[TheSlayer]

Twitter is finally going public.

Link: Twitter files for hotly anticipated IPO

Unlike Facebook which had a lot of concerns at the time of its IPO, Twitter will probably do better.

Quote:

The impending IPO of the microblogging phenomenon ignited a competition among Wall Street’s biggest names for the prestige of managing its coming-out party. Goldman Sachs is lead underwriter, a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday, which is a major coup for the Wall Street bank.

Quote:

A similar race is on around China’s Alibaba, which is expected to raise more than $15-billion this year. Bank chief executives such as JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon and Citigroup Inc.'s Michael Corbat have made it a point to meet Alibaba founder Jack Ma.

Quote:

Twitter, which has been valued by private investors at more than $10-billion, is on track to post $583-million in revenue in 2013, according to advertising consultancy eMarketer.

Will you be buying some Twitter stock?

[Menace]

I was going to ask how Twitter is planning to monetize itself, but from doing a little bit of research, it's likely to be through search.twitter.com. I guess basically like a live-feed google search.

[Roosh]

Twitter makes money?

[Menace]

(09-12-2013 07:04 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Twitter makes money?

Yeah, like this:

[DrugAdvisor]

By selling "followers" to "famous people" like politicians to campaign. And also paid tweets that appear as pop ups based on your demographics.

Our prime minister spent heavily earlier this year campaigning for the highly anticipated election and I received numerous politically affiliated tweets by the ruling government. (Funded by tax payers, naturally) and ended up having more followers than Obama AND McCain added together.

So yeah. It makes money.

[WestCoast]

Twitter is currently not profitable and this has nothing to do with it's valuation. If it start spitting out actual net income (we'll see in the filing) it still won't impact it's valuation.

It will trade at a sales multiple based on forward revenue CAGR. If/When they fix the MT issues the Company will be much more profitable.

[BLarsen]

Beware. When Twitter goes public you'll start hearing female "activists" complain that Twitter needs to do something about the misogynistic tweets and rape threats. Facebook 2.0.

Because they're publicly traded, they'll cave.

You heard it here first...

[WestCoast]

^ lol yeah. Twitter is a rare outlet for actual free speech.

If it does turn to 2.0, then you should own the security because it means heads are increasing rapidly and the masses are adopting it.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Twitter seems even less monetizable than Facebook. I predict adding lots of visual options and larger tweets (320 characters?) to increase marketing potential.

[Matt3B]

Here's a good article on how Twitter makes money: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/...stock.html

I've always wondered how much companies pay to be "promoted" onto timelines. That article also mentions that Twitter can provide data to TV companies for things like how many times people used hashtags mentioned in their adverts or TV shows, and how many people used it in total. That must be worth a pretty penny.

[le prince perdu]

I really don't see how twitter is going to make money five years from now,

Twitter not a useful webpage like Google,

Twitter doesn't appeal to humans social wiring like Facebook

Twitter doesn't have a juicy database of users info like Facebook
Twitter doesn't have a juicy database of users input like Google

Twitter only asset is ?advertising?

Facebook, Google and thousands of other websites are also into ads money.

Twitter is a bad idea(for money making ) behind a lot of programming.

Predictions (broke people talking about money making) excpect Twitter revenues to reach a $1 billion dollars(double) next year and keep on going....

[WestCoast]

You guys talking about profitability may as well be in the same boat as when Facebook was rumored to file many years ago.

The question is not about profitability at this point. Remember when everyone was worried about Facebook making money on adds?

The question is simply around it's viability as a platform as 1) news resource, 2) growth in paid for ads, 3) promotion payments and 4) growth in users

Just like Facebook, twitter should struggle with profitability because that is not the goal at this time.

The S-1 should come out in a few days if it is truly scrubbed post SEC comments, if it was a draft you'll have to wait a few more weeks. Either way the filing is going to give you enough to make comments regarding profitability.

It's getting rather interesting considering what Carl Ichan has done already, he is basically saying twitter is a legit news source through their verification. He has to file tweets with the SEC, pretty interesting IMHO.

Anyway my bet is that it's 20 days or so for filing so just wait till then.

Also it's kinda funny that they tweeted only as a proof point that it's the fastest way to new information.

Tough call without any numbers infront of you.

[Samseau]

If I were an investor, I'd be looking to short.

[scorpion]

(09-13-2013 12:22 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

You guys talking about profitability may as well be in the same boat as when Facebook was rumored to file many years ago.

The question is not about profitability at this point. Remember when everyone was worried about Facebook making money on adds?

The question is simply around it's viability as a platform as 1) news resource, 2) growth in paid for ads, 3) promotion payments and 4) growth in users

Just like Facebook, twitter should struggle with profitability because that is not the goal at this time.

The S-1 should come out in a few days if it is truly scrubbed post SEC comments, if it was a draft you'll have to wait a few more weeks. Either way the filing is going to give you enough to make comments regarding profitability.

It's getting rather interesting considering what Carl Ichan has done already, he is basically saying twitter is a legit news source through their verification. He has to file tweets with the SEC, pretty interesting IMHO.

Anyway my bet is that it's 20 days or so for filing so just wait till then.

Also it's kinda funny that they tweeted only as a proof point that it's the fastest way to new information.

Tough call without any numbers infront of you.

You may be right, but the part is bold is exactly what was said in the late 90's about the absurd valuations attached to the dot com-era stocks. Phrases like "new paradigm" were thrown around to describe companies that had P/E ratios well over 100. The pricing of the stock reflected the faith in the potential of the company's cool ideas, not any sort of measured reality about its market profitability. The idea was that their profitability would grow into the shoes of their admittedly inflated stock prices over time.

Well, we all know how that turned out.

[WestCoast]

^Have you invested in tech stocks before? (Not an insult serious quesion)

This is how 90% of stocks go public in the high tech industry. Not profitable high sales growth.

If we were talking profitability on a REIT or a consumer company that is apples and oranges

If you don't believe me just go pull up the s-1's of the last 70+ tech IPOs.

Amazon has a P/E over 100, so does linked in. Are those therefore shorts?

[renotime]

All the good money has already been made on the secondary market.

Same thing happened with Linkedin. Guys became millionaires before it had its IPO.

I think the JOBS act is going to level the playing field quite a bit.

[WestCoast]

^ linked in is up over 100%. Many millionaires made post IPO the thing is a monster and is at $250.

Many many many people crushed it.

Also many people got their heads ripped off that shorting that thing.

[MikeCF]

(09-13-2013 12:47 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ linked in is up over 100%.

People were making cash on yelp, too.

Facebook has traded from 18.80 - 45.62.

Who knows what Twitter will do?

That's why I stay out of tech, especially IPOs.

[WestCoast]

^ that's fine. But talking about profitability is not relevant for anyone who knows how tech valuations and IPOs work.

I am not telling anyone to buy and sell it.

Saying all the $ is made in the secondary market is simply false.

[scorpion]

Yes, I'm well aware of how tech valuations work. A different logic applies. That is to say, no logic. Twitter is worth $10 billion simply because a lot of people think it's worth $10 billion. The same goes for most of these companies with massively inflated P/Es. There's not nearly enough income (and often none, period) to support such valuations.

It's sort of like Kim Kardashian. Why is she famous? Because everyone thinks she's famous. There's no reason behind it. Same shit for Twitter. Why is Twitter worth $10 billion? Oh, well, because everyone uses Twitter, so it must be valuable. They'll figure out a way to monetize it in the future. Buy!

Not say there isn't money to be made there for the savvy investor, but like MikeCF I steer clear of tech. A lot of these companies are castles built on sand, and its hard to tell which until its too late.

[WestCoast]

If you have invested in new tech you would never type "p/e" multiple in any comment regarding valuation. So I am assuming you simply have followed tech which is fine.

It is clear to me you just don't want to invest in tech and also have never evaluated technology stocks before. It doesn't matter jus making sure I was following your statements correctly.

[scorpion]

I'm not sure what your point is since I clearly just said I steer clear of tech. Meaning I don't invest in it. Because I view tech (IPOs especially) as straight up gambling.

[WestCoast]

I previously asked if you invest in tech. Since you don't I can't take your opinion seriously.

I can tell you haven't invested in it before because of your reasons for valuation which looks like it came out of a seeking alpha or morning star review.

I posted on here how you're supposed to look at it if you want to invest. Sales growth, user growth, monetization of ads as an after thought and it must be seen as a news source.

Simply saying tech trades at high P/E's is like me saying reits trade at book values.

[scorpion]

West Coast: "If you don't invest in tech, you can't have an informed opinion on tech."

Ignoring the fact that under this logic, the only opinions you'll get will be positive, since obviously people who don't invest won't hold a good opinion.

This is like only asking married guys whether or not marriage is a good deal.

Wall Street thinking for you, folks.

[WestCoast]

^ what are you talking about.

If you don't actually put your money to work (long or short) and can't even tell me what the investment thesis is behind the stock why should I listen to you.

Give me a break.

If you came up with a bear thesis based on the actual investment proposition I wouldn't say anything to you.

Instead you're talking about earnings power and p/e's.

So I am callin you out for not knowing anything about the space, and I am correct. I am not attacking you at all you have literally proven you don't know anything about investing in the space. If you talked about p/e multiples for valuation in any place on the planet for high tech stocks you'd be laughed out of the room.

(Real cute passive aggressive Wall Street thinking comment in there too)