18 ms·
TWTR
- yogo 13y agoHmm, they should pick up twtr.com.
- arjunnarayan 13y agoIf 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 value as possible from the public markets --- and the value buyers didn't get screwed, given that a year later it's trading at ~20% above the IPO price.).
- davidw 13y agoCan someone who knows about these things explain why no one else does auctions like Google did? I mean, these guys are supposed to be about markets, right, so why the heck is the price decided by some kind of "central committee"?!
- joezydeco 13y agoI think the Google IPO was a bit unique where they kind of gave Wall Street the finger and said "we'll do it our way, thanks". They pissed off a lot of bankers but I don't think Sergey and Larry really cared. Haven't seen a situation or company like that since.
- Robin_Message 13y agoI have no actual idea, but I saw a comment the other day to the effect that: Choosing a good price is a) hard, because of the due diligence, and b) expensive, because if you chose wrongly, you lose money (in an auction, this is called the winner's curse.) So the cost of estimating the price before the shares are on the market needs to be priced in to the initial sale price. Probably doesn't explain a 100% jump though, but in regard to the rich supposedly supporting free markets, I will remark that people's ability to be for things when they are applied to other people, and against them when applied to themselves, never ceases to amaze me.
- antirez 13y agoI don't really know these things but as far as I can tell what Google did was something really unpopular that only what Google used to be could do: they only allowed the "right" VCs to invest to their conditions, and they were not interested to the reaction of bankers and alike, and everybody wanted the Google shares. Twitter was nowhere in such a kind of predominant position given that is in a weaker situation (it is not clear if it will ever make enough money to justify even the IPO initial price).
- nikcub 13y agoGoogle's auction didn't work, they marginalized wall st. and the banks ended up rigging the bidding. While it only popped 20% on opening day, the stock was up 4x in a matter of months.
- davidw 13y agoWhen you say "didn't work", what do you mean? "Rigging the bidding" sounds like a big deal - where is this covered?
- pbreit 13y agoBecause it works MUCH better. Google could have made much more money on its IPO if it used a sales team.
- lnanek2 13y agoThere's a lot of fuck up IPOs then. I know I got double my money pretty quick on the VMWare IPO and the Visa IPO, just buying as soon as they went public and selling at a peak after news.
- mikeash 13y agoYes, there are. If you were able to do that, that means that VMWare and Visa both got screwed out of billions of dollars. And of course, little guys can't get in right at the IPO price. That's reserved for big players. By systematically underpricing IPOs, the finance folks make billions of dollars for their friends at the expense of the companies they're supposed to represent.
- vdaniuk 13y agoPlease provide extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that tech IPOs are rigged to transfer shareholder value to the banks managing or participating in the OP.
- colinbartlett 13y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/nocera-rigging-the-ipo-game.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/nocera-rigg... http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2011/11/04/groupon-soars-in-ipo-process-still-rigged-after-all-these-years/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2011/11/04/groupon-soa... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/15/this-is-why-ipos-are-rigged-against-you.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/15/this-is-why...
- vdaniuk 13y agoThat was informative, thanks.
- mikeash 13y agoVirtually every IPO is priced such that the market price is substantially higher than the offer price. This unquestionably transfers money from the market to those who are allowed to buy at the IPO price. That they are designed to do that seems like a reasonable conclusion from the fact that it happens over and over again. Furthermore, when an IPO is priced such that this does not happen, such as with Facebook, it's criticized and called out as a disaster even though they sold all the stock they wanted to issue and made much more money for their company than they would have otherwise.
- joezydeco 13y agoI believe you have the logic backwards here. Facebook was the fuckup because they priced correctly and all the buddies of the underwriters didn't make bank on the IPO. Twitter is back to the old system and nobody will be complaining this time around.
- nhangen 13y agoI suppose it depends on who you are trying to please. If you are Twitter, it's a major loss. If you give a shit about bankers (most of us do not), then you win.
- joezydeco 13y agoBut the bankers come up with those magical "buy/hold/sell" recommendations that everyone else listens to and panic-sells when their advice says so. Or "oops, they missed our magically predicted revenue by one penny per share". It's all part of the game.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoWhich says to me that bankers are probably still holding a lot of TWTR. If that doesn't change short-term, it could poison the social network.
- joezydeco 13y agoI believe going public poisons any company. CEOs change their vision from long-term to insanely short-term. Gotta make those quarterly numbers or they're screwed. There have been a few exceptions to this, Apple being the most famous one. Facebook was on the same track but the SEC rules about share ownership forced their hand.
- davidw 13y agoAmazon has pretty weird numbers, and is public.
- raganwald 13y agoCan you say for a fact that if they priced at $46 that people would have bought at $46? Markets are highly irrational.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago> Markets are highly irrational. That depends which recent Nobel Memorial Prize winner you believe.
- pyre 13y agoWhich one claims that all actors in a market have perfect information?
- icebraining 13y agoI'm guessing parent's talking about Eugene Fama, who shared the prize with Robert Shiller. He doesn't actually claim the markets have perfect information, just that the price always reflects all available information. In essence, you can't "beat the market" consistently, assuming you have the same information.
- cheald 13y ago> assuming you have the same information Which you don't, since Goldman Sachs is always a few milliseconds ahead of everyone else. Given that almost everyone else out there is going to be trading on information that has already been consumed and acted upon by privileged parties, the markets may as well for all intents and purposes be irrational.
- generj 13y agoIn this world of quant-bots, I don't know how anyone can argue that we have a fully rational market. My understanding is that much of the progress in economics has been merging economics with psychology to identify rational failures.
- robertgaal 13y agoI now little about the stock market, so I'm not sure why you're upset but it sounds important! :) Anyone care to elaborate?
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoThe 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 too low). In doing so they've lost out on a fair bit of money. Establishing a value ahead of the flotation is difficult and often companies will err on the side of caution (that is sell slightly cheap) to make the sell off look like a success, but I think it's being suggested that this gap is too big to just be that and that some of the previous owners may be unhappy that they've lost out.
- pfortuny 13y agoI 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 their mistake (if it is a mistake).
- hyperpape 13y agoWell, two days ago, they owned n shares of assets that were sellable for $46 a share. Now they have n * 26. They lost out, just as if I took your $20k new car and gave you $10k, you'd have lost out even though you have more cash.
- pfortuny 13y agoDid that information exist two days ago? Because if it did not exist, then there was no real $46 value. No REAL market (which is the place where information on value is) implies no monetary value (or a worthless one). What happens is that they did not guess (and this is an important term, there is no inherent value in a guess) TODAY'S market's expectations correctly. But that has little to do with true monetary loss or gain. Of course, their expectations today might be crushed. But personal expectations and hopes are not valuable as shares are.
- sc90 13y agoUnlike Facebook, none of Twitters employees and VC's are selling, so no internal pressure to grab every last dollar.
- the_watcher 13y agoThere was an employee lockup of Facebook stock, if I remember correctly, so Facebook employees were not selling. Please correct me if I misunderstood something.
- abat 13y agoThe lockup applies to shares on the open market after IPO. That doesn't preclude someone from participating in the IPO itself.
- the_watcher 13y agoGot it, thanks for explaining.
- habosa 13y agoMany Facebook shareholders sold at the IPO. Zuckerberg sold 30M shares and other large investors with huge allocations also sold some. It was calculated, not a free-for-all.
- blisterpeanuts 13y agoInteresting; how is it that employees are able to trade right after the IPO? I thought there was a waiting period for insiders.
- clauretano 13y agonot every employee is an insider. Public companies that issue stock to employees can limit the number of people that are made privy to non-public information about the performance of the company, such that some/many employees are allowed to freely trade.
- apaprocki 13y agoFrom the Bloomberg story, which sums it up: “The company did everything to secure the most cash for itself while leaving some money for the IPO buyers,” said Josef Schuster, the founder of IPOX Schuster LLC, a Chicago-based manager of about $1.9 billion. “You need a pop at the opening to leave a good taste with everyone. They did a pretty good job managing the whole situation.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/twitter-raises-1-82-billion-pricier-value-than-facebook.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/twitter-raises-1-82...
- mikeash 13y agoI was pretty sure that the financial companies demanded massive bribes in exchange for orchestrating an IPO, but it's still amazing to see it admitted in such a blatant fashion.
- brosephius 13y agoThere's no guarantee that all the IPO shares would have been placed at $46 (I'd doubt it).
- squidi 13y ago> borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty to who? The shareholders that cashed in today are the same ones who are behind the IPO. You're trying to make it seem like some poor distant shareholder got screwed over, which is not true.
- brymaster 13y ago> borderline breach of fiduciary duty. That's not a real thing. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
- oijaf888 13y ago"breach of fiduciary duty" is a very real thing. (29 USC § 1109 specifically) In this case it has nothing to do with the link you posted. He means the contract that Twitter signed with the banks probably has language that says they will attempt to get the best possible price for the shares. The resulting pop shows that they did not do that.
- nkohari 13y agoNo, it doesn't. It would only be a breach of fiduciary duty if the underwriters knew they could price the stock higher, but intentionally decided not to. Something tells me they were expecting a pop, but not quite this significant.
- phonon 13y agoIsn't 29 USC § 1109 about corporate benefit plans? What does that have to do with general Director breaches of fiduciary duty (which is covered under state level business corporate law...)
- pbreit 13y agoIt's not that big a deal. TWTR will do a secondary which will close most of the gap. Popping over 30% is better than 20% or going down. Yes, they were conservative but I think that was prudent here. Maybe they could have gone up a few bucks. I wouldn't sweat it.
- jsmeaton 13y agoWhat's the problem with the stock prices remaining high? How is that leaving money on the table? I'm genuinely curious, and have no idea how these things work (if you feel like explaining it like I'm 5 - or directing me to a site that can). Edit: Unless you mean that twitter "sold" shares at $26, but the actual value was closer to $46 - meaning their investors nearly double their money, and twitter raise nearly half of what they could have?
- wrice314 13y agoI agree that Facebook did the best thing, that is raising the most money with the least dilution, though you can see culturally how downward pricing pressure and momentum has forced them to be much more focused on driving revenue than in the past. Revisiting the price in ~3 months will be a much better gauge of the accuracy.
- jedberg 13y agoI have to admit I was wrong. I assumed it would flatline like FB. Congrats to the Twitter team!
- badusername 13y agoThere is no indication that it has risen from the opening price for the public markets yet.
- pstuart 13y agoLet's see where it is in 6 months after people realize that there's no solid plan to make enough money to justify the pricing. edit: sure, maybe I'm jealous that I'm not raking in that IPO cash, but having gone through the dotcom bubble I think some cynicism is warranted.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y agoCongrats to the bankers pricing the IPO low enough.
- jstalin 13y agoIncome statements: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&ei=TL17UqCbK4G20AH2PA https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&ei=TL... About $553 million in revenue in the last year, with spending of $668 million.
- 1945 13y agoAnd they say this isn't another tech bubble...
- acchow 13y ago50x trailing revenue... This is terrifying. When was the last time we've seen valuations at 50x revenue for a $1bn+ company?
- tootie 13y agoI'm personally shocked they have that much revenue. Is it just selling ads?
- tedunangst 13y agoI'm amazed how much they're spending. What are they paying for?
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago2000 employees.
- GrinningFool 13y agoA much better link than the 'live blog' covering ... erm.. the stock price. Congrats to the twitter team. Ridiculous overpricing aside (in the financial/risk management sense), that's a major victory for them. Whether or not this becomes a financially viable business, there's no question that they've built an amazing thing and are now getting well-rewarded for it.
- legohead 13y agoI don't know how these things typically work.. it started out at 46, now it's below, ~45, but it says +19.66 (75.62%)? Is that because that's the highest it was today? I would expect the +/- to be against the starting amount at any time...
- helper 13y agoThe opening price was $26.
- twistedpair 13y agoOpening price was $45.01 according to Google Finance, $45.10 according to the WSJ, and $45.10 according to Yahoo finance. Not $26. Insider pre-order price was $26.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kilovoltaire 13y agoThat's because its pre-opening (IPO) price was $26. So for everyone who got shares before the public trading, their stocks are way up. (This is also why people are saying that the IPO price was set way too low; insiders make tons of money but Twitter itself raises much less money.)
- stevewilhelm 13y agoYahoo! Finance is more up to date. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=twtr&ql=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=twtr&ql=1
- goshx 13y agoCame here to point that out. I wonder why google's is so far behind.
- samolang 13y ago15 minute delay is standard. I'm wondering why yahoo is so ahead.
- stevewilhelm 13y agoWay back when, Yahoo worked directly with the exchange to get a real-time feed.
- ecoffey 13y agoDifferent licensing and payments to get realtime stock data from the exchanges. From what I remember, if you don't pay, then you can't get anything fresher than 15 minutes ago (which is what google finance is at actually). (I worked for a custom financial website company, and we would "service" a lot of those contracts; i.e. you buy reuters data, but don't want to consume all that yourself, so we do it for you and build out tools that you give to your customers)
- spullara 13y agoGoogle doesn't care about Google Finance or most of the other copycat sites they made in the early 2000s. I'm more surprised that Google Finance hasn't been shut down.
- Geee 13y agoAnd... this marks the beginning of the end for Twitter as we know it.
- the_watcher 13y agoWhy do you say that? Facebook has been fine post-IPO.
- mbreese 13y agoTwitter is still losing money though... they haven't figured out how to make a profit. The fear is that what they'll need to do in order to make money will drive their user-base away.
- the_watcher 13y agoThat was the fear with Facebook too though. Newsfeed ads, FBX, etc were all unavailable pre-IPO, and were constantly referenced as the changes that will break Facebook.
- Geee 13y agoI think Facebook could be much better (for users) if they hadn't IPO'd. Also, I don't think anyone really likes Facebook, it's just too big to fail. There's inherent conflict between profit and user experience (including privacy) in ad-based business models.
- the_watcher 13y agoI'm not an expert in the stock market, and the only stock I own is Facebook (which I bought a long time ago), but I am confused as to why Facebook is dropping today while there is so much enthusiasm for Twitter. Buying Twitter is basically betting on mobile advertising, which Facebook is the clear leader of. Is it possibly related to people with Facebook stock selling some to get in on Twitter? Are they entirely unrelated?
- darrelld 13y agoNot an expert either, but my guess? Facebook had its IPO hayday and Facebook is now another company listed on the market. Markets are mostly down today and Facebook is following the trend. Twitter is a hot new IPO and people are jumping on early in the hopes of it rising in price.
- the_watcher 13y agoGot it. As someone who only owns one stock, I guess I don't look at the market as a whole enough. That makes more sense than anything else.
- morgante 13y agoI also highly suggest you own more than one stock.
- omellet 13y agoPeople are dumping shares of hot stocks like FB and Netflix to free up capital to buy Twitter.
- 3327 13y agoI am an expert on stocks, (Wallstreet HF PM for many years), quick explanation is money moving from FB to TWTR. seeing the momentum funds sell FB and put into TWTR as they are correlated plays.
- kirpekar 13y agoOn a day-to-day basis, the stock market is a random walk. There is no way to know WHY Facebook is dropping and Twitter is rising. If somebody knew, he or she would have been billionaire many times over.
- cft 13y agoCan someone advise what's the best way to buy derivatives (etrade,scottstrade, etc): the fastest way to open an account, the best order execution times? I want to invest some money to short this.
- joshmlewis 13y agoI was wondering this as well. Trading stocks always seem a little out of reach for some reason.
- adventured 13y agoIf you didn't catch a short on it near $50, wait. The stock market bubble is going higher under Yellen's dove policy. The valuation crazy tech stocks like TWTR or LNKD will go that much higher accordingly. This market doesn't drop until the Fed stops or the market goes so high it is forced to crash (runs out of oxygen, everybody panics, mass selling ensues, down goes the latest bubble).
- RyanZAG 13y agoThere's a lot of paperwork and checks involved. No matter what route you go, it will take some time.
- MichaelApproved 13y agoPlease 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 idea alone.
- cft 13y agoi run a bootstrapped company that i founded in 2006, and i have some extra money i am totally comfortable of losing entirely. i view this as an experiment. i am looking for a serious practical advice.
- pearjuice 13y agoIf you buy TWTR stock, what are you investing in exactly?
- polymatter 13y agothe person you sell TWTR to later, buys it off you at a higher price. I don't think you're buying TWTR for the dividend, you're looking for the capital gain.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoTWTR
- fit2rule 13y agoA next-generation media company that has millions of people in its database that can be communicated to, almost instantly about any subject you desire.
- silverbax88 13y agoThat only matters if you can get a payoff when you communicate with them. As of now, Twitter advertising is very ineffective at gathering paying customers. I'm not saying there's no way it can work, and I think they can be profitable, but it's got a long way to go.
- fit2rule 13y agoA lot of money has been made by those savvy enough to know how to use Twitter to promote a campaign. I think thats worth quite a lot in itself, and if anyone is geared to understand how these campaigns work, its the people at Twitter with access to all the statistics ..
- GoldfishCRM 13y agoWow, Maybe I should do one of thouse microblogthingis.
- zaidf 13y agoTwitter still hasn't provided any guidance on profitability. My biggest fear is that over the next few quarters, Twitter will undo much of the goodwill for tech stocks generated by Facebook by not being able to match the bar set by Facebook for profitability, revenue and user growth.
- corford 13y agoCan someone with more clue please tell me that the following cynical thought I keep having is wrong and laughably misinformed (and then explain why)? Twitter's investors (who have plowed hundreds of millions in to a loss making company) decide to sell some of their stock at $26/share (after consulting with banks to arrive at this price). This will make right the losses they've experienced so far and pass the problem down the line. The banks buy at $26 and then immidiately flip for north of $40. This lines their pockets and passes the problem down the line once more to joe public. End result: investors in loss making company cover their investment and make some profit, banks make some juicy profit for facilitating the game, joe public swallows the hype and makes the whole dance possible by eventually footing the bill. Edit 1: thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. I guess I can only continue to feel cynical if I believe that the original investors did all of this knowing full well that twitter never has a chance of living up to its valuation i.e. they just wanted to cover their losses, make a nice profit on top and punt the problem down river. The alternative is that the investors do honestly believe in the future profitability of the company and have decided now is the time to take some well earned profit as a reward for taking the financial risks in getting the company to where it is today. It's going to take me some time to make my mind up as to which of those two scenarios I believe. Edit 2: still difficult to understand why the banks have managed to come away with doubling their money though. Edit 3 (final one!): See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691157 for a nice reply that seems (to my clearly very untrained eye) to make the investors motives a little less cynical.
- hyperpape 13y agoIf twitter never makes money, you're mostly right. If twitter eventually makes enough money to justify its share price, you're wrong.
- nine_k 13y agoIn 2013Q3, Twitter made $168M of revenue (not profit). How do you think, how long is it going to take them to cover their current market capitalization of $24670M? After that, they will start making profit for the shareholders.
- philwelch 13y agoDisappointed they didn't go with TWIT for the stock symbol.
- nine_k 13y ago+70%, $24.67B market cap. Verily, QE3 is strong in this one! (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/13/news/economy/federal-reserve-qe3/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/13/news/economy/federal-reserve...)
- MSM 13y agoCurrently with more market cap than Marathon Oil which hasn't posted a single quarter with less $250M in income since 2008. Totally makes sense....... right?
- bifrost 13y agoAll in all, looks like a reasonable IPO. Some delays. Basically trading 45-46, I could see it dropping off some tomorrow. Mostly I think we'll see shares/profits of SF oriented luxury good companies go up, and possibly a rise in SFBA housing prices.
- conductr 13y agoWhy does it take 1,300* employees to run this company? * crunchbase
- Rimpinths 13y agoI was wondering the same thing. The number of employees is around 2300, according to Bloomberg. I think you could run Twitter with a development/engineering staff of 100. What are all of those other people doing? Sales?
- pyrrhotech 13y agotech stocks with no profits selling at 15-40x sales are a complete crapshoot. might as well go to the casino
- SCAQTony 13y agoFacebook, Twitter, Linkedin...Sometimes I think the NASDAQ is looking more like the "Fine Art" auction market rather than an actual stock market.
- dangero 13y agoTwitter isn't on NASDAQ. It's on NYSE.
- kolev 13y agoI still don't get Twitter!
- dangero 13y agoSerious question: Why does the Hacker News crowd seem to be so cynical about big tech IPOs? Considering for most startups this is the dream, why aren't there more congratulatory high fives? Is it just a case of jealousy? This IPO is going really well. The stock is being well received in the marketplace. I know twitter employees who just got rich are reading this, but can't comment due to SEC rules, so congrats Twitter peeps!
- Ologn 13y agoLet me tell you about a billion dollar company. The company is called Loudeye. It had a huge IPO party in Seattle with bands, a James Bond theme etc., gifts for each guest. The IPO price was $16, it soared the first day to $40. The market cap at the end of the day was $1.4 billion. They had 200 employees, $2.7 million in revenues, but had losses in the millions. They IPO'd in mid-March 2000. The tech market almost immediately began collapsing the next day. The founder used to give interviews during the so-called quiet period. A shareholder class action lawsuit argued the prospectus was false and misleading. They sold to Nokia for $60 million in 2006. $60 million, not $1400 million. I guess people remember the last time around when companies losing money instead of making money IPO'd. On an individual level, it's hard to predict if Twitter will do well or not, but on a general level it's safe to say that companies large enough to IPO are generally safer when they're making money as opposed to losing money.
- drpancake 13y agoIt's a hangover from the dot-com bubble.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Rimpinths 13y agoI think it's a bad sign when you see a company as dramatically overvalued as Twitter is. The primary function of stock markets is capital allocation, i.e. directing capital to companies that can provides the greatest return. When you see an IPO like TWTR today, that's not a sign of rational and efficient capital allocation; it's a sign of speculation gone wild. Why is this bad? It can cause a couple of negative effects: (1) Good companies that deserve the attention of investors may be starved of capital while billions of dollars gets directed to flashy overvalued companies. (2) If it turns out to be another bubble, investors will feel burned and they'll become more risk adverse in the future. Investors will be reluctant to provide capital to companies that can make good use of it. Twitter just made more money from selling stock than they have ever earned in revenue in their lifetime. Something is seriously wrong when companies start making more money from selling stock than they do from selling products or services.
- spot 13y agoi'm amazed google still uses flash for their stock graphs.
- deathanatos 13y agoHow does this work again? "Open" is 45.10, but the graph seems to show it as 46.00, the current price is 46.02, which is "+20.02, 77.00%"? I thought the +X (+Y%) was price-open ((price-open)/open %), but it is way not adding up here.
- steveklabnik 13y agoIt was offered at $26, but opened at 45, hence +20.
- vizzah 13y agoWhat's funny is that anyone with a bit of a forward thinking could have doubled their money today by buying TWTR Inc (which is not Twitter) trading for $0.03 with an identical symbol TWTR, but on another market exchange. As already happened several weeks before (after it was announced Twitter will be trading as 'TWTR'), the wrong stock exploded due to traders mistakenly placing their buy orders. It should have been perfectly safe to assume similar would happen on the IPO day. It went from $0.03 yesterday to $0.06 today for a while :) Just look at this graph over 1 month span: https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS:THEGQ https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS:THEGQ
- bigbang 13y agoIt's interesting how Google got it mixed up as well. All the news stories for the stock are for the 'real' Twitter.
- Kranar 13y agoNot really. First it's not sold on an exchange, it's only available over-the-counter, meaning very few brokerages are going to grant access to it. And even for those who do you can't just submit your order anytime you feel like it and get executed against, you have to apply to buy the shares and the brokerage has to find a market maker willing to facilitate the exchange, it can take days for a trade OTC to go through. Third, the volume for that stock is only 1.5 million shares a day, that's only 40,000 dollars worth of stock traded a day. To give perspective that's less than the average amount of Microsoft stock traded in a single second. So no... you really couldn't have done this strategy.
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoWell, I followed the link. This must be what non-programmers feel like when somebody links them to a GitHub repo.
- downandout 13y agoBottom line: this company is extremely overvalued at the moment. It may or may not grow into that valuation, but for the next several years, it will be nothing more than a speculative play. The fact that the company priced itself at a much lower valuation shows how irrational the current market value is.
- icebraining 13y agoIf you can't tell if it'll grow into the valuation, you can't really claim it's overvalued. The fact that you (or the company) don't see reasons to value it so high doesn't make it true. Besides, there's no reason to believe that Twitter itself choose the price based on their own valuation of the company.
- jscheel 13y agoMeaningless unless you were rich AND lucky enough to get into the actual IPO. All the retail investors that bought as fast as they could at $46 didn't really reap and benefits.
- koiz 13y agoI fear the day that the service decreases in quality. Hell bad dreams of Digg v4 flash into my mind when I saw how things went today. I wish twitter all the best but this IPO seems to be pushing their problems down a few years.
- ck2 13y agoTwitter now has the same stock worth as the international Kraft Foods corporation. I am not quite sure how that is possible.
- confluence 13y agoTWTR might've been good at a $8 billion cap, but at $25 billion+, investors are dreaming. It is unsustainable and entirely driven by artificial scarcity and hype. Stock markets can't price shit.
- headgasket 13y agoIn the weeks before the twtr IPO: NFLX off by 2B$. TSLA off by 4B FB of by 10B. It looks like investors reallocation to me; the type of investor that reallocate like this are more of the speculation breed than the buy and hold breed. I would not be surprised if TWTR is under original IPO price(26) by the end of next week, as it fails to inflate.
- Xasir 13y agoThis just a something short term. In couple of month this going to down..Without any solid revenue plan how they will move.. Now investors will ask them question for increasing the revenue same like facebook facing the issue.