Here's a thought...instead of investing that $100 that your grandma gave you in TWTR, donate it to charity. You'll lose it either way...but at least you'll feel good about your #$%$ self and won't be made a fool of by sharing your non-sensical investment acumen on public message boards.
Seriously? There's a reason for that.
* FB had revenues of $12.5B over 10x more than TWTR's $1.4B in revenues
* FB had GAAP net income of $2.9B which was...can't calculate how much larger it was since TWTR's net income was a loss of $578M
* FB had free cash flow of $3.6B which...again...can't compare the scale since TWTR's FCF was negative $120M
The only question that you should be posing is how on earth does TWTR command an almost $34B market cap when it is profitless?
This: CNBC's Faber reported earlier that "There's no takeout talks, but there could be some kind of announcement, what it is, I don't know sorry to be vague". The manipulation continues...
The only events keeping this stock up is hope and hype...Periscope will add to MUAs, GOOG will purchase it, strategic partnership now (I'm assuming).
All this nonsense is to mask that there's waning user growth and it trades at a mind-numbing 137x 2015 earnings (FB, by comparison, is 42x) so that more insiders and funds can sell before earnings...
So would any takeout advances. Don't you think that interest would be larger when the company was trading at $35 in November/December and not $50 in April?
Seriously? Is this the long thesis for most bulls here? A buy out? Btw...AOL is a $3B company...TWTR is $32B. It makes absolutely no sense.
Speaking of not making sense. Google would never buy TWTR. Ever. Never ever.
TWTR is expected to generate $3.6B in revenues in 2016. It would cost Google at least $40B (with premium) to acquire them. $40B for $3.6B in revenues? No chance.
If Google buys anyone, it would be GoPro. GPRO is expected to have $2.0B of revenues in 2016 but has a current market cap of $5B. With a premium, it would cost Google less than $8B to buy $2.0B of revenues. Moreover, Google could integrate a live streaming GoPro video experience into YouTube.
Shouldn't you be checking out Ultimate Stock Alerts or something...?
Hey how about giving us one reason - just one - that counters anything that I wrote in the original post...
High? High is the guy that thinks its going to $200 per share.
$200 is completely unrealistic! It can't hold $50 because user growth is waning, it faces tough user comps year-over-year since no Olympics and World Cup this year, its not expected to be profitable until 2017, its stock based comp expenses are accelerating up to $750M and insiders are selling en masse.
* 4Q GAAP net income NEGATIVE $125M
* 2014 GAAP net income NEGATIVE $578M
* 4Q Free cash flow NEGATIVE $25M
* 2014 Free cash flow NEGATIVE $120M
* 2014 Stock-based compensation expense $632M (employees granted $632M in shares and investors ate a $578M loss in 2014 as a result)
* 2015 Stock-based compensation expense guided to $700-750M while STILL profitless
* Only 4M new users added between 3Q and 4Q compared to 13M added between 2Q and 3Q
* Comps will get even tougher as NO Winter Olympics boost this year in first quarter then NO World Cup in second and third quarters
* Last weeks' Oscar broadcast portends TWTR's user engagement struggles in 2015 as interactions DOWN 6.5% from last year while FB saw huge annual increases (user engagement up 86% and user interaction up 128%)
* Valuation based on 2016 stats:
**TWTR revenue growth 52%, FB revenues growth 32% (TWTR growing 62% faster) BUT TWTR P/E = 61x, FB = 31x (TWTR is 97% more expensive). TWTR will still not be profitable by 2016, is struggling with user growth and engagement yet the market is pricing in a significant premium to its larger, profitable and more popular peer...WHY?
I've saved the best for last:
* Recent insider DIRECT sales (not option related):
** Two weeks BEFORE 4Q release (Jan 22 to Feb 3) = ~$18M
** Two weeks AFTER 4Q release (Feb 6 to Feb 20) = ~$41M
Insider sales are accelerating....
Ha. Watch out everyone...its the "long TWTR" police!
Is this better: TWTR will be bought by Google for $8 gazillion per share! Yay!
Can I please stay and post now?
Just how is it "embarrassing and sad" to highlight a report on a publicly traded company from a very respected organization like Re/code on an investor forum?
If direct insider sales of over $100M since January 6, 2015 were not enough to convince investors that something may be amiss at TWTR then perhaps the most recent datapoint highlighting further user engagement struggles at the company should raise more concern.
A recent Re/code article showed the disconnect in user engagement between TWTR and FB at this years' Academy Awards broadcast.
According to Re/code, TWTR had 13.0M user interactions representing a DECLINE of 6.5% from last years' 13.9M interactions. FB - on the other hand - had 21M users engaging in 58M interactions compared to 11.3M users and 21.4M interactions during last years' broadcast. That's a year-over-year improvement of 86% on the number of users and 128% on the amount of interactions.
Investors brazenly ignored a significant slow-down in user growth in 4Q, perhaps this recent stat on decelerating user engagement on TWTR, combined with the increasing level of direct insider sales, will warrant a little more investor scrutiny.
I saw that silly segment as well. I think that Sternberg simply prides himself on knowing, utilizing and extolling the latest craze as a way to demonstrate his tech savvy.
Advertising on the 200M user SnapChat - that gained popularity among grade school/high school/college students for conveniently deleting d*ck pics - seems like a poor business decision in the long run. Then recommending that the other social media companies change their models to compete effectively is absurd.
They're all variations of the same stupid thing! One service connects friends and family, another allows you to follow key public figures who post in 140 characters or less and one doesn't store messages or pics (publicly at least). In the end, its all about connecting people and keeping them engaged so that advertisers can attempt to sell their wares. To wit, the clear leader in this remains Facebook. To imply that it should change its business model to compete with the latest fad is wrought with stupidity.
With respect to Dorsey's stock sales...I too have been hearing rumors that the Chairman of Twitter sold $109M worth of shares. I couldn't confirm that amount but did find that he sold 327,715 shares (about $14-15M) between January 9 and February 6.
Additionally CEO #$%$ Costolo sold $25M worth since November 2014.