Twitter is better

[mspart]

We are way too early for autonomous cars.   Period.   Innovative for the drunk guy to use it.   Will he be arrested for drunk driving or the fact it was his car's system?  

mspart

[Bigbrog]

So Mikey...you blame the car for hitting the girl because you have an unnatural obsessive hate for the guy running the company as opposed to hating the idiot drunk driver who hit the girl scout stand...again you can't make this stuff up...

[El Luchador]

https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/esther-crawford-twitter-exec-who-slept-in-office-overnight-is-fired/

Another one bites the dust.

[Wrestleknownothing]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:57 AM, El Luchador said:

B.S. l really have no idea what is going on at Twitter  but I'm sure he has a mess of shit to clean up. Twitter was never profitable so it isn't like he turned a cash cow into a turd. He purchased a turd and instead of trying to polish that turd he is remaking it.

Where do you get this from? I assume GAAP EPS which is not the best measure of profitability.

Since going public Twitter was profitable in eight of the last nine years (2014 - 2019, 2021, 2022) prior to Musk's takeover.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Where do you get this from? I assume GAAP EPS which is not the best measure of profitability.

Since going public Twitter was profitable in eight of the last nine years (2014 - 2019, 2021, 2022) prior to Musk's takeover.

To be truthful it's just something I've heard over and over. I can't deny or confirm any of it

[BerniePragle]

21 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

To be truthful it's just something I've heard over and over. I can't deny or confirm any of it

Wow.  Perhaps that says something about what you listen to?  You do realize that one of the biggest problems in this country is exactly that? People giving traction to crap they've "heard" with no knowledge of the validity of it. 

[Bigbrog]

15 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Wow.  Perhaps that says something about what you listen to?  You do realize that one of the biggest problems in this country is exactly that? People giving traction to crap they've "heard" with no knowledge of the validity of it. 

The BIGGER problem is the media/news doing it.  There is absolutely no more integrity to news outlets and the media anymore...they "heard" something and then go and publish it without doing any investigation or corroboration...hence, fake news.  I myself have heard that Twitter wasn't ever really profitable, but never looked into it...because I really didn't care that much about it to since I don't use it.

[Nailbender]

There seems to be mixed reviews on this subject.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-elon-musks-twitter-faces-mountain-of-debt-falling-revenue-and-surging-costs-11669042132

From the article dated Nov. 2022

"Twitter Finances, Pre-Musk

Twitter is and was a popular tool for politicians, celebrities and journalists. But as a business, it was stagnating. 

 

It hasn’t booked an annual profit since 2019, and posted a loss in eight years of the past decade. The company’s net loss narrowed in 2021, to $221.4 million from $1.14 billion the previous year."

 

 

[Mike Parrish]

Is Twitter in better or worse financial shape than it was prior to Elmo taking over?

What is the current value of Twitter compared to the purchase price of $44B?

What is the likelihood that advertisers ever return?

 

This is Elmo's vanity project.
It's not a business any longer.

[headshuck]

Nobody knows what it’s “worth”. The Chinese might buy it for $80b.

What is Elon’s SpaceX worth? More or less than the $137b at the last money raise?

[mspart]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Where do you get this from? I assume GAAP EPS which is not the best measure of profitability.

Since going public Twitter was profitable in eight of the last nine years (2014 - 2019, 2021, 2022) prior to Musk's takeover.

 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

There seems to be mixed reviews on this subject.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-elon-musks-twitter-faces-mountain-of-debt-falling-revenue-and-surging-costs-11669042132

From the article dated Nov. 2022

"Twitter Finances, Pre-Musk

Twitter is and was a popular tool for politicians, celebrities and journalists. But as a business, it was stagnating. 

 

It hasn’t booked an annual profit since 2019, and posted a loss in eight years of the past decade. The company’s net loss narrowed in 2021, to $221.4 million from $1.14 billion the previous year."

 

 

One of these two may be true, and if so, the other is false.   Since NB provided a link to an article and WKN did not, I would think that WSJ has the truth here that Twitter posted a loss for 8 years of the past decade, and not 8 profitable years in 9.   And that was provided as a retort to Luch who said it was not profitable.   So Luch appears to have been correct despite the kneejerk reaction. 

I'll add to it:

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

I found this in about 20 seconds with the google.   Twitter profitable 2 years out of 10.  Using my keen logic abilities, I'd say that means 8 of 10 years unprofitable. 

It appears that Luch and NB are correct.   But if so, then why would a Billionaire buy it if it were not profitable.  Usually, rich guys like that want to make more money, not throw it down an abyss. 

mspart

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

 

One of these two may be true, and if so, the other is false.   Since NB provided a link to an article and WKN did not, I would think that WSJ has the truth here that Twitter posted a loss for 8 years of the past decade, and not 8 profitable years in 9.   And that was provided as a retort to Luch who said it was not profitable.   So Luch appears to have been correct despite the kneejerk reaction. 

I'll add to it:

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

I found this in about 20 seconds with the google.   Twitter profitable 2 years out of 10.  Using my keen logic abilities, I'd say that means 8 of 10 years unprofitable. 

It appears that Luch and NB are correct.   But if so, then why would a Billionaire buy it if it were not profitable.  Usually, rich guys like that want to make more money, not throw it down an abyss. 

mspart

 

Again, GAAP vs non-GAAP. The reality is it is overly simplistic to use GAAP in most circumstances, but GAAP must be disclosed by public companies. Most analysts rely on non-GAAP or a hybrid rather than pure GAAP.

[Mike Parrish]

3 hours ago, headshuck said:

Nobody knows what it’s “worth”. The Chinese might buy it for $80b.

What is Elon’s SpaceX worth? More or less than the $137b at the last money raise?

There's no way the DoJ let's the Chinese buy it.

 

It's safe to say that if the stock were floated on the NASDAQ again, the valuation would be less than %10 of the $44B purchase price.

Elmo wrecked Twitter's value.

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, headshuck said:

Nobody knows what it’s “worth”. The Chinese might buy it for $80b.

What is Elon’s SpaceX worth? More or less than the $137b at the last money raise?

Two informed opinions.

Fidelity wrote down their shares by 56% at year end.

The banks that lent money recently tried selling those loans at 60 cents on the dollar, which in a textbook would suggest no equity value.

[El Luchador]

6 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

Wow.  Perhaps that says something about what you listen to?  You do realize that one of the biggest problems in this country is exactly that? People giving traction to crap they've "heard" with no knowledge of the validity of it. 

After seeing the information given since this post, I think I'll stick with my current sources.  

[MPhillips]

6 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

After seeing the information given since this post, I think I'll stick with my current sources.  

Nobody's right if everyone is wrong...

[Mike Parrish]

16 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

After seeing the information given since this post, I think I'll stick with my current sources.  

Shocking!

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Again, GAAP vs non-GAAP. The reality is it is overly simplistic to use GAAP in most circumstances, but GAAP must be disclosed by public companies. Most analysts rely on non-GAAP or a hybrid rather than pure GAAP.

 

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

There's no way the DoJ let's the Chinese buy it.

 

It's safe to say that if the stock were floated on the NASDAQ again, the valuation would be less than %10 of the $44B purchase price.

Elmo wrecked Twitter's value.

So are there sources for the opinions that Twitter was great financially before Musk or not?

Also, is the information showing a tank in value after the purchase using GAAP? If so, that's apples to apples even if oranges are more accurate.

 

 

 

[BerniePragle]

6 hours ago, Nailbender said:

There seems to be mixed reviews on this subject.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-elon-musks-twitter-faces-mountain-of-debt-falling-revenue-and-surging-costs-11669042132

From the article dated Nov. 2022

"Twitter Finances, Pre-Musk

Twitter is and was a popular tool for politicians, celebrities and journalists. But as a business, it was stagnating. 

 

It hasn’t booked an annual profit since 2019, and posted a loss in eight years of the past decade. The company’s net loss narrowed in 2021, to $221.4 million from $1.14 billion the previous year."

 

 

 

2 hours ago, mspart said:

 

One of these two may be true, and if so, the other is false.   Since NB provided a link to an article and WKN did not, I would think that WSJ has the truth here that Twitter posted a loss for 8 years of the past decade, and not 8 profitable years in 9.   And that was provided as a retort to Luch who said it was not profitable.   So Luch appears to have been correct despite the kneejerk reaction. 

I'll add to it:

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

I found this in about 20 seconds with the google.   Twitter profitable 2 years out of 10.  Using my keen logic abilities, I'd say that means 8 of 10 years unprofitable. 

It appears that Luch and NB are correct.   But if so, then why would a Billionaire buy it if it were not profitable.  Usually, rich guys like that want to make more money, not throw it down an abyss. 

mspart

 

 

30 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

After seeing the information given since this post, I think I'll stick with my current sources.  

I know little about such things and have no problem admitting it.  Maybe I should change my screen name to Financialknownothing.

Knowing WKN's education, what he does for a living, and how thorough and insightful he is... well, I would think Curly, Larry, and Moe could take it from here.  Hint, not all opinions are equal.

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

So are there sources for the opinions that Twitter was great financially before Musk or not?

Also, is the information showing a tank in value after the purchase using GAAP? If so, that's apples to apples even if oranges are more accurate.

Twitter was a public company.
I'd start with the SEC filings.

Stock prices are a proxy for perceived value.
Market capitalization and all that.

 

The first question should be, "Has Elmo done anything to change the value of the company?"

I think it's safe to argue that driving away the vast bulk of the advertisers, and thus income stream, means that the answer is a resounding, "He's destroyed the brand and income stream."

Twitter isn't paying their bills either.
Months in arrears on their rent in San Francisco.
Slack licenses weren't paid for so long, the service was terminated by Slack.
Vendors complain of 90 days minimum for accounts receivable.

Not one thing points to a robust and going concern at Twitter.

 

[Nailbender]

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Twitter was a public company.
I'd start with the SEC filings.

Stock prices are a proxy for perceived value.
Market capitalization and all that.

 

The first question should be, "Has Elmo done anything to change the value of the company?"

I think it's safe to argue that driving away the vast bulk of the advertisers, and thus income stream, means that the answer is a resounding, "He's destroyed the brand and income stream."

Twitter isn't paying their bills either.
Months in arrears on their rent in San Francisco.
Slack licenses weren't paid for so long, the service was terminated by Slack.
Vendors complain of 90 days minimum for accounts receivable.

Not one thing points to a robust and going concern at Twitter.

 

I'll take that as a "no"

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Nailbender said:

I'll take that as a "no"

https://www.scholastic.com/parents/books-and-reading/raise-a-reader-blog/reading-comprehension-practice-workbooks-3rd-4th-5th-grade.html

[Nailbender]

13 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

 

 

I know little about such things and have no problem admitting it.  Maybe I should change my screen name to Financialknownothing.

Knowing WKN's education, what he does for a living, and how thorough and insightful he is... well, I would think Curly, Larry, and Moe could take it from here.  Hint, not all opinions are equal.

I don't know WKN well. He seems like a very intelligent dedicated wrestling fan and I'm sure he knows more about this than I do. Not sure he knows more than the WSJ. I'm open to being wrong.

[Nailbender]

Just now, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.scholastic.com/parents/books-and-reading/raise-a-reader-blog/reading-comprehension-practice-workbooks-3rd-4th-5th-grade.html

Is there a link in there?

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, Nailbender said:

Is there a link in there?

Just work through them all prior to posting again.