A $45 market price after a $26 IPO means Twitter left over $1B on the table, doesn't it? They would've had that money, instead of the first investors who can now immediately sell the shares at a huge profit, if the initial price was set closer to what the market would've paid.
LIVE: Twitter IPO
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#12That's up an enormous amount now, looks like the problems which plagued the Facebook IPO launch were dealt with long in advance.
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#13A $45 market price after a $26 IPO means Twitter left over $1B on the table, doesn't it? They would've had that money, instead of the first investors who can now immediately sell the shares at a huge profit, if the initial price was set closer to what the market would've paid.
I can't do the numbers on what they missed out on, but it's definitely money Twitter won't see, yes.
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#14The indicative $45-47 opening price finally convinced me of getting out of (tech) stocks in general. We're talking about $20B valuation for a company which has never made money. I know "this is different", and it has a lot of users, and so on. Still, I'd be cautious.
Maybe I'm old, but I'm still struggling to figure out if Twitter is a short-term fad, or a serious here-to-stay concept (and thus a company) in our lives. I like to imagine say a 10-15 year time frame, and if I think the company will still be around then.
Netflix, for example, at least has a business model which I see becoming pervasive 15 years down the line (on-demand entertainment over the internet). Of course I don't know if Netflix will be the company to dominate that business model 15 years down the line.
With Twitter, I am not yet convinced this has long-term value here, but maybe I don't get the value it has in other's minds.
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#15A $45 market price after a $26 IPO means Twitter left over $1B on the table, doesn't it? They would've had that money, instead of the first investors who can now immediately sell the shares at a huge profit, if the initial price was set closer to what the market would've paid.
[deleted]
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#16The indicative $45-47 opening price finally convinced me of getting out of (tech) stocks in general. We're talking about $20B valuation for a company which has never made money. I know "this is different", and it has a lot of users, and so on. Still, I'd be cautious.
Never been profitable maybe, but it has certainly made money
no kidding. It's made money, and if we're still on the "people's data are valuable", usage habits and advertiser's stories suggest that Twitter's user data is a lot more useful for targeted advertising than things like FB are.
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they where profitable?
No, never.
Here are some numbers on revenue and losses:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-t...
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#18It's not relevant to the price, but they had Patrick Stewart open the market with them. Well, having Captain Picard open the market shouldn't be relevant to the price anyway.
Who knows? Maybe some algorithmic trading program has factored it into the price?
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#19A particular quote from P.T. Barnum comes to mind...
Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO
#20A $45 market price after a $26 IPO means Twitter left over $1B on the table, doesn't it? They would've had that money, instead of the first investors who can now immediately sell the shares at a huge profit, if the initial price was set closer to what the market would've paid.
Approximately $11B According to my quick calculations. TWTR market cap is at $25B currently. They sold 544.7M shares for $26, ~$14B in all. That leaves an $11B difference.