TWTR

Post by brymaster » Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 5:52 PM UTC

arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

Post by giarc » Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 5:53 PM UTC

colinbartlett wrote: post #80

MichaelApproved wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take this as snark but I wouldn't recommend shorting anything if you are so inexperienced that you don't have a trading account or don't know which one to use. Shorting stocks is extremely risky and should only be done by traders with lots of experience. If you really want to bank on Twitter going south, you can try buying puts when they're available. If you're not sure what puts are, leave this whole id…

To add to this, just remember one simple fact: When you are a long a stock, the most you can lose is the amount you paid. When you are short, you can lose unlimited money.

Post by bcoates » Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #61

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owners of Twitter prior to the flotation have basically sold a chunk of what they owned on the stock market. To do that they needed to put a value on those shares. Determining that price is pretty tricky but through one mechanism or another they settled on $26 a share. The fact that people are now willing to buy them for $46 a share suggests that they basically sold them at too low a price (arguably $20 a share t…

I understand what you mean by "they lost out a fair bit of money". However, that is not exactly true. They have failed to gain that (admittedly huge) chunk of dollars but they have lost nothing: the have the same money they started with and they never had any more than that . You only lose when you start with X and end up with X-Y, for positive Y. They have probably missed the opportunity to gain more but that is the…

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #125

pfortuny wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you mean by "they lost out a fair bit of money". However, that is not exactly true. They have failed to gain that (admittedly huge) chunk of dollars but they have lost nothing: the have the same money they started with and they never had any more than that . You only lose when you start with X and end up with X-Y, for positive Y. They have probably missed the opportunity to gain more but that is the…

By that logic a random-trading machine that never bought the same security twice would never lose anything, despite reliably winding up with a very worthless portfolio.

Post by nonchalance » Thu, Nov 07, 2013, 5:58 PM UTC

brymaster wrote: post #124

nonchalance wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple answer is that a share price is the present price to pay for the future cash flows of the company. Just because they aren't making money now doesn't mean that will always be the case. If twitter starts making billions of dollars soon, and starts paying that out to investors, then everyone makes money. They "eventually foot the bill" if twitter doesn't make money. Your cynicism reflects the fact that many c…

> Just because they aren't making money now doesn't mean that will always be the case. This is dangerous speculation.