3 ms·

I don't think the use of the word "safe" or any derivative of it is appropriate with the shares of any publicly-traded social media company. That said, even th

I don't think the use of the word "safe" or any derivative of it is appropriate with the shares of any publicly-traded social media company. That said, even though Twitter's valuation looks quite rich at $26/share from a financials perspective (to say the least), I think some investors who have (or want) positions in social media companies are considering Twitter's demographic profile, which also happens to be Facebook's biggest potential Achilles heel. The fact that Twitter is seen by some as a benefactor of Facebook's growing teen attrition may not be a wise rationale for a Twitter investment, but if you're hell bent on taking a cruise on the Titanic, why not rearrange the deck chairs to get yourself a view that's more to your liking?

encoderer 13y ago
It is, of course, not a mutually exclusive situation. But to your point about demos, if you look at the data it paints a different picture than what you've suggested. As an investor in FB (not that that makes me special) I read the Piper Jaffrey report that I presume you're citing. What it overlooks is that FB owns Instagram. Where FB is weak demographically, Instagram is strong. Moreover, FB's value has never been strength among the youngest demographic. Sure, hooking a user early is great but hardly the only path to acquisition. Just ask my mom. Or, probably, your own. And feel free to use whatever language you want. I stand by what I said.