4 ms·

The article feels like a slam against them. > Twitter reported a ... 7% fall in timeline views per user > -a 23% growth in its user base in the third quarter.

by bdg 12y ago

The article feels like a slam against them. > Twitter reported a ... 7% fall in timeline views per user > -a 23% growth in its user base in the third quarter. ... I can't tell if that's a net volume increase or decrease. > Twitter shares gave up most of the 7% gain made on Wednesday If this is relevant to you, you're a day trader, and this would be very old news by this point. This is misleading as they're talking about the day-to-day price right next to the percent change over the year. > Its shares have lost 37% so far this year. That's not true. http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&ei=afBlVNPuCsXmrQGA94CQDg http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&ei=afBlVNPuCsXmr... They're down 3.87% (1.61 points) from IPO to now (less than 12 months). Even if I was confused and picked their performance as a "year to date" it would be 23% down. However, if I cherry pick my data and find the high point from the short-lived spike at a very specific date 10 months ago (not a year), their shares have fallen about 33%. I'm sure it was cherry picked for when "today" was also. Basically. I think this is biased junk or a financially literate reporter. Frustratingly, I can't find the report on S&P's site. http://www.standardandpoors.com/en_US/web/guest/ratings/search/-/search/searchType/T/searchTerm/twtr?searchText=twtr http://www.standardandpoors.com/en_US/web/guest/ratings/sear... After some digging into actual financial news outlets we can discover this is actually an unsolicited rating which are famous for being poorly rated. http://www.streetinsider.com/Credit+Ratings/S%26P+Assigns+Unsolicited+BB-+Rating+to+Twitter+(TWTR)%3B+Sees+Ongoing+Growth+in+MAUs,+Revenue/10011143.html http://www.streetinsider.com/Credit+Ratings/S%26P+Assigns+Un...

jacquesm 12y ago
> Its shares have lost 37% so far this year. I think they simply meant 2014, and then it is more or less accurate. Jan 1st to now is not a pretty comparison. Whichever way you interpret the figures they definitely not look good.
- bdg 12y ago
  What did you think of the Visa IPO one year on?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I don't think it is either good or bad, I think they should go their merry way but once you IPO you're putting yourself in an aquarium and this sort of thing is to be expected (assuming that the motives of this agency are pure, which is definitely not a given). As I commented elsewhere in this thread I think it is ridiculous that a company can be taken to task about investing 12 months after an IPO but we're living in a pretty weird world where you're supposed to see your stock go 'up' every quarter or you're doing wrong in the eyes of the market. It's all perception and very little substance. Comparing twitter with Visa is a bit of a stretch I think.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Their share price is nearly irrelevant to success since they can easily raise money through debt. They went to markets asking for 1.3 billion and offering nothing in return and the market said "why not 1.8?" If they were raising money through secondary equity offerings the their share price would matter. This debt rating also doesn't matter except to the chumps who own the debt. Twitter already has the money in the bank and 1.8 billion is a substantial amount of capital any way you look at it.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Oh, absolutely. There is no substance here, but it looks bad, and in the stockmarket that's really all that matters. That's why you can have CEOs from companies with solid fundamentals ousted when the company has two bad quarters in a row. It's a ridiculous system that focuses on the short term only. Twitter raised money with the express intent of investing it, not to hoard it.
kgwgk 12y ago
> Even if I was confused and picked their performance as a "year to date" it would be 23% down. You seem indeed confused. "Year to date" is the only reasonable way to understand "so far this year" and the stock is down $23 (37%). From the all-time high closing price, it has lost $33 (45%). > Basically. I think this is biased junk or a financially literate reporter. I guess you meant illiterate, but actually you got it right...

by bdg 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> Its shares have lost 37% so far this year. I think they simply meant 2014, and then it is more or less accurate. Jan 1st to now is not a pretty comparison. Whichever way you interpret the figures they definitely not look good.

bdg 12y ago
What did you think of the Visa IPO one year on?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I don't think it is either good or bad, I think they should go their merry way but once you IPO you're putting yourself in an aquarium and this sort of thing is to be expected (assuming that the motives of this agency are pure, which is definitely not a given). As I commented elsewhere in this thread I think it is ridiculous that a company can be taken to task about investing 12 months after an IPO but we're living in a pretty weird world where you're supposed to see your stock go 'up' every quarter or you're doing wrong in the eyes of the market. It's all perception and very little substance. Comparing twitter with Visa is a bit of a stretch I think.
thrownaway2424 12y ago
Their share price is nearly irrelevant to success since they can easily raise money through debt. They went to markets asking for 1.3 billion and offering nothing in return and the market said "why not 1.8?" If they were raising money through secondary equity offerings the their share price would matter. This debt rating also doesn't matter except to the chumps who own the debt. Twitter already has the money in the bank and 1.8 billion is a substantial amount of capital any way you look at it.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Oh, absolutely. There is no substance here, but it looks bad, and in the stockmarket that's really all that matters. That's why you can have CEOs from companies with solid fundamentals ousted when the company has two bad quarters in a row. It's a ridiculous system that focuses on the short term only. Twitter raised money with the express intent of investing it, not to hoard it.

kgwgk 12y ago

> Even if I was confused and picked their performance as a "year to date" it would be 23% down. You seem indeed confused. "Year to date" is the only reasonable way to understand "so far this year" and the stock is down $23 (37%). From the all-time high closing price, it has lost $33 (45%). > Basically. I think this is biased junk or a financially literate reporter. I guess you meant illiterate, but actually you got it right...