Trump is using the social media platform to support Assange, which is essentially a slap in the face to people that serve in our government, even if he is exposing the truth. The main issue here: will Trump ever be able to remove the sticky goo that keeps his fingers typing 140 characters or less, before he let's slip consequential information?
I'd be surprised if his sophisticated cabinet of polished picks isn't slapping themselves in the face every time he posts. And, btw is this whole Twitter nation addressing a good idea? Maybe it's what Twitter has been looking for to become more relevant. Or will he just drop this once he finally has more important things to do with his time?
what do you mean is he going to stop? He made it clear, that he wants to make Twitter great again. Can't stop now.
Well for one, the President typically has more filters before making a post. But I know this is Trump's world, so I wouldn't be surprised if he never changes the way he does his Tweeting. Also, there's the official White House handle that might also not allow him to tweet as much.
But so far Twitter is getting a crazy positive marketing blitz thanks to Trump. If I keep hearing, "Trump tweeted today," on the news, I'm going to have to make an account.
The dissapointung thing is Twitter has always had this potential, but never seems to do anything to capitalize on it. The only thing wrong with Twitter seems to be Dorsey and the other people who run it.
What do you mean you'll have to make an account? I unfollowed everyone except for him the minute I heard he was making Twitter great again.
Typical liberal - a self-righteous statement stemming from emotion, not fact, that dismisses any other opinion as (insert pejorative here) without even considering its merits.
Can't you be happy with a president (not even a president yet) that is the more transparent than any other we have seen in our lifetime? If Hillary would have won, we would not have heard from her until inauguration, then probably not again for another 6 months. Trump on the other hand has been active since the election, arguably before.
Also, before you say the he dismissed intelligence agencies, so did the liberals when the FBI did their job investigating Hillary's emails. Fact is every part of our government (save military), including the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc... has been politicized. Claims of Russian hackers are totally unsubstantiated thus far and if you actually look at the language in the agencies' statements it's not very explicit.
As far as TWTR. I'm long. Brain-dead buyout op and the leader of the free-world uses it as his medium of choice.
I wouldn't categorize myself as a liberal, as I didn't vote for Obama in 2012, and couldn't get myself to actually vote for Clinton in Nov, even if I didn't agree with Trump. And, are you really talking about Trump supporters as being conservative and basing their decision on fact? The facts say Clinton is more qualified, that Clinton had a 7/10 chance of winning, and that not a single fact comes out of Trump's mouth or has been given in his campaign promises.
I'm very independent on this one, and I honestly can't wait to see what happens. I'm taking some cues from IlliniProgrammer and other people whom are much smarter than me, because this is about to be a bumpy ride that will probably result in us being in a position that is a little better than today, or maybe even a little worse. That is fact based on the recent market gyrations.
But on the Assange note, I don't know what the implications are for later on from Trump's actions. What's the likelihood that someone uses Trump's words against the government after committing treason? I was just looking at how Trump is not, currently, taking his role very seriously (or doesn't seem to be). I doubt he would publish a claim or statement about the strategy of one of the branches of his company. I know that Trump plays chicken all the time to get a better deal. Would he call himself out, and post a statement online, saying, "I'm not interested in a partner, but I can get them to give up their own interests so I don't have to be on the hook with too much risk myself". The online Twitter posting is either extremely brilliant, or extremely dull. I can't tell which one yet.
Lastly, on Twitter I have thought it was a good bet as a news feed, but I can't really tell what the people there are doing to capitalize on it. Trump makes it obvious what the thing is capable though, but I'm wondering if Dorsey recognizes it.
I have a long set of views on Trump. His election was a response to identity politics and a lack of fiduciary duty to the country's best interests as a whole (from illegal immigration to refugees to trade) going off the deep end on the left. As a gay guy who recognizes the country is a whole lot bigger than me and my identity, I think this response is healthy for the country in the long run. If we are all obsessed with our gender, sexual, and racial identities, we're going to forget that we're American, which is probably a more important identity than all of that other stuff.
Trump should know that tweeting all of this stuff hurts the intelligence community and the country. But even despite that, giving Trump his bully pulpit and Twitter account is probably better for the country, at least right now. Half of Trump's election was about giving him a platform (it was certainly not about his ability to execute consistently as POTUS), and I do think it's healthy for the country to let him have that platform. Hey, the man just used twitter yesterday to kill a bill that would gut the outside ethics office so some good might come of it.
So Trump deserves his platform, but I wish he filtered his posts through someone with a little more care.
did he kill the bill? He stated it shouldn't be a priority, he didn't state the bill should die (there's a difference). I think his tweeting will do a lot more harm than good in the long-run. Wtf is identity politics? I ask seriously because I hear the word bandied about as if it only applies when political parties appeal to minority groups. Trump just did the opposite and no one calls it identity politics, he ran an entire campaign appealing to whites who are nostalgic about a bygone (or never existed) era, I'd say he has been the most effective U.S. politician at "identity politics" that I've witnessed in my short life. There is a difference between being obsessive about race, gender, etc. and acknowledging these differences exist and those characteristics often lead to different opportunities for different groups and perhaps we need to examine why that is. Many conservatives want to run with the "we're all American" angle and sweep any relevant discourse on those topics under the rug. Not allowing that is paramount to our progress as a nation. Lastly, we continue to underestimate the amount of support Trump got simply as backlash against a black man running the nation. I suppose it is convenient because we do not want to believe many in our country would make decisions based on discriminatory tendencies, however, ignoring that will likely let the issue continue to fester.
LOL.
Trump ran a campaign that appealed to working class people who haven't seen an improvement in their life during the 8 year "recovery" that Obama led.
Obama was a failure, whatever his race. Keep living in this fantasy world where everything is racist. Obama sucked, wages stagnated, the economy "rebounded" through financial engineering instead of actual growth. Trump won everywhere but liberal cities.
Trump tweeting is great. The fake news will never report honestly on anything Trump does and he is reaching out to the people directly.
BTW - Trump got higher rates of minority votes than Romney or McCain did.
I cast my protest vote for Gary Johnson, but Trump won for the same reasons Nixon did in 1968.
I think the gays have more to gain from a Trump presidency than anyone else.
1) He's going to be ISIS #1 enemy and they clearly would like to target gays above all other Americans 2) He's probably about as liberal socially as you're going to get for GOP president. The guy spent his entire life in Manhattan so no one gets gays as well as him i.e. Peter Thiel. 3) Gay couples earn significantly more on average than their heterosexual counterparts so his economic impact should be another win.
Good time to be gay in America, that's for sure.
Great topic. Top material. 10/10.
Holy triggered.
I'm so woke bro.
Him being on Twitter won't save it, just like it hasn't saved it so far. And since you can hear of basically everything he tweets on the news, there's no real reason to make an account if all you want is to know what he's saying.
Checking out its filings, the 10-q said this:
DAUs for the period ended in September are up 7% YoY (Trump?).. we'll know more once Q4 is reported and we can see performance during the period that includes Nov. If he's going to keep driving policy by Tweeting (permitted his people don't snatch and shut down any handle available to him) there can could be an impact, idk.
They also need greater ad dollars, (6% YoY Q3) which I think is very small, comparative to the leader Goog at 21% in the second qtr and FB at 59%. Comparatively, TWTR grew at just 18% in Q2. I'm not gung ho about the stock, but I can't help but feel there's something there in Twitter, just needs to be brought out somehow?
Twitter Dead? (Originally Posted: 02/09/2017)
WSJ Tech: "Twitter Posts Anemic Revenue Growth Despite Political Stir"
I mainly agree with this article, and I think that most people that use twitter for news intake, sports, etc, use it in conjunction with other platforms, not by itself.
While this isn't a new sentiment, it seems that whenever someone proposes that twitter is dead, there seems to be some die-hards that stick with it. Why?
Yes, it's definitely true!
R.I.P. Twitter
Yes it is a true scenario and there are people who go crazy with it.
Twitter is most definitely dead. I love me some social media - I still post on facebook and linkedin, love instagram, think snapchat is funny, etc. but I deleted my twitter account almost two years ago now and haven't missed it yet.
The community was somehow both toxic and fake, and while I suppose you can say that about every social media site, it's far easier to filter and not see on the rest. I can still see articles or pictures of my counsins' wedding on facebook without having to witness the trolls and the morons, I can still connect with people on linkedin without having to witness the trolls and the morons, I can still see cool pictures on instagram without having to witness the trolls and the morons, and I can still get funny videos from my buddies on snapchat without having to witness the trolls and the morons.
Twitter, however, is all trolls, morons, and advertising/pr/journalism types circle-jerking over "joining the conversation" even though they're all only talking to each other.
Yes it's dead, I was a pretty heavy user from 2011 until like Feb-Mar or 2017, and it basically died around 2015-16. Regardless of how many accounts are out there, no one is posting anymore other than spam bots.
They still can't seem to figure out a way to monetize the platform and that is a huge problem if not their death sentence. But I will say one thing, in my experience (under 23) my friends and kids from school predominately use Twitter over FB. My FB is seriously 90% my old family members. Aunts, Uncles and grandparents with the occasional kid from high school I used to know. Kids literally use FB to just update their families on their lives without having to call them. I just think its hard for the older generations to pick up technology to begin with, and that they don't truly understand the impact it has on younger kids.
My observation only. Someone might have a totally different experience but this is what I have seen. Bottom line is if there is NO bottom line they can't survive.
My observation is that those kids left twitter behind and now only use Instagram and Snapchat
Twitter was always a dumb fucking piece of shit idea. The nuance to the situation is that in actuality the company could be making a lot of profits now if the management wasn't pissing away all of the shareholders money by overpaying everyone. Still even if they fixed the cost structure the stock would still be overvalued.
Short Twitter or too frothy? (Originally Posted: 11/11/2013)
With Options coming online this week, what do you guys think of opening up a short-position, given TWTR's valuation is pretty crazy.
Main risk is it's youth on exchange + social media stock and most likely momentum will cause it to do crazy things.
But if we look at the cluster of social media stocks that have IPOed there's definately a down-trend a month or two after IPO. Is TWTR's IPO handling able to prevent this considering everyone is trying so hard not to pull another facebook?
I think by the time options come online this week, the stock will be trading in the mid to low 30s...if you short, be ready to lose your shirt.
This stock will be given a lot of leeway and if they can show any progress getting closer to profitablity, the forthiness of the market will carry it very very high...like back to mid $40s...
You need to ask yourself why short TWTR and not short TSLA, CRM, AMZN, or the other social networking names? And specifically, why do you expect entering a short position in TWTR now is going to result in a different outcome than shorting one of these other stocks, say six months ago? There is no shortage of tech/internet companies which appear to be overvalued, so I'm not sure Twitter really represents a new opportunity (although the valuation to revenue is even more insane than its peers). And if you had shorted TSLA, CRM, AMZN, FB, etc six months ago, maybe you were right that they were overvalued, maybe your trade will work out in the very long run, but you're still in a big hole now.
I would buy a put here(44$) and execute it when it goes to 27-35
Ended up dec'06 44. We'll see if I get chopped up :P
that sh*t is a steamin' cup of frothy coffee my friend.
You cannot short technology stocks purely on valuation - you will lose your shirt. There are too many people out there who look at things like "Oh Workday trades at 30x sales, it's valued at a ridiculous multiple, I'm going short at 50" and then end up getting destroyed when the stock delivers on growth targets and hits 60, 70, and then 80 while the shorts boost the stock price further by covering. Sure, Warren Buffet and other value investors write books as to how they cannot predict or understand why the valuations are what they are. But you don't see them shorting, you see them stay away at and not invest - it's outside their circle of competence. It's different when the stock is already on a downward trend (such as Zynga), but in the beginning before you have enough financials it's very dangerous.
The technology stocks trade at high valuations because they have high future expectations of growth. It is very difficult to tell who will meet which expectations and who will not. Most fund managers choose to short companies that are 'melting icecubes' (Einhorn), whose companies have been over-earning (Chanos with CAT), industry headwinds (Ackman with MBIA), or outright fraud (Chanos w/ Enron, Herbalife, etc). You see very, very few shorting technology stocks because going short is different from going long - you just can't wait while the stock goes against you.
A few cases of technology companies moving downwards after IPO is a poor justification as to why the stock price for Twitter should move downwards as well. Facebook's IPO was poor because of execution and worries, but as soon as management executed on mobile the stock is the darling again. How would you know how to time such a move? Stay away my friend, stay away.
Those are some good arguments. But I do not think Twitter qualifies as a Tech stock even if it is considered as one... It may have the ''tech'' label like apple and google, but social media stocks don't behave like ''tech'' stocks. Also, Twitter has not profitted in the past year, if you take a look at their SEC filings. Facebook also took an entire year to hit IPO highs, and I don't believe a poor IPO execution can lead to such a disaster... Not to mention the amount of bearish speculation about it...
Honestly I don't like to trade stocks right after IPO, too unpredictable and Volatile... plus their movements don't necessarily make any sense. Only stocks I trade after IPO are ideologic stocks(Apple,Tesla...).
Thoughts on Twitter? (Originally Posted: 07/28/2015)
FT recently released an article talking about a high amount of turnover among the executive levels while hiring an almost equal amount elsewhere.
With the rocky transition to a new CEO I was wondering what you monkey's perspective is on the company. Is this a tech company that was caught in the bubble and is now ready to collapse? Or is this just a regular corporate transition with things going back to normal in a few months?
Curious as my friend recently moved there and is trying to recruit me away from my IB job to join. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9197f56a-347e-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852.htm…
Q2 earnings on the way. Stay tuned.
In my eyes twitter has so much potential. That potential comes in the live marketing and real time news and interactions sphere. They have already started moving towards that direction with project lightning and they need to be successful and expand on that. Twitter is the forefront for real time updates and alerts even before news outlets. Also with the upcoming election twitter can be used to accurately poll the populations sentiment on candidates, kid I knew in HS monetized this (sibyl vision), so it will get more exposure on TV and such. Periscope could be the next big thing in social media and will be able to flourish under twitter. I am biased because I use twitter every day to enhance my experience while watching tv shows, sports, and movies so take this however you want.
Noto is still there, excellent CFO. Lowercase seems pretty hands on, Sacca is the Midas touch. Love twtr
WSJ reporting 61% revenue jump in the second quarter
This market favors growth. Just look at how well Amazon and Netflix's stocks have performed this year. No user growth for Twitter = punished by Mr.Market.
I think there's a consensus that this is a "good" company as it is popular amongst the average punter. But like many of the valuations of current tech companies, the metrics speak for themselves......
P/E Current -36.15 Enterprise Value to EBITDA -64.03 Operating Margin -38.41 Pretax Margi -41.22 Net Margin -41.18 Return on Assets -12.91 Return on Equity -17.57 Return on Total Capital -13.79 Return on Invested Capital -14.12
Its price seems to be the lowest it has ever been based on its 5-year chart; however, I think it would be a buy considering that it is a social media giant.
Why would "considering that it is a social media giant" be a legitimate reason to buy? That logic completely ignores any fundamentals. While the price may be the lowest its been over the past five years, it could have been grossly overvalued then and now at its current level.
Agree completely with @bear capital with regards to Twitter's potential, but on the opposite end I barely use the site anymore. I recently read an article that highlighted how Kindergarteners were able to put together a pretty succefull portfolio just by selecting companies that were extremely popular in their age group, which is oddly the logic i am using here. (e.g. Love Frozen buy Disney - Hate Leapfrog sell) To me, and a lot of my peers, Twitter is dead. It is becoming stale, and IMO if they do not make any drastic changes in the near future, they will end up like our dear friend MySpace. Initially, I loved having the ability to streamline hundreds of news sources to one feed, but I've lost interest. Maybe I'm an outlier though.
Side note- an argument could probably be made that a monkey with a dartboard could generate a decent alpha in this market, but well save that for another time.
Consequatur dolores aut magni cumque aspernatur. Aut nihil ut distinctio. Eligendi vel voluptatem aliquam exercitationem. Corrupti repellat quibusdam repellendus culpa voluptatum corporis sunt qui.
Quod ut exercitationem qui animi doloribus. Qui facere saepe reiciendis quidem. Quas ut mollitia nemo suscipit voluptate laborum dignissimos. Ut non officiis cupiditate vero. Quis dolorem pariatur repellendus.
Delectus eum aspernatur quasi tempora ut quo non. Perspiciatis magnam blanditiis iusto architecto similique at. Odit amet debitis consequuntur praesentium quam et. Velit aperiam et modi eum voluptatem reiciendis velit. Et occaecati molestias sed natus eius. Non assumenda at laborum consequatur voluptatem officiis. Tempora expedita rerum sit magni.
Voluptatum inventore ea non. Est voluptatem sit et ipsam. Debitis nemo ut aut praesentium sit. Fuga eveniet expedita necessitatibus rerum voluptates ipsa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Rerum error dolorum eius autem. Itaque est quidem blanditiis. Velit aut quas voluptatem ea harum reprehenderit. Omnis et consequuntur esse quaerat. Est corrupti repellendus voluptatibus eligendi aut rem. Numquam eligendi deserunt deleniti laudantium cum eum neque.
Eligendi facere sequi doloremque fugit dolor. Amet ab at voluptas modi in et est consequatur. Delectus cupiditate eaque corporis fuga. Quisquam atque enim voluptatem excepturi odio illum et vel. A omnis voluptatem animi autem. Veritatis quo debitis impedit occaecati.
Cupiditate nulla mollitia ut natus molestias sit sed. Temporibus sed rerum eligendi omnis maiores. Vero aliquam pariatur et dignissimos adipisci dignissimos consectetur commodi. Facilis nihil nemo enim sint et ullam. Dolores dolorem et et voluptas dolorum nostrum corrupti.