Don't confuse me with the Kool Aid drinkers who fall in love with a stock and refuse to see anything but the positive.
I neither love nor hate this stock, I am agnostic. I am simply answering the original question as to why this stock is down today.
There are plenty of reasons why this would be down (or even up) in the LONG run. But I'm talking about a single day.
Because $ABX is a play on the price of gold, and because the DOW is up 254 points.
When the dow is down tomorrow, everyone will forget today, and ABX will be back up to (probably) past $13.50
1. If you read my prior posts, you would know I am agnostic, not short.
2. I attempted to post links to news stories on this subject, but Yahoo doesn't allow links. But the stories are out there.
3. You can read them for yourself if you just google the following articles:
4. If they were simply dropping users who were threatening violence that would be one thing. But to suppress users strictly for their political opinions is another.
5. You keep throwing around the words "libel" in relation to my comments. I would remind you that truth has always been a defense to libel, and (again) this is a story that's almost impossible to miss.
I don't know how closely you follow first amendment issues, so I don't know what (if any) 1A sites you visit, but this issue is being talked about a lot, especially since they announced the trust council.
Company insiders have confirmed to media sources that there's shadow banning going on; and the media has been hot on the trail of a number of cases of over-aggressive banning of conservative-leaning user.
You don't have to believe it, you don't have to like me talking about it, but it doesn't alter the fact that this is a very hot topic happening right now.
Again, twitter has the right to create whatever rules they want. It IS their property. But there are many 1A proponents such as myself who will not play by such rules.
If it were just about stopping ISIS supporters or stopping people who were promoting violence then I don't think anyone would have a problem.
But what from what we've seen so far, I don't know that it's going to be clear cut.
For example, one user was banned for complaining about the policy. Another was banned for discussing a controversy involving a video game, and a third was warned (but not yet banned) for expressing an opinion on a social subject popular among some of the more left-leaning political activists.
As I've said before, TWTR has the right to enact and control policies on their product. However, users also have the right to refuse to participate under those conditions.
I too canceled my twitter account after hearing about some of the abuses of this policy.
I'm a big fan of free speech, even unpopular speech, and even non-violent speech that I find offensive. What society gains from the free expression of ideas outweighs the desire of some to create a politically correct utopia.
I saw the story you're probably talking about, and I find it very disturbing.
For those who missed it, there has been a movement for some years toward taking ANY unpopular speech and labeling it as "hate speech". In the case of TWTR and their recent thought police committee, it's gone one step further because the classification and bans are not being limited to traditional hate speech, but are also starting to include simple differences in political opinion.
So... if you go on twitter and complain about the over-reach of the committee, that will (and has) resulted in a ban.
If you speak against popular liberal causes, or if someone comes forward and simply claims that they were offended by one of your political positions, that too could constitute "hate speech" and might result in a ban.
I happen to believe that the first amendment is there not only to protect my speech, but to protect the speech of those I disagree with. I am free because everyone is free.
So.... while a private corporation (twitter) is free to make any rules they want on their property (the twitter community), we are still approaching a time where everyone will be forced to decide if this is the sort of site we wish to support.
In many ways this is similar to the battle going on between Apple and the government over 4th amendment rights.
Both of these are important issues that will have long-lasting effects on the lives of many people.
CNBC has always been reactionary.
The see the direction a stock is going, and their commentary supports the move, whichever direction it will be.
When a stock soars, they love it, have always loved in, will always love it.
When a stock tanks, they hate it, have always hated, will always hate it.
This has been business as usual with them in years.
The only people more reactionary than them are the analysts, who will upgrade long after the pop and downgrade long after the collapse.
One thing worth considering this week...
On January 20th, shares of twitter spiked to $19 on the (now denied) rumor that NewCorp was sniffing at a buyout.
On that day, there was massive volume, probably a lot of it from shorts who had to cover at a loss.
Many of these shorts were locked out of shorting again for 30 days because of the wash rule.
That 30 days expires this Friday (Feb 19th)
To be fair, some think a stock will go up; some think a stock will go down. As long as you're not naked shorting, there's really no reason to assume that one side of a trade are 'criminals'.
Market makers will provide liquidity at whatever price the stock is trading at. Retail investors holding their shares really makes no difference
Also, even with options expiration, that still doesn't explain an 11% move with a lack of any other news. Normally on Friday you get SOME movement, but not this much.
And as far as shorts covering, without news there was (in my opinion) no other explanation for covering other than concerns that what was good for SQ might be in TWTR's future.
At the time the news came out on Friday, it was being interpreted (at least early on) as a NEW investment by VISA.
The reason (I think) it effected TWTR is because they share the same CEO, have suffered the same PPS collapse, and are facing similar challenges.
To me, that initially sent a signal that Jack was at least open to the idea of looking for investors/buyers, which means if he did it for SQ he could do it for TWTR.
Since this stock usually pops on rumors that there is a buyout, I think TWTR was up on Friday (in part) as a sympathetic movement based on the news out of SQ.
Later, as I first noted, it was pointed out that this was not a NEW investment by Visa in SQ, but one from a few years back; and that rather than it being a signal that Visa had confidence in SQ, instead is suggests that Visa is positioning themselves to be able to dump their SQ investment.
That is why, as I said, there is exposure for a short-term drop as people begin to digest the SQ news.
As I'm sure you know, TWTR is getting a sympathy trade based on the news of the interest in Square by Visa.
According to a CNBC story a few minutes ago, there's a twist to the SQ/Visa story...
1. It's not about a new purchase, it's reporting a purchase from (I think) 2013
2. The filing had to be made before Tuesday if Visa wanted to convert their shares.
3. Converting the shares is necessary to sell them.
Now... if TWTR today is not related to SQ, full speed ahead.
But if it is, watch out for a pullback.
Twitter just started their thought police group, which is designed to make twitter a safer and happier place.
But if you look at the members of the group, it's over-weighted with groups promoting a more liberal point of view.
The fear is that the broad definition of "hate speech" used by many in social media these days (which basically = anyone disagreeing with you) is going to create a situation where any opposition to a so-called liberal agenda is going to be cause for sanctions.
I know the feeling. I got trapped in a POS biotech. I'm sitting on an 80% unrealized loss. I'm not going to put any more money in to lower by cost basis, but I'm also not selling because the amount I still have to lose is so small in comparison to what it's down.
The good news is that I didn't put any real money into it, and I did it on a hail mary with the assumption that I was going to lose it all.
And I'm out. 1 day = 8.61%
I still think the short-term direction of TWTR is up (17 is a real possibility in the next week), but, to quote Mary Poppins.... enough is as good as a feast.
Pre-earnings I might agree with you, because it was fear of earning that was keeping the downward pressure going.
But now that earnings are out, there's a 1-2 month window where bad news isn't expected and dreams are allowed to take over.
Add to that the SQ news today, and it may be party over for the easy short on TWTR.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. And it it was 2 weeks ago I would have already been buying puts once it was up 5 pct.
But now that earnings are out and the price is holding (so far), I think we're closer to capitulation than we were, and the upside risk is a little too much.
Here's the point... Twitter has been a very good short play that many (including me) have taken several times. But eventually there will be a bottom. And when that happens, the shorts are going to get their tail feather burned.
Whether that bottom is now or later none of us really know. But I still feel we are closer to a bottom than to a top.
I'm looking at this in another way. I'm looking it this as more of a warning signal to shorts.
The fact that SQ worked out this deal means that Jack is at least WILLING to consider partnerships/buyouts/etc.
And, if he's willing to do it with SQ, he's willing to do it with TWTR.
It's a warning to shorts that they may wake up one day to see TWTR up 16 pct like SQ did this morning.