Anyone following the stock market and what the folks at reddit are doing?

Well, to clear one small thing up, eli lily's profits come from things other than it's stock price...

The stock price does have a financial impact on them, but not nearly as directly as profits. And if the price change is temporary, it probably doesn't impact them at all. 

Any idiot who sees a tweet that is unbelievable and then believes it with zero other corroboration, is, well, just that. An idiot. We do seem to have quite a few of them playing with lots of money in the stock market right now. 

One more thought, perhaps the stock price drop is only coincidental with the tweet. Do we all really believe one single tweet causes a massive selloff? To me that is similarly unbelievable and we should treat the assertion with skepticism. 

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Well, to clear one small thing up, eli lily's profits come from things other than it's stock price...

The stock price does have a financial impact on them, but not nearly as directly as profits. And if the price change is temporary, it probably doesn't impact them at all. 

Any idiot who sees a tweet that is unbelievable and then believes it with zero other corroboration, is, well, just that. An idiot. We do seem to have quite a few of them playing with lots of money in the stock market right now. 

One more thought, perhaps the stock price drop is only coincidental with the tweet. Do we all really believe one single tweet causes a massive selloff? To me that is similarly unbelievable and we should treat the assertion with skepticism. 

 

Unfortunately it is believable whenever Musk post a tweet and it gets all the attention that helps increase his wealth even further via Tesla, Twitter and his crypto investments. 

How much are Elon's crypto investments worth now ?

He probably got in early enough  that he lost potential gains but not initial investment.

but that could be a separate thread......

Mr_Asa said:

aircooled said:

I find it pretty sad that any stock analysts would use Twitter as a source of company information with no concept of what is going on with Twitter now.  I don't see why Musk would suffer any consequences, the new rules have clearly been released to users, and he likely did not create that tweet.

The "new rules" have changed on an almost hourly basis since Musk took control.  Musk has a history of manipulating stock prices.  It was his decision to implement a new standard, then go back and forth on how it was to actually be implemented.  Announcing a new standard, rolling it out in phases, and allowing people to get used to the idea of how it works would have avoided any hint of this; however Musk seems to have wanted change for change's sake.

If he isn't responsible for this, who is?  Certainly not the person who put out the tweet, parody is still very much protected under the 1st Amendment.

All the reason you state are exactly why any marginally intelligent and aware person would not rely on twitter for sound investment information right now.

As noted, I feel very confident the SEC will be looking into who posted this and if they had any relevant investment.  I suspect not, but with the pay version of the Blue Check (what caused all this drama), unless this person paid with crytpo (yet another example of why it can be bad) there is likely a money trail, which was probably part of the point of the "pay to play".

It also should be noted that the primary motivation for the s-show that Twitter currently is (I think it can be reasonably said it's always been a bit of a s-show) is the personal hatred some have for Musk, specifically active member of Twitter.  It should also be noted that the active members of twitter (as in posting and being read) represent a very small percentage of the Twitter population (and a very very small percentage of the US population) and have very outsized power on the platform (and tend to be very "echo chambery")... which had a lot to do with why Musk was so interested in "fixing" it... so they are kind of proving his point   (at HUGE cost to him of course)

aircooled said:

It also should be noted that the primary motivation for the s-show that Twitter currently is [...]the personal hatred some have for Musk, specifically active member of Twitter.  

Seems like a weird take. Are you really saying that the site is a E36 M3show because a segment of users don't like Musk?

It seems pretty obvious that it's a E36 M3show because musk overpaid by maybe $44 per share and is trying to change the rules/features to create cashflow to support the higher valuation.

I am referring to the recent s-show since Musk got involved, with the quite active attempts to disrupt the site or create issues because of the changes and likely simply the presence of Musk.  The event noted by the OP is likely a prime example (if they didn't do it for stock manipulation).  Most of which seem more as an anarchistic style attack then a honest attempt to help make it better.  It's a sort of cancel mob mentality, which seems pretty on brand for the Twitter verse really. 

The s-show that Twitter is as a company has almost nothing to do with Musk, he just way overpaid for a sh%t company that has been a huge money pit for a long time (and apparently has some pretty serious structural issues, e.g. bots).  In order to make Twitter actually viable as a company, there has to be changes.

Note: not a Twitter user or fan at all, just what I am seeing in the news and places like Reddit. If it disappeared tomorrow, I couldn't care less.

I do not know if the new Check Mark rules required verification or just money.  If it was just money, then it was critically flawed.  The ability to impersonate people/accounts has always been there apparently and honestly has always been an issue (e.g. many people with celebrity named accounts)

In reply to aircooled :

I think you may be drastically misinformed about how Twitter worked before Musk?  The ability to impersonate people or companies has not always been there specifically because most (if not all) of the people worth impersonating were verified as an official account.  Thats literally the basis of the stock dropping.

As for it being an anarchist attack, or some sort of cancel mob thing, no.  It was someone showing how the changes to the system made the system worse, not better.  Musk should have predicted this as he is from silicon valley and adheres pretty strongly to the "move fast, break things" ethos inherent within silicon valley.

Well, he moved fast, and then things broke.  There's nothing malicious about this, its how it works when you don't beta test your ideas

aircooled said:

The s-show that Twitter is as a company has almost nothing to do with Musk, he just way overpaid for a sh%t company that has been a huge money pit for a long time (and apparently has some pretty serious structural issues, e.g. bots).  In order to make Twitter actually viable as a company, there has to be changes.

All of this is nonsense. What media did you consume that told you the preceding was true?

OK, I will explain my perspective.  You (and whatever media you consume) can feel free to disagree. 

Note: the "impersonation" I was referring to was not check mark impersonation (that is clearly new) but the ability to have accounts that appear to be from other people (thus the need for so many "theReal..." celebrity accounts)

Twitter started in 2006, but did not really become big until 08-10. It went public in late 2013 (so no way to know it's finances before that almost certain very negative, but that is understandable).  From an analysis of the IPO:

Revenue: Twitter generates almost all its revenue from advertising, through products like promoted tweets and promoted trending topics. The company has generated $422 million in revenue so far in 2013, and is expected to generate almost $1 billion in revenue next year.

Profits: Twitter has none. The company posted a net loss of $134 million in the first nine months of 2013. Analysts don’t anticipate profits from Twitter until 2015, according to Bloomberg. This makes the company’s IPO markedly different from those of Google and Facebook, two companies that were already profitable when they went public.

https://business.time.com/2013/11/07/live-updates-twitter-goes-public/

As you can see from the profit chart below, that clearly did not happen (.5 billion loss in 2015!).  Ah, but 2018 and 2019, those where banner years clearly.   A lot of that seems to be the result of one man.... and it wasn't the CEO of twitter lets just say, and most will say it was not a "positive" development (essentially why they made money of course). Obviously a huge dive in 2020 (almost erasing the previous 2 years).  2020 should have been a good year with everyone stuck on their computer and phone, but, that one man was no longer there....    2021, it appears to be on it's old, loosing, trend.  

As noted above, Twitter primary revenue is advertising, much like a newspaper.  The reason they can sell adds is because they tell advertiser those add will be seen by X number of people (being able to target more then a paper I am sure).  Well, if it is discovered that an number of those "subscribers" don't actually exists, that will change the math and certainly affect the confidence advertisers have.   I don't know exactly when the bots/fake accounts thing reached prominence, but it's clearly an issue that is of great concern for an advertising / subscription based business.

It seems like a low overhead business.  I mean, they don't really create much of anything other then some form of data software.  I can only guess they must have very high internal expenses.  I am sure some of that is at least a lot of content monitoring.

Add to that the attempts at political manipulation both as part of the user (bot) base as well as from within the company.  Hard to say what effect that has on profit, but it degrades general confidence.

Stack on top of that the general social / psychological damage social media has done and actively amplified for profit.  Probably not a huge business hit, but I personally am not a fan of that.

You may feel it's a great business model to invest in, but I do not.  I think it's crap, as a business and a "public service"

https://www.netcials.com/financial-net-profit-year-quarter-usa/1418091-TWITTER-INC/

In reply to aircooled :

Well, just from your last chart there, Twitter has about 12x the "annual profit potential" of AMC, and in the lifetime of the company has lost less than AMC lost in one single year (even excluding the 2.5B plus of profit in those two years).

In an ideal case, Twitter could make back it's total current liabilities and get back to the green in 1-2 years. AMC's ideal is unlikely to get there in less than 50.

Soooo, it would seem that any rational actor willing to buy AMC stock should be buying Twitter hand over fist. Right?

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Except people aren't buying AMC because they think the company is going to do well, they bought it because they realized that like GameStop, Wall Street firms had overshorted it by a multiple of total shares. They are buying and holding until those shares are due back to the OG owners where they can extract pounds of flesh from the firms for their worthless shares. 

There's hints of "Organized mob rule cancel culture" whatever with the impersonation on twitter, but most of it is people realizing they can have a really good laugh really fast.

It's also because many realize, that twitter isn't a place that should have ever been taken seriously (despite many like the media, doing so) so they're rebelling via a biblical amount of E36 M3posting.

So, where's the foolish money being played?  >20% slide in CS. I'm expecting a bounce now before it gets worse. I placed a couple hundred bet just out of FOMO. Moving back up so far in premarket.

...and down. So I put another buy in for when it hits $1.75. It's going to bounce. Really.

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

Someone's gotta have faith :)

I wouldn't put any faith in the banking system, and I think the chance to make a quick buck on regional banks has passed. Maybe that opportunity is yet to come on the larger banks.

Money in, out at $2.19. Hodling 50 'free' shares till Friday to see what the Swisses do.

Edit. Wow, out of the remaining 50 @ $2.37. Not wanting to keep that sketchy E36 M3 overnight like that. Maybe go big (a small big) in the morning if it bottoms out again at open.

For Anybody still in keeping track, GameStop reported positive earnings today for the first time in 2 years. Stock traded>50% higher after hours. None of the core demographic is selling. Still nearly impossible that any significant number of prior shorts have closed. :)

classicJackets (FS) said:

For Anybody still in keeping track, GameStop reported positive earnings today for the first time in 2 years. Stock traded>50% higher after hours. None of the core demographic is selling. Still nearly impossible that any significant number of prior shorts have closed. :)

That's awesome, I hope there's enough shorts that the squeeze works. I'm out of GME now, just went back in on TSLA this morning for a few $ rise.

Ouch...

The market liked the quarter basis point increase until it didn't