it's unfortunate that your apparently sound mind is fogged by your anger and resentment. Chill out, stop calling me or others names, open your ears, listen to another point of view. If you disagree, great. I don't think you're stupid, but I disagree with you because I believe you are missing one thing. Let me give you an example:
I worked in Marketing for a major beverage company. It was 1987. It was the The Director of Cola's Birthday. So we got her a male police officer stripper. Everyone gathered around her glass office -- he went in under some ruse, jumped on her desk and stripped. It was the talk of the office for months.
How many lawsuits would rage today, if the same thing were done? How have attitudes changed, matured, role and rights of women, sexual harrassment, I can go on and on.
YOu see, Optionstrading 77, times change, attitudes and norms change. What constitutes a cry of "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is changing. Technology (and cultural maturity) are equivalizing men and women, the races, "smart" and "dumb" money, the masses with the wealthy. There has been a wall of influence, relationships, information, comraderie, collusion on wall street since the beginning. It's slowly unraveling because the privilege of education is no longer reserved for the privileged.
Cramer cannot both teach the masses and take such strong, emotional, pumping positions. I'm not assigning motivation. I don't claim to know. In the end, many, many people buy and sell on his heated rhetoric, not for the right reasons, and they lose a lot. Let's look at the law, see how it operates in today's context, and figure out if this is breaking the law, in today's fairer, more equivalized world.
I wish you luck in your investing, hope you will consider a different point of view, without the disparaging or name calling, although that last part is entirely up to you.
Fast Money and then Cramer -- unbelievable. I have no position this time. Have, at times, been long or short, as a trade. But this, what they did today, was completely, utterly ridiculous.
It is when you pas it on to an audience of millions:
1.within the context of a strong, emotional recommendation
2.who are loyal to you and act aregularly upon your recommendations.
He has inside information, he claims, that he is ACTING UPON by sharing it with these millions of people within the aforementioned context with the EXPRESS, STATED GOAL OF INFLUENCING RETAIL INVESTOR SENTIMENT AND ULTIMATELY, PURCHASES.
You guys are wrong, this was way outside the legal and ethical bounds -- well defined with precedent. You'll see.
Cramer just said, "I hear the quarter is going to be strong," within the context of his strong recommendation of Twitter. Hearing such info is not a violation of insider laws, but acting upon it is. He acted upon it by broadcasting what he "heard" to millions of fans whom he not only influences (in terms of their buying and selling of securities), but has made a cottage industry out of it.
He crossed the line, within the context of the presentation he was making, several times. I can't believe it passed review, or someone turned to get a cup of coffee and missed it. There will be ramifications, no way his performance/statements tonight stand in terms of influencing the price of security versus being a pundit. Way, way over the line, I believe, in several standard, accepted ways. Wondering if any attorneys seeing, this, or saw the segment?
Lesserfool, sorry -- you posted to me a couple of months ago. I wasn't around, wasn't watching and missed your post.
What a huge drop. I'll read up and maybe listen to the call this weekend. Saw it was pretty bad. But with a drop of this magnitude, a short term trade to capture some recovery --
Cowen and Company --
I think Twitter’s a short here. I don’t like the stock at all.
They don’t have the ability to grow their user base like FB does.
It’s a complicated model, I don’t think It’s user friendly, and it’s probably getting a little bit of a premium here.
The parternship with Googl is great. It’s actually better for GOOGL than it is for Twitter, but at the end of the day, I’d be long FB and short Twitter, because I think Twitter is overvalued here.
But not to a Company that just spiked to the point where capitalization matches perceived potential. There will need to be more, clearer, for the next leg up. In the meantime, it will get chipped away with a few probable downdrafts, which is why I'm naintaingin the same small short position I had a few weeks ago. I spoke then about TWTR bumping up against 48.75. It can't seem to go any further. 44 will be seen before 50 now, unless there is a concrete catalyst.
The point was made that Twitter shouldn't be looked at in terms of P/E Multiple. Its value should be pegged to what it's worth will be 10 or 20 years from now.
I can understand the logic. When you have a product or service that didn't exist before, it's new and forming -- you can't really use today's earning power as the guauge for what will be. I'm on board with this. Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, even Whatapp all fall into this Category.
So I"m on board with that portion of the argument (truly, not tongue in cheek). Where it falls out of bed for me -- I've been around for a long time. Even back in the 80's and 90's, technological or other innovations that today seem ancient (and are long gone), seemed then like the end-all - that they would be around forever. It's human nature.
Fast forward to 2015. We are undergoing the fastest technological change in the history of humankind. just look at the past six months, or year!! So much faster than back then! The ubiquity of communication platforms, the technology to support them and the entrepreneurs to make it happen are becoming commonplace. How can one therefore reasonably base Twitter's value today on the possibilities of what it will be worth 10 or 20 years from now? What will change between now and then is staggering, beyond our imaginations. Truly. It's a very flawed argument and you all be careful of running off the mountain.
The simplicity and constraint of this medium (Dorsey's words) are inconsistent with future earnings driven by vast advertising revenues.
That's my long term call, despite how nifty Twitter is.
Shorter term, the hype will deflate. There is tremendous pressure among the pundits, analysts and others in the investment community to conform. Facebook is a much deeper, more comprehensive platform that offers numerous opportunities to morph and grow. Twitter's constraint, by its very nature, precludes this.
Disclosure -- I maintain a small short position (a trade) because of these reasons and several more that are very compelling -- not only about the situation, but about how perception has been managed here.
I think that was a negative, not a positive. They were speaking about this in the context of whether or now we are approaching another bubble. TWTR sentiment has gone completely bonzo, based upon potential that is unclear at best. The pumping that's gone on over the past ten days -- the sheer number of mentions, blogs, how even CRAMER's prediction is pinned up this morning on the Yahoo Finance page, this is not only extraordinary, it's outrageous. This, at the same time the founder is completely cashing in -- look at Feb 4 - Feb 6 Dorsey. This is totally outrageous. I never believed somethign like this could happen in 2015. The power of groupthink, the ability of a few to lead sentiment and whip up frenzy for the "passion of possibility" is just outrageous, again, what's happened here. You'll see.
He said Twitter and FB are going to have to adjust their models -- figure out a way to make it worthwhile for us to put our content out there, and to reap ad revenue, because there are more fertile fields.
Steinberg is a major media buyer.
In addition to this, I have never, ever seen a pump like I have the past week for Twitter, combined wiht the insider selling by Dorsey -- 109 million shares? Is that true? If yes, I don't understand how this can escape the scrutiny of the SEC -- Basically the largest investor PR campaign I've seen in about 15 years (hmmmmm, that was 2000) while the founder sells out en masse. Isn't that the very definition of pump and dump, no matter what the nature of the connections between them?
I think they're gone. The numbers just don't meet.
It will be disruptive at first, positive in the long run, possibly for all.
Shocking, I know.
Markets are going to be down tomorrow. Futures red now, money seems to be flowing into the Dollar. Euro/Dollar sinking again, .5% in the past hour or so.
The article I refer to is by Forbes
5 Essential New Apps: Musikki, Nokia HERE & More
published today on Yahoo at 11:04 a.m.
Which article are you referring to, or can you show us where this article was published on Yahoo Finance on Friday?
Re Android Upgrade
Suprised didn't make it onto NOK's Headlines on Yahoo, but probably will. TWTR is mentioned, so go to TWTR summary page, you'll see the article.
Never, ever seen such a well coordinated PR thrust -- right down to the message boards -- coinciding with earnings. Bravo. Ridiculous.