Twitter is better

[BerniePragle]

10 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

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.

I can only assume that the WSJ is part of that lying media machine that can't be trusted that I've heard so much about.   Or very possibly as these such things often are, there is confusion in definition of terms.  (I think that may be what WKN is trying to explain?)  I'm just gonna bow out of this lest I am one of those people who just repeats stuff he doesn't understand or know.

[Wrestleknownothing]

34 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.

 

 

 

GAAP stands for generally accepted accounting practices. It is a way to measure things like earnings and cash flow. It can require some weird stuff though. For example, if a company owns securities and their price goes down then that has to come out of earnings even though the securities were not sold. However, if the security price goes up you do not add it to earnings until you sell the security. Because of esoteric things like this GAAP is not always used.

But whatever, Twitter was profitable by one measure and not by another, related measure, so not exactly great financially, but also not awful. Somewhere in between. The best companies would be profitable by all measures. The point though is was not a financial dumpster fire.

As for value, that is different. A public company is worth what someone will pay for it (or has paid for the last trade multipled by all shares). Elon Musk, Fidelity, and a few others as a group, paid $54.20 per share. (That's right, Musk chose a weed joke as his bid price. Though he swore in court it was not a weed joke.) Fidelity marked that down 56% by year end. That is their best estimate of what they could sell their stake for.

Musk borrowed a ton of money to purchase his shares. Typically the banks who lend that money immediately securitize the loan and sell it to investors. In this case they could not do that at anywhere near breakeven because Musk was busy loudly pretending Twitter was a fraud because he was trying to get out of overpaying for an asset he was doing his best to ruin before he bought it. Those banks took huge earnings losses (see GAAP accounting) and have periodically explored selling those loans. Initially they floated a price of 65 cents on the dollar, but later lowered that to 60 cents. Nothing has sold so far.

In classical finance, if a bond is priced below 60 cents the market believes there is not enough money to pay back lenders (i.e. possible/probable default/bankruptcy) which zeroes out equity investors. 

So now we have two estimates of Twitter's equity value. A high estimate of $30.35 per share and a low of zero.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Sorry that was so long.

[Nailbender]

42 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

I can only assume that the WSJ is part of that lying media machine that can't be trusted that I've heard so much about.   Or very possibly as these such things often are, there is confusion in definition of terms.  (I think that may be what WKN is trying to explain?)  I'm just gonna bow out of this lest I am one of those people who just repeats stuff he doesn't understand or know.

Too late.

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Nailbender said:

Too late.

Irony.

[Nailbender]

24 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

GAAP stands for generally accepted accounting practices. It is a way to measure things like earnings and cash flow. It can require some weird stuff though. For example, if a company owns securities and their price goes down then that has to come out of earnings even though the securities were not sold. However, if the security price goes up you do not add it to earnings until you sell the security. Because of esoteric things like this GAAP is not always used.

But whatever, Twitter was profitable by one measure and not by another, related measure, so not exactly great financially, but also not awful. Somewhere in between. The best companies would be profitable by all measures. The point though is was not a financial dumpster fire.

As for value, that is different. A public company is worth what someone will pay for it (or has paid for the last trade multipled by all shares). Elon Musk, Fidelity, and a few others as a group, paid $54.20 per share. (That's right, Musk chose a weed joke as his bid price. Though he swore in court it was not a weed joke.) Fidelity marked that down 56% by year end. That is their best estimate of what they could sell their stake for.

Musk borrowed a ton of money to purchase his shares. Typically the banks who lend that money immediately securitize the loan and sell it to investors. In this case they could not do that at anywhere near breakeven because Musk was busy loudly pretending Twitter was a fraud because he was trying to get out of overpaying for an asset he was doing his best to ruin before he bought it. Those banks took huge earnings losses (see GAAP accounting) and have periodically explored selling those loans. Initially they floated a price of 65 cents on the dollar, but later lowered that to 60 cents. Nothing has sold so far.

In classical finance, if a bond is priced below 60 cents the market believes there is not enough money to pay back lenders (i.e. possible/probable default/bankruptcy) which zeroes out equity investors. 

So now we have two estimates of Twitter's equity value. A high estimate of $30.35 per share and a low of zero.

Very informative and well laid out. I have never claimed to even have an opinion on this. I appreciate yours.

 

Can you be more clear about the problems with or why the WSJ article is incorrect? 

[Mike Parrish]

29 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Very informative and well laid out. I have never claimed to even have an opinion on this. I appreciate yours.

"Just asking questions, bro..."

 

[Nailbender]

49 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Irony.

8 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

"Just asking questions, bro..."

 

  "Childish insults and nothing of value to add to the conversation"

Show me the errors in the WSJ article. 

 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

Very informative and well laid out. I have never claimed to even have an opinion on this. I appreciate yours.

 

Can you be more clear about the problems with or why the WSJ article is incorrect? 

I had not read it, but just did now. It is not wrong. By one, common, legally required standard Twitter was not profitable. I am just saying that is not the only, or commonly used measure. But there is no point for the WSJ to get into subtleties on a supporting point to a broader story.

[BerniePragle]

9 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I can only assume that the WSJ is part of that lying media machine that can't be trusted that I've heard so much about.   Or very possibly as these such things often are, there is confusion in definition of terms.  (I think that may be what WKN is trying to explain?)  I'm just gonna bow out of this lest I am one of those people who just repeats stuff he doesn't understand or know.

 

9 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Too late.

Or maybe not.  Reading comprehenshion is a great thing.  Unfortunately, not a lot of it anymore.

[Nailbender]

7 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I had not read it, but just did now. It is not wrong. By one, common, legally required standard Twitter was not profitable. I am just saying that is not the only, or commonly used measure. But there is no point for the WSJ to get into subtleties on a supporting point to a broader story.

My point of view was that Twitter has always been Twitter. It's been moderated poorly before. It's been overvalued before. I contend that all of the problems with Twitter, financial and otherwise aren't new. That says nothing about Musk possibly making it worse or maybe even finishing it off completely. If he did I'd say good riddance, hopefully to him and Twitter. Something new will eventually be born taking the good from Twitter and making it better. Maybe that will come from Musk, maybe it won't. I don't care.

Try giving that opinion and others get their panties all wadded up and you are accused of drinking piss. Yeah, real intellectuals.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

[Nailbender]

1 minute ago, BerniePragle said:

 

Or maybe not.  Reading comprehenshion is a great thing.  Unfortunately, not a lot of it anymore.

See above.

[BerniePragle]

8 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Very informative and well laid out. I have never claimed to even have an opinion on this. I appreciate yours.

 

Can you be more clear about the problems with or why the WSJ article is incorrect? 

There is an old saying...  You can give a pig a book but he's not going to read it.  He'll just eat it.  Seems appropriate here.

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

There is an old saying...  You can give a pig a book but he's not going to read it.  He'll just eat it.  Seems appropriate here.

I don't have to use books (although I do enjoy reading) I have the internet. Try it out, you might like it. Unless it disagrees with you of course.

Let me Google that for you

 

My opinion about Twitter is well documented. Take your own advice.

 

 

[Mike Parrish]

AHahahhaahahaahahahaahha

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-revenue-adjusted-earnings-fell-about-40-in-month-of-december-ee91f1eb
 

ahahahahahahahhahahshaha

[Le duke]

Similar article, no paywall:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-04/twitter-revenue-earnings-fell-about-40-in-december-wsj-says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, Le duke said:

Similar article, no paywall:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-04/twitter-revenue-earnings-fell-about-40-in-december-wsj-says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use a browser extension that bypasses paywalls so I sometimes forget to check them.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Yeah, but think of the money he saved by not paying the severance he agreed to pay to the people he laid off.

I cannot think of a sadder existence than Twitter corporate counsel right now. Your job is to try and screw a bunch of laid off programmers out of tens of thousands of dollars at the behest of the second richest person in the world.

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yeah, but think of the money he saved by not paying the severance he agreed to pay to the people he laid off.

I cannot think of a sadder existence than Twitter corporate counsel right now. Your job is to try and screw a bunch of laid off programmers out of tens of thousands of dollars at the behest of the second richest person in the world.

I hear rumors of a class lawsuit from a couple of my friends.

We shall see.

[jross]

On 3/1/2023 at 7:10 AM, Nailbender said:

...Musk possibly making it worse or maybe even finishing it off completely. If he did I'd say good riddance...

Twitter is the best source for diverse news and opinions in near-real-time. 

It still has a troll infection but it also seems slightly less polar and mob mentality than before.  (my opinion)

I cannot imagine going back to a blind trust in legacy media.
 

[Mike Parrish]

Twitter is badly broken this morning.

Even Twitter services can't access Twitter endpoints.

External links don't work any more.

 

lololololol

[Mike Parrish]

https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1632792942262747136

[Mike Parrish]

Pucker up, Elmo

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-investigation-ftc-musk-documents-db6b179e

[mspart]

Can't read the article.   Does it say why FTC wants this stuff?

mspart

[Le duke]

He’s such a shitty human being.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/07/tech/elon-musk-twitter-employee-disability/index.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk