• Zellith
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Maybe the old Twitter execs will buy it for that price. Musk should ask. Lol

      • ijeffOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Even then, there’s not much to buy given Musk fired all the talent.

      • YⓄ乙
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Yea…Parag is a badass. Musk was trying to weasel out of the deal but Parag made him buy it and to make the deal even better, Parag got fired, which gave him millions of dollars for free (golden parachute).

  • TacoTroubles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    If it keeps trajectory ill be able to afford the whole of twitter

    • @Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      851 year ago

      I’d guess that $19 billion is the value where if someone bought it and did their best to undo everything and get it back on track, that’s how much it would be worth.

      The problem with measuring value is you have to quantify what that $19 billion actually is. Like you could say it’s the share price times the number of shares, except now twitter is privately owned we don’t have a market share price anymore.

      • @TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        281 year ago

        Theoretically what someone would pay for it. The buyer always has plans to make it better.

        Or the textbook definition, the present value of the sum of all future profits.

        • @Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          171 year ago

          The buyer always has plans to make it better.

          That’s an interesting claim to make, especially on this post 😄

          • assa123
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Indeed very interesting. It is a fundamental principle of finance: Investors seek to maximize utility, but this is under the axiom of complete rationality. And even if that condition is met (which I doubt), the utility function of money is not concave at all levels, for example leftmost of the graph, before the price of food. I think that after some point, utility becomes flat and Musk is way beyond that point. Additionally he seems to be a risk loving investor, not a risk averse.

    • @_dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Yeah it’s never going to be called just “X”, it’s always going to be “X, formerly twitter”.

      Just like Prince the whole time he changed his name to that symbol.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Prince wanted people to call him Prince. He changed his name to that symbol to get out of a shitty contract with Warner Bros.

        “Warner Bros took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing took to promote all of the music I wrote,” Prince once said in a press release. “The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.”

        https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36107590

        Elon changed Twitter to X because he’s a babyman who never got over the fact that PayPal didn’t like the name.

    • @Wermhatswormhat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      I wonder if that’s a portion of why it’s devalued so much. I mean I know there’s a dozen or more other reasons but brand recognition could very well be one of them.

      • @Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        301 year ago

        Take a look at their user data over the past year with the name change date in mind.

        It’s is absolutely ASTONISHING how fucking moronic and empty headed Elon Musk is. A literal idiot with all the money.

        • @Redscare867@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          Boy are you going to have a real egg on your face whenever X becomes a successful blogging/dating/banking/investing app \s

    • Fogle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      They surely still own the twitter name right

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        Can any trademark lawyer in the audience tell us how long before, if Musk lets the trademark lapse, some rando could come along and make a Twitter clone while literally just calling it “Twitter?”

        • @Deiv@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          141 year ago

          Meta is being told to drop the “Threads” name, it would be hilarious if they changed it to “Twitter”

  • TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    Is that before or after you factor in the $13 billion debt it took on to buy itself on Musk’s behalf?

  • Th4tGuyII
    link
    fedilink
    47
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Makes sense.

    Almost immediately after buying it, Elon enshittified the site - and not only that, but changed it’s branding from one of the most recognisable names/logos in the world to a fucking “X” (almost always suffixed with “formerly Twitter” so people actually remember what the fuck it is)

    • Encrypt-Keeper
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not even a unique X. The exact X they’re using as a logo already exists as a Unicode character 𝕏

      • Th4tGuyII
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Wow, that makes it even worse. Couldn’t even be bothered to pay someone to make a logo, just stole it from Unicode

    • @meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      451 year ago

      almost always suffixed with “formerly Twitter” so people actually remember what the fuck it is

      This continues to bring me such joy.

  • @netwren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    Is this just part of the playbook for him to not have to pay taxes by saying he lost all his money??

    • Traister101
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most of his money is in Tesla stock, seeing how that’s been going Twitter X will be the last of his money, rather sad huh?

      • @netwren@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Not even in this slightest is that sad. The economy correcting for the wrong person having massive wealth.

  • @Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    761 year ago

    To put this in perspective, they lost an average of $2B per month in value. According to HUD, there were about 582,000 homeless people in the US last year. $2B per month is enough to house all of them nearly 4 times over if you assume $1k per month in housing expenses.

    What a monumental waste of resources that could have made a difference. Musk just sucks

    • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      431 year ago

      It’s not real money, though. It’s all just speculative value based on estimates of future revenue.

      The real barrier to ending homelessness is the large number of real estate vacancies that are held open to prop up the price of the housing market. Twitter’s lost value has nothing to do with that.

      • @timetraveller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        all the people that imagine their home prices are as high as they are, will fight tooth and nail to prevent this. the empty house market is crazy, just look on a “social home sharing site”. houses are hotels for the few.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          As someone who sees my property tax bill jump 10% / year, I have no interest in rising real estate prices. I’m not selling any time soon and I use my house to live in rather than to invest.

      • @Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        You’ve missed the mark on two counts:

        1. Musk raised $44B of real money to buy Twitter and bring it into private ownership. I’m saying had he just left well enough alone, he could have used that money for other purposes
        2. Your point on adding more supply to the real estate market to prop up prices is the opposite of Econ 101 - more supply, all things equal, will reduce prices. Mental health is a much larger barrier to receiving help for the homeless.

        I used to volunteer weekly with homeless and housing insecure people in Philadelphia and untreated mental health or substance abuse was an issue for many. There are also barriers to receiving government aid that would assist them because many programs require an address or the process is unnecessarily complicated.

        Housing is just one step. They would also require a great deal of counseling, job training, and medical attention to reintegration into society. Anyway, my point was simply to illustrate what a magnificent waste of resources it was to buy Twitter.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Musk raised $44B of real money to buy Twitter

          He raised $20B by using his own (highly inflated) Tesla stock as collateral. So this wasn’t new money, it was a swap. He covered the balance with Twitter’s own equity as collateral (which is a big reason why he’s been so cavalier with its devaluation). This new money was effectively just to keep a business in the red from running out of operating income.

          more supply, all things equal, will reduce prices.

          Not under a cartel. And real estate markets are increasingly cartelized, with large vacancies kept off the market clearing rate in order to prop up the book value of the rest of the market.

          untreated mental health or substance abuse was an issue for many. There are also barriers to receiving government aid that would assist them because many programs require an address or the process is unnecessarily complicated.

          Which creates a vicious cycle, sure. But the solution is to reclaim vacant real estate from speculators and use it as real housing.

          Building more investment properties and vacant luxury units to increase book value of real estate does nothing to reduce homelessness.

          Housing is just one step. They would also require a great deal of counseling, job training, and medical attention to reintegration into society.

          All services that are best delivered to housed populations. What’s more, they’re services with a universal application. You don’t just need to be homeless to benefit from professional counseling, education, and public health care.

          But, again, sky high real estate costs make these services prohibitively expensive to expand into neighborhoods.

          Delivering these services at cost requires local governments to reclaim vacant real estate kept open at above market clearance rates and turning it over to public sector service providers.

      • @tias@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is no “real” money. It’s all speculative based on what value people assign to it. For example, you may have noticed that the US dollar has become worth significantly less in recent years. Shares and fiat currency just have different volatility.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          The US dollar has outpaced nearly every other global currency. Five years ago you’d get 100 yen to the dollar. Now you get 150.

          But cartelization of the supply chain means we don’t get to see the benefits of low import prices. The difference all goes to business profit, while real increases in material and labor get passed on to the consumer.

          Netflix buys anime for pennies on the dollar and sells it back at escalating rates. They spend less and we pay more.

          • @tias@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            The US dollar was just an example so this discussion is tangential to the point I was trying to make. That said, your argument does not support an increasing value of the dollar - it only says it has increased in value relative to other currencies. But I’m sure you know that inflation has been staggeringly high which means you get less food on the table for a dollar, and salaries have not been keeping up.

            Or put in other words, if you were to invest in US dollars instead of shares then you would have seen the value of your portfolio going down, in terms of what it can get you at Costco.

            • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              That said, your argument does not support an increasing value of the dollar

              Increase in exchange value means the cost of imports fall.

      • Black616Angel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But the 44B was payed, so they do/did exist. Now he could have just NOT bought twitter and spent half of this money on the poor et voilà no more homeless for at least 4 years.

        But you are right with the rest.

    • @radix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      This is like your neighbor gifting you their child’s drawing and saying it’s worth $100.

      Without somebody actually buying at that price, it’s just a made up number.

      • Kale
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        There are methodical ways of valuating a private (and public) company. Some are pessimistic and some are wildly optimistic. Your can legally use whichever one you want, only you must only use that valuation method for everything. It’s illegal to value the company low for taxes and high for loan collateral. And if you sell it, you can owe back taxes if your valuation was off (sale price is the new valuation).

        This is overly-simplified US accounting rules (from finance class 10 years ago)

  • @quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -51 year ago

    Hadn’t it already massively dropped in value before the purchase was finalized, and that’s why he wanted to back out? How is everybody overlooking that?

    • Traister101
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Twitter was never worth anywhere close to the 40 billion he publicly announced he’d pay for it whether or not a “significant” drop before purchase occurred.

  • magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    391 year ago

    …Yaccarino said that revenues grew in the high-single digit percentage…

    She should start her own line of perfume. Desperation, by Linda Yaccarino.

    • @_dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      She’s gotta be getting some serious compensation to throw her reputation in the garbage like this. I just can’t see how it makes any other sense for her in the long run.

    • @Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      It’s all gonna fold once interest rates get high enough. Didn’t he borrow like 13 billion?