488
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The social media platform X has lost 71% of its value since it was bought by Elon Musk, according to the mutual fund Fidelity.

Fidelity, which owns a stake in X Holdings, said in a disclosure obtained by Axios that it had marked down the value of its shares by 71.5% since Musk’s purchase.

Musk acquired Twitter for $44bn in October 2022 and renamed the platform X in July 2023. Fidelity’s estimate would place the value of X at about $12.5bn.

The number of monthly users of X dropped by 15% in the first year since Musk’s takeover amid concerns over a rise in hate speech on the platform.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 62 points 10 months ago

Takes real talent to lose 71% of a company in a short period of time.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Musk lost 71% of his "investment". Twitter was never worth that much. Before Musk started mucking with the stock, it was worth about $29 billion, and even that's still mostly stock and investor BS. Afaik, it was rarely, if ever, actually profitable. Just a capital fund poster child with hopes of monetizing user information.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ah yes, that makes sense, because Musk bought it at twice what it was worth. /S
Meaning we start at 50%, so valuing it at 28.5% makes no sense, after Musk increased cost to run the company with a high interest loan that cost 1.5 Billion per year in interest. Money that didn't go into the company, but Musk used to finance the purchase. Then he drove away about 70% of advertisers, and the company is basically bankrupt from those two issues.
The real value is technically zero, because it has negative internal value, and it is running at huge deficits. But if you say there is hope as long as you live, and if you believe Musk is a financial magician, you may attribute some value from that. But again the value is technically as close to zero as you can get for a company that isn't actually bankrupt with vastly negative assets.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

It's value is for pushing propaganda there is a reason the Saudis gave musk money

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

That's only a value if someone wants to actually pay for it. The Saudis lend the money at a high interest rate.
Maybe it has value to them to just get it shut down? But why would that be worth 22 Billion plus a long term intensive engagement that threatens to hurt his other businesses too to Musk?
Musk is an idiot Nazi who wants a dictator to rule USA, because a dictator is inherently corrupt, so Musk can easier influence a dictator than a democracy. I sure hope USA doesn't give Musk that victory.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

well Musk is pro Trump isn't he? didn't trump sign a most lucrative weapons deal with the Saudis?

a few billion is nothing to the saudis in exchange to controlling a narrative over a huge number of easy to manipulate people

they will have splashed about 10x 22 billion just on a world cup to do a bit of sport washing of their image.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

a few billion is nothing to the saudis

No amount of money is anything to the saudis. They don't have wealth, they have a literal spigot that pours out as much money as they want whenever they want it.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Haha, yes I can imagine this go wrong and they'll say, My bad that went exactly as we expected! Ups I mean not as expected. lol

[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That estimate seems fairly high.

edit: Just to be clear, I'd be surprised it it is worth even $5Billion now.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 25 points 10 months ago

Wait, but Joe Rogan and his chubs were saying how Musk was a genius businessman and will fix the boys problem and turn it into a free speech utopia. /s

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Joe Rogan chubs..... Not something I ever want to think about. But to be fair, I'm sure a lot of his chuds have chubs for him.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

You mean allowing Nazis to run rampant on the platform turns off major advertisers?

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Freeze peach

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

This is the absolute truth.

[-] LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago

At the end of the day I can only think that some idiot, who this life has given more wealth than they deserve, spent $44 billion on electricity. It really would be hilarious if I didn’t know where all the money could’ve gone to actually benefit humanity.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

It really would be hilarious if I didn’t know where all the money could’ve gone to actually benefit humanity.

True. Societies really shouldn't allow billionaires at all as long as there are people who struggle to put food on the table.

[-] QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago

And this year it will drop further!

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

I was wondering what that large X close symbol was on imbedded Twitter posts was...

[-] EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website 9 points 10 months ago

Yeah but how good does Elon feel about himself now that he has a large forced audience?

It’s a great deal unless you’re one of his investors.

[-] silverbax@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

$12.5bn is still too high. When Musk bought it, maybe it was worth $8B, but since no one has figured out a way to make Twitter profitable, even that figure would be based mostly on equipment, branding, etc. Since Musk had bought it I say ita worth maybe $3B and will continue to drop.

There's no revenue and Musk has no ideas that hadn't already been tried.

[-] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

It's dead, how has it retained even this much? I think he would have a hard time selling it for even a fraction of that valuation.

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If you bought it you could theoretically undo the Musk bullshit and get the company back on track towards profitability. That's definitely worth something to someone.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Well my suspicion is the main reason for the name change is to preserve some of the value of the Twitter brand. When Musk's site inevitably dies, someone else can buy it up cheap.

[-] salami0@lemmyhub.com 1 points 10 months ago

Grr that Elon, to hell with him

[-] BlackSkinnedJew@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Musk it's a CIA agent and he accomplished the work of buying Twitter to make it follow the agenda, it was getting into a progressive left wing place, now it's a christofascist right wing place. For him owners it's not wasted money just a well made investment into the spreading of misinformation and fascist propaganda.

He it's just giving some favors back to his investors.

Source: I work for the CIA too.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Value

There is no new value because currently, it is not for sale.

There is no price for Twitter right now and there wont be again till it goes back up for sale.

Rules were different when it was publicly traded, but articles (and the analysis behind it) like this are clickbait.

The price per share at the time of the purchase was $54.20. This price had already been considered ridiculous at the time. Plenty of analysts had Twitters price at the 10-20$ range.

Just go through the thought exercise of what you think the value is now versus when it was trading at 30-40$ range before the buy out. Now, what do you think its worth?

For illustrative purposes: if I was able to buy shares of Twitter, right now? I would consider paying between 0.5$-4$ a share. I dont think the product or brand is dead, but under Musk its a walking corpse. If I could buy shares now, at that price, I would, but only under the speculation that Musk is out. I would hedge accordingly.

A price only exists when one is willing to pay it. Everything is an opinion until a transaction occurs.

My price for Twitter is 2-5% of the price Musk paid for it (which it DEFINITELY wasn't worth), and maybe 4-12% of fair market value in the months prior to the purchase. As a machine that turned on and made money, it did so prior to Musk taking over. The price has to factor in the damages done to brand, reputation, product, infrastructure, and what it will cost to rebuild those. Then of course there are the damages to company culture.

So yeah. Probably worth 1-5% of what it was, and only if you can basically guarantee Musk is out as CEO.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

This is how the housing market works too! Buy a house for 500k, then loose a ton of value and sell for 50k. This way people can afford housing... just not you personally.

[-] Yoz@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

Down by 71% but still elon musk is one of the richest in the world and can buy 20 more twitter without batting an eye

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Money was never the goal. It was sabotage.

This was a hit and I'm betting it traces back to the Kremlin.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Bro, its not a secret. It was the Saudis.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Both, actually.

this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
488 points (97.5% liked)

News

23301 readers
3635 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS