3 ms·

And there's plenty of advertisers on twitter still - despite this constant, baseless narrative. People want Musk to fail so badly they literally make things up

by Alupis 2y ago

And there's plenty of advertisers on twitter still - despite this constant, baseless narrative. People want Musk to fail so badly they literally make things up.

jsheard 2y ago
IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets. Technically advertisers, but not really the type you want given the choice, so it's no surprise that Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value at ~25% of what Musk paid for it.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets That's your retargeted ads. From my experience, I haven't noticed any changes. > Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value is ~25% This is an entirely made up figure based on guesses and politics. Nobody, including Fidelity, have any clue to the internals of Twitter now that it's private. The world's most important news still breaks on Twitter (including the sitting president's announcement to not run for re-election), despite all the Musk hate.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    I don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad, they invested $20 million in the company and their assessment is that their holding is now worth about $5 million. If anything that claim makes Fidelity look like chumps for putting their money there.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      That's a tiny amount of money for Fidelity. Unless they have some secret insider information that can be verified - they are guessing along with everyone else. Nobody will know the value of Twitter until Musk sells it, if ever. That's par for the course of private business. What we do know is literally all of the most important stories continue to break on Twitter. CNN and other MSM companies continue to write articles about specific Tweets, and more. Twitter remains - as it was before - the figurative public forum and no alternative offering has come anywhere close to overtaking it. Nothing has changed.
    - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      Why would an investment company have a fiduciary responsibility to account for the value of its holdings lol? (Psst. You're not replying to a serious person.)
      - Alupis 2y ago
        Right, so Fidelity can derive information from zero data? Ah, yes, I forgot investment firms receive standard-issue crystal balls.
        verdverm 2y ago
        The shareholders of X (which includes Fidelity) receive internal details because they are owners, they are entitled to that information as owners.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad They’re not. Valuation committees are notoriously deferential to PMs and issuers, particularly for private names.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Nobody, including Fidelity, have any clue to the internals of Twitter now that it's private Fidelity is an X shareholder. They absolutely have its financials. On a quarterly basis their valuation committees have to value their holdings, including illiquid ones, in part to appraise how their managers are doing. In this case, their valuation committee wrote down the value of their equity in X to 25% of the original acquisition price. Given Twitter was about 1:4 levered on acquisition, that’s writing down the value of X as an enterprise to roughly half.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      The reality is Twitter remains the figurative public square. You are being disingenuous if you are asserting financials are the only aspect to Twitter's value. Given it's prevalence and importance, there is no way Twitter is worth 1/2 or 1/4 of what it once was. If given the opportunity to purchase Twitter - what would someone pay for it? What would someone pay for the single-most important and influential website/app in the world - the only one that has presidents and governments around the world make announcements and break news? The mass exodus never happened - of either users and advertisers. This is flatly in fantasy land for Musk haters. It's amazing to witness. So yeah, Fidelity is making stuff up.
      - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
        Meh. Everything that's happened has been stupid as hell. There used to be some really interesting & helpful info streams on Twitter, weather alerts and streams of edits. There used to be academic research & people understanding trends of the world via Twitter. But now Twitter is trying to extract as much value as it can, make itself as opaque and unreadable as it can. Absurd API prices, no access for researchers, and you can't read much at all unless you are logged in. Twitter has done amazing job at incinerating the value it once had as connective matter of society. Also the algorithm now top-ranks a bunch of paid-for blue-check musk-ites and batshit-crazy-right-winger trash.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

by Alupis 2y ago

And there's plenty of advertisers on twitter still - despite this constant, baseless narrative. People want Musk to fail so badly they literally make things up.

jsheard 2y ago

IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets. Technically advertisers, but not really the type you want given the choice, so it's no surprise that Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value at ~25% of what Musk paid for it.

Alupis 2y ago
> IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets That's your retargeted ads. From my experience, I haven't noticed any changes. > Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value is ~25% This is an entirely made up figure based on guesses and politics. Nobody, including Fidelity, have any clue to the internals of Twitter now that it's private. The world's most important news still breaks on Twitter (including the sitting president's announcement to not run for re-election), despite all the Musk hate.
- jsheard 2y ago
  I don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad, they invested $20 million in the company and their assessment is that their holding is now worth about $5 million. If anything that claim makes Fidelity look like chumps for putting their money there.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    That's a tiny amount of money for Fidelity. Unless they have some secret insider information that can be verified - they are guessing along with everyone else. Nobody will know the value of Twitter until Musk sells it, if ever. That's par for the course of private business. What we do know is literally all of the most important stories continue to break on Twitter. CNN and other MSM companies continue to write articles about specific Tweets, and more. Twitter remains - as it was before - the figurative public forum and no alternative offering has come anywhere close to overtaking it. Nothing has changed.
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    Why would an investment company have a fiduciary responsibility to account for the value of its holdings lol? (Psst. You're not replying to a serious person.)
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Right, so Fidelity can derive information from zero data? Ah, yes, I forgot investment firms receive standard-issue crystal balls.
      - verdverm 2y ago
        The shareholders of X (which includes Fidelity) receive internal details because they are owners, they are entitled to that information as owners.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad They’re not. Valuation committees are notoriously deferential to PMs and issuers, particularly for private names.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Nobody, including Fidelity, have any clue to the internals of Twitter now that it's private Fidelity is an X shareholder. They absolutely have its financials. On a quarterly basis their valuation committees have to value their holdings, including illiquid ones, in part to appraise how their managers are doing. In this case, their valuation committee wrote down the value of their equity in X to 25% of the original acquisition price. Given Twitter was about 1:4 levered on acquisition, that’s writing down the value of X as an enterprise to roughly half.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    The reality is Twitter remains the figurative public square. You are being disingenuous if you are asserting financials are the only aspect to Twitter's value. Given it's prevalence and importance, there is no way Twitter is worth 1/2 or 1/4 of what it once was. If given the opportunity to purchase Twitter - what would someone pay for it? What would someone pay for the single-most important and influential website/app in the world - the only one that has presidents and governments around the world make announcements and break news? The mass exodus never happened - of either users and advertisers. This is flatly in fantasy land for Musk haters. It's amazing to witness. So yeah, Fidelity is making stuff up.
    - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
      Meh. Everything that's happened has been stupid as hell. There used to be some really interesting & helpful info streams on Twitter, weather alerts and streams of edits. There used to be academic research & people understanding trends of the world via Twitter. But now Twitter is trying to extract as much value as it can, make itself as opaque and unreadable as it can. Absurd API prices, no access for researchers, and you can't read much at all unless you are logged in. Twitter has done amazing job at incinerating the value it once had as connective matter of society. Also the algorithm now top-ranks a bunch of paid-for blue-check musk-ites and batshit-crazy-right-winger trash.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]