4 ms·

Twitter loses $5B, shares down 12% since Trump ban

36 points by grawprog 6y ago

ve55 6y ago
It should be noted that Twitter is a pretty volatile stock and has had plenty of single-day 10% swings before, this just being yet another one of them (I do think this was causal though, so at least the headline is half-accurate, the other half being their market cap decreased by $5B, they did not 'lose' it).
Barrin92 6y ago
interesting how top heavy a 'social' network is if one single person moves the value that much. Gives an indication of how celebrity focused twitter is. Would be interesting to know how few people generate say, 80% of the value. Also wonder what would happen if you just capped the number of max followers one can have or charged for shares, introducing some scarcity or locality. I once thought about making one where posts have to be paid for in some virtual currency that's limited per month but given how much it violates every expectation people have of social interaction now it'd probably go down like a lead balloon.
egonschiele 6y ago
Looks like facebook has falling ~6%. Shopify has risen, not sure why. Fiskars stock has gone UP which is surprising because their sales of Pitchforks must have surely plummeted after the bans.
dboreham 6y ago
Perhaps a bunch of people are selling their positions in order to pay legal costs?
Someone1234 6y ago
And yet up $10 since Nov 2nd, up $7 since Sept 16th and up $15 since a year ago today. People are trying too hard to make this a "thing." If you look at it in terms of a few days, sure, but you zoom out and the loss is insignificant. Oct 29th had a far bigger loss. I'd argue if anything this entire episode has proven Twitter's public impact (good or bad, it is HIGH). I'd say "buy the dip" but per above the drop isn't significant enough to really get overly excited about either way.
- andreilys 6y ago
  Oct 29th dip was due to them reporting slowing user growth - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/tech/twitter-earnings/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/tech/twitter-earnings/index.h... If twitters public impact is high, why would foreign governments allow them to operate in their country? It’s banned in China, and Uganda also banned social media prior to the election. This is not good for user growth, which is what twitter relies on to make money (eye balls for advertisers)
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    Advertisers don't want to buy ads next to some content (death threats, racism, conspiracy theories). If it grows a userbase that is advertising compatible, that is likely better for their bottom-line rather than appealing to a demographic nobody wants anything to do with.
    - cft 6y ago
      That demographics definitely has non-zero purchasing power, and thus is worth advertising products to. Marginalizing it will only further increase social tensions.
moocow01 6y ago
Wasn't this sort of baked in after Biden won but it just was a matter of when (meaning before or sometime after the 20th)? He obviously brought in an incredibly large audience to Twitter as president for an array of reasons and it seems obvious that that audience was bound to recede in the span of the next month or so.
ohazi 6y ago
This is stupid, look at a trailing average in a quarter or two and this won't even be visible.
johnklos 6y ago
Stupid title. Twitter didn't "lose $5 billion".
- grzm 6y ago
  It's shorthand for $5 billion of market cap. From the third sentence of the article: > "The decline erased $5 billion from Twitter’s market capitalization"
barnaclejive 6y ago
whatever. deal with it. do the right things
etrabroline 6y ago
Why was this flagged?
- loraa 6y ago
  Because it makes it seem that banning Trump was bad.

36 points by grawprog 6y ago

ve55 6y ago

It should be noted that Twitter is a pretty volatile stock and has had plenty of single-day 10% swings before, this just being yet another one of them (I do think this was causal though, so at least the headline is half-accurate, the other half being their market cap decreased by $5B, they did not 'lose' it).

Barrin92 6y ago

interesting how top heavy a 'social' network is if one single person moves the value that much. Gives an indication of how celebrity focused twitter is. Would be interesting to know how few people generate say, 80% of the value. Also wonder what would happen if you just capped the number of max followers one can have or charged for shares, introducing some scarcity or locality. I once thought about making one where posts have to be paid for in some virtual currency that's limited per month but given how much it violates every expectation people have of social interaction now it'd probably go down like a lead balloon.

egonschiele 6y ago

Looks like facebook has falling ~6%. Shopify has risen, not sure why. Fiskars stock has gone UP which is surprising because their sales of Pitchforks must have surely plummeted after the bans.

dboreham 6y ago

Perhaps a bunch of people are selling their positions in order to pay legal costs?

Someone1234 6y ago

And yet up $10 since Nov 2nd, up $7 since Sept 16th and up $15 since a year ago today. People are trying too hard to make this a "thing." If you look at it in terms of a few days, sure, but you zoom out and the loss is insignificant. Oct 29th had a far bigger loss. I'd argue if anything this entire episode has proven Twitter's public impact (good or bad, it is HIGH). I'd say "buy the dip" but per above the drop isn't significant enough to really get overly excited about either way.

andreilys 6y ago
Oct 29th dip was due to them reporting slowing user growth - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/tech/twitter-earnings/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/tech/twitter-earnings/index.h... If twitters public impact is high, why would foreign governments allow them to operate in their country? It’s banned in China, and Uganda also banned social media prior to the election. This is not good for user growth, which is what twitter relies on to make money (eye balls for advertisers)
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Advertisers don't want to buy ads next to some content (death threats, racism, conspiracy theories). If it grows a userbase that is advertising compatible, that is likely better for their bottom-line rather than appealing to a demographic nobody wants anything to do with.
  - cft 6y ago
    That demographics definitely has non-zero purchasing power, and thus is worth advertising products to. Marginalizing it will only further increase social tensions.

moocow01 6y ago

Wasn't this sort of baked in after Biden won but it just was a matter of when (meaning before or sometime after the 20th)? He obviously brought in an incredibly large audience to Twitter as president for an array of reasons and it seems obvious that that audience was bound to recede in the span of the next month or so.

ohazi 6y ago

This is stupid, look at a trailing average in a quarter or two and this won't even be visible.

johnklos 6y ago

Stupid title. Twitter didn't "lose $5 billion".

grzm 6y ago
It's shorthand for $5 billion of market cap. From the third sentence of the article: > "The decline erased $5 billion from Twitter’s market capitalization"

barnaclejive 6y ago

whatever. deal with it. do the right things

etrabroline 6y ago

Why was this flagged?

loraa 6y ago
Because it makes it seem that banning Trump was bad.