Twitter is ‘toast’ and the stock is not even worth $10: Analyst

Aaron David

A fourth generation Californian, befuddled.

Related Post Roulette

14 Responses

  1. I found this part interesting:

    Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.

    This manages to be dumb about how polling works, how people use Twitter, and the meaning of “data quality” all at once.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      You’d think they’d be better about bots, given they massively screw with the whole point of Twitter.

      On the other hand, bots massively inflate their user figures and thus their stock price.Report

      • Kim in reply to Morat20 says:

        The better pollster looking at Facebook and twitter had 70/30 on Trump winning, a full month out from election day, and got more insistent (and smug) as the election approached.

        Wouldn’t be at all surprised if he was pulling IP addresses and aggregating tweets though.Report

  2. Saul Degraw says:

    The world might be a better place if Twitter goes under.Report

  3. Brandon Berg says:

    The departures prompted Trip Chowdhry, the managing director of equity research at Global Equities Research, and a noted “uber-bear” on tech stocks, to issue a note on Tuesday claiming Twitter is “toast” and “not even a $10 stock”.

    How is this a story, that an “uber-bear on tech stocks” says a particular tech stock is overvalued?

    Up next: An unnamed source in the Vatican claims that the Pope is Catholic.Report

    • And an expert in ursinology, just back from a trip to Sequoia National Forest, has a fascinating piece of research to share.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      Well, if your COO, CTO and VP of Product for your one (1) product leave… in the tech world, you pretty much are toast. Not necessarily because your technology is bad, but more likely because your technology isn’t all that difficult and nobody wants to buy it. Your network effect might look good, but without some sort of technology moat, that’s a little bit like buying a flock of birds. One moment you have them, the next moment they are off to the next shiny.

      Everyone and their brother has a version of twitter… My takeaway is that when the top execs abandon their future RSU’s is that the future RSU’s can’t be sold. Silicon Valley execs are the most fickle of canaries; but canaries they are.

      Silicon Valley execs follow the easy money – mostly because they are awash in opportunities -but brave fighters for technology they believe in they are not. Business is business and there’s always a chance for a turn around, but this reeks of insiders having their business examined and found wanting.Report

  4. j r says:

    Last night, I was talking to a friend who is an editor for markets coverage at one of the bigger financial news sites. He said that the reporters basically sit around reading analyst notes. And when they find one that they think is interesting (i.e. will drive clicks), hey type up a summary and publish it as a story.

    The writers don’t really have the skills to evaluate the research or go so far as to vet the analyst or see what their track record is. So this stuff leans towards the contrarian and the hot take.Report

  5. j r says:

    ps – I’ve never gotten he Twitter hate. I have Twitter and I follow people who I know, people who I find interesting, and publications whose articles I might like to read.

    Unless you’re one of the small number of people to run afoul of a Twitter mob, your experience is completely customizable. So, if your Twitter feed is garbage it may be because you’re interested in garbage.Report