the US.
What is left standing is the biggest bricks & mortar retailer on the planet - Wal-Mart
And now they are going head-to-head against Wal-Mart.

It is an interesting, albeit ominous, game.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jim Cramer had an article on the CNBC website, about what he calls these "unicorn" tech stocks.

He says there is a disconnect between the visions of these companies towards market share, and stock market investors who want to see $$ growing.

He also said the door to more financing is closing on these companies. 

I have a Facebook account which I never use and got a Twitter account when they first came out.

I am still upset that of all the twitter handles I could have chosen, I didn't choose a more marketable one.

I am one of those who hasn't sent a single tweet.

Twitter may not be profitable, but it certainly is powerful. One dumb tweet can make or break a career.

The latest is from Ann Coulter, right wing Republican..........who posted a comment during the Republican debate.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I think TWTR is a buy here, if for nothing but buyout reasons, which of course is a terrible reason to own any stock. $18 billion market cap? Someone is going to buy them for their 500 million users.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

doctrine said:


> I think TWTR is a buy here, if for nothing but buyout reasons, which of course is a terrible reason to own any stock. $18 billion market cap? Someone is going to buy them for their 500 million users.


(bump)
Good call doctrine (I think it was about $27 when you said this; about $15 today) 
Just kidding - does anybody own this baby ? I thought, with all the publicity it's getting from the POTUS lately, that it might stir up some interst in it.....but the price is going nowhere. Is this one of those stocks we'll be talking about in a few years: "Jeez...if only I'd bought it back in '17 at $15...I could RETIRE today!"


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Twitter has yet to really be replaced by anything. There's still hope. Although I don't own any shares. Would rather own it than BBBY. Any buyout is likely to be in the $23-25 range.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

That escalated quickly



> I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
> 
> However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
> 
> ...




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1514564966564651008


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I honestly can't stand this guy.
Musk drives me insane.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

This won't happen he's just making news and knows it won't be accepted or happen.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

newfoundlander61 said:


> This won't happen he's just making news and knows it won't be accepted or happen.


Sure

But he could also dump 9.1% of the shares on the market. He's making news because those in the know.. know that Twitter is already being replaced. Elon has been very active on Twitter for many years and says it's how he prefers to express himself. He knows it is dying and needs to be fixed or it will be replaced soon. When they reject his offer he will have the final reason to dump and move to the new platforms that have free speech

Jack Dorsey already left to develop Block and crypto mining with Elon in Texas

*"My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder." *


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Either way Musk wins. He either gets to own and control the company or kill it as a competitor for his new communication outlet. Be interesting to see if the SEC sees any of these announcements as offside.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> Either way Musk wins. He either gets to own and control the company or kill it as a competitor for his new communication outlet. Be interesting to see if the SEC sees any of these announcements as offside.


It's pretty obvious Musk doesn't care what government thinks, be it SEC, FAA, or whatever


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It's pretty obvious Musk doesn't care what government thinks, be it SEC, FAA, or whatever


I've dealt with the FAA. They are horribly unreasonable like most regulators. Elon gets along with the military just fine which is also the government

The SEC and FAA have too many out of date boomers who needed to retire decades ago


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Elon Musk could try to run three major companies at once — the last known CEO who did it is now an international fugitive (msn.com)

Amusing but nonsensical piece from CNBC


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

londoncalling said:


> Amusing but nonsensical piece from CNBC


Of course

It was perfectly reasonable for him to be on the board and they found a way to get out of that first. This whole thing should be amusing to watch. There have been many examples lately of how the SEC is not protecting investors as they claim


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1514718700674306052


----------



## MrsPartridge (May 15, 2016)

The Twitter board not doing what's right for shareholders is illegal. Could it be that Twitter is in the business of manipulating the views of voters/people and now it's coming to light? Musk is shining a bright light and exposing them. 

Twitter wants to allow all sorts of tweets to flow through, like hate speech because they feel they are like the telephone. No one monitors what we say on the phone. However they are more like the newspaper and shouldn't be allowed to show porn and hate speech. Or maybe like Jagmeet Singh suggested, everyone should use their real name on Social Media?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The largest shareholder of Twitter shares is Vanguard, so it is up to shareholders like them if they want to sell the company.

The Saudi fund has already said they would vote against Musk's bid to own the company.

In any event, the offer price is a low bid. He offered $54 per share and Twitter had recent highs over $70 a share. 

Musk's bid is also a conditional offer based on financing, which he hasn't yet secured. At the very least, Musk would have to raise the offer to $70 billion.

The board of directors has a duty to get the best offer for the company.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is only government regulation that keeps Google, Microsoft or Apple from gobbling up Twitter......including Elon Musk's shares.

A $70 Billion dollar spend for Apple worth $2.8 trillion............pocket change.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> A $70 Billion dollar spend for Apple worth $2.8 trillion............pocket change.


Elon is worth hundreds of billions and who knows how much bitcoin and ethereum. Bitcoin uses the same code as PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX. Satoshi Nakamoto is worth more than $70B

$70B to Elon is like a wealthy person buying a Mercedes G Wagon. It's something but not really. Elon knows that inflation is not good for GICs and invests appropriately in things like Dogecoin


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Musk's wealth is all tied up in Tesla stock. He had to recently sell a bunch of shares to pay his tax bills.

If he had to sell enough Tesla shares to fund the takeover of Twitter.......Tesla shares would tank, further reducing his wealth.

His offer was conditional on funding for a reason. He also declined a seat on the board after he was informed it would require an in-depth background check.

Hmm......


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

He can borrow against his stock in Tesla.

He declined a seat on the board because it came with the condition he not acquire more than 15% of the company and that he'd be gagged about commenting on what he thought the company should do.

As if a background check on Musk is something he's afraid of. Hilarious.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Could be......but it appears he is going to be drawn into the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial due to some allegations involving Musk.

It is going to be really public anyways, as Court TV in the US is covering the trial live and it is all over Youtube.

Musk also has some problems with the SEC and fraud settlements and new allegations.

He says he has the funding in place to buy Twitter so it appears he would rather own the company than be a board of director.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

News reports today saying Musk’s purchase is a done deal.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Twitter shares down and Tesla shares are getting slaughtered.........down 11%.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Seriously? Probably a knee-jerk reaction of some sorts. If not, LOLOLOLOL. [Obviously, I don't follow either stocks nor that Twit garbage.]


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup..........and Cathie Wood's ARKK Innovation Fund is getting crushed even more while bitcoins have fallen to $38k......down from the high of $68K

As somebody once said.....it is getting real for the libertarian dystopia types like Pierre P. and his crypto bros.

They are getting an expensive lesson in economics and investing........earnings and profits matter.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Honestly TSLA trading a forward P/E of ~100 is not terribly overvalued. I am tempted to add to my position.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Yup..........and Cathie Wood's ARKK Innovation Fund is getting crushed even more while bitcoins have fallen to $38k......down from the high of $68K
> 
> As somebody once said.....it is getting real for the libertarian dystopia types like Pierre P. and his crypto bros.
> 
> They are getting an expensive lesson in economics and investing........earnings and profits matter.


Zoom out a bit more. TSLA and BTC have both done about 10x just during a few years.

As a GIC investor you probably can't comprehend a 10% drop after 1000% growth because it is mathematically impossible for GICs during a 100 year lifespan. What you fail to understand is that GICs adjusted for inflation are dropping relatively far far more..

Adjusted for inflation they are dropping more than they gain


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cathie Wood did an interview today on CNBC.

She provided her usual drivel about 'disruptors" and such, but got caught on a question about her Tesla shares.

She pointed to Tesla as her fund's best holding because it was "only" down 20% compared to her other stocks down 50-80%.

Tesla makes up 10% of the ARKK fund, but then she said they are selling Tesla stocks every day to reduce their exposure.

So.........why ?

Why is she selling Tesla stocks (her best holding) for a steep discount to the "buyout" price that Musk is offering ? That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> Zoom out a bit more. TSLA and BTC have both done about 10x just during a few years.
> 
> As a GIC investor you probably can't comprehend a 10% drop after 1000% growth because it is mathematically impossible for GICs during a 100 year lifespan. What you fail to understand is that GICs adjusted for inflation are dropping relatively far far more..
> 
> Adjusted for inflation they are dropping more than they gain


Elementary mathematics, my dear Watson.

1000% of nothing is still nothing.

1000% increase in an asset that started at $1 is $1000.

A 25% drop of a $1000 asset is $250.

Steep drops from a higher starting place requires far lower % points.

Also.......investor behaviour is at play......FOMO.

Few people buy assets at their genesis, and can't resist plunging in as the price rises.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tesla shares are down 19% since he made the offer to buy Twitter.

Musk has lost $36 billion worth of net worth and some experts are questioning his ability to finance the purchase of Twitter now.

As per another post.......Cathie Wood said on CNBC that her ARKK fund is selling off some Tesla shares.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Elementary mathematics, my dear Watson.


Can you explain again how inflation is good for GICs then


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Cathie Wood did an interview today on CNBC.
> 
> She provided her usual drivel about 'disruptors" and such, but got caught on a question about her Tesla shares.
> 
> ...


If Tesla is down less than her other holdings, the weight in the fund increases. So she would sell to keep TSLA from being too large a holding of the fund.


----------

