ACTIONpack Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 The topic is a little misleading. It was more of a grabber then anything else. When I'm talking about future revenue of companies, I'm not talking about Microsoft or Apple or Intel telling the investors or stock progressive that they will make an amount for next 4 quarters and they may or may not hit it. With that and the money in the bank and stock price, is what the company is worth. I'm talking about Snapchat, Whatapp or Twitter that shows no revenue income in the future or ever be allow to be worth in the billions. We all know that without the inventors putting millions to keep it in float they would go out of business but the hope they one day that they will make billions they keep putting money in with new investor with no site of making money Should this be illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinMacLin Guy Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 As long as the company does not mislead its investors or potential investors (which is illegal anyways) then, no, I do not believe this should be made illegal. A business's value for many investors does not come from immediate financial gain, the gain could be more long-term or the investor might be pumping money based more on their personal beliefs (they might see something in a certain product or idea that may one day evolve into something bigger). I believe it is the duty of the investor to inform themselves as best as they can prior to purchasing shares in a company; if they want a company that can sustain itself then they should look at the company's balance sheet to ensure that the company is doing that. Anibal P 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACTIONpack Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share Posted April 18, 2015 Twitter is almost a 10 year old company and it still have not make any money besides the investors. There is a point when a company it worth business but can only make money by people investing in a company and not what they can make out of it. It not very bad system that should not be legal to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Someone doesn't grasp what investing and market values are, you might need to get some education on the topic before posting ignorant things like this, WinMacLin Guy is correct, market value has nothing to do with profits or making money as much as perceived value to the investors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACTIONpack Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 Someone doesn't grasp what investing and market values are, you might need to get some education on the topic before posting ignorant things like this, WinMacLin Guy is correct, market value has nothing to do with profits or making money as much as perceived value to the investors I do have an understanding how it work in the most part. What I dont get is that at someone a company should not be allow to conutine without having a end goal of making money. Adding more users to your ecosystem with know how to making money from it should not be a value price to the company when it has not shown any type of income for the company making anything. That's what Twitter is doing by growing there ecosystem by 25% each quarter with bots and fakes accounts and not making no money from it because as long as more users are using it, does not matter if they making money or not because market give fake value to the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I do have an understanding how it work in the most part. What I dont get is that at someone a company should not be allow to conutine without having a end goal of making money. Adding more users to your ecosystem with know how to making money from it should not be a value price to the company when it has not shown any type of income for the company making anything. That's what Twitter is doing by growing there ecosystem by 25% each quarter with bots and fakes accounts and not making no money from it because as long as more users are using it, does not matter if they making money or not because market give fake value to the company. And yet you show your don't get it, what you'd said has little to do with market value, again it's the perceived value of a company based on investor confidence in the future of a company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc302 Veteran Posted April 20, 2015 Veteran Share Posted April 20, 2015 Take an old car. To most people this old car holds no value as it is old and new cars will stay together better and have less issues. To someone with money this old car might be worth something, in the end they are both hunks of metal wires and have a combustion engine. While you see twitter as not worth anything, people with money and buying power think it is worth the same as an old porsche. So how does it have fake worth if somebody (and a lot of somebodies) are willing to put money into it to increase it's worth. Twitter is very well known (this increases worth), it has a large consumer base (also increases worth), and currently is gaining financials through advertisements (this also increases company worth). So while you think it doesn't contain any worth because they don't produce a product....you are unfamiliar with the product that they do produce or see it as a product or understand how they bring in worth. wikipedia is your friend Revenue sources In July 2009, some of Twitter's revenue and user growth documents were published on TechCrunch after being illegally obtained by Hacker Croll. The documents projected 2009 revenues of US$400,000 in the third quarter and US$4 million in the fourth quarter along with 25 million users by the end of the year. The projections for the end of 2013 were US$1.54 billion in revenue, US$111 million in net earnings, and 1 billion users.[168] No information about how Twitter planned to achieve those numbers was published. In response, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone published a blog post suggesting the possibility of legal action against the hacker.[169] On April 13, 2010, Twitter announced plans to offer paid advertising for companies that would be able to purchase "promoted tweets" to appear in selective search results on the Twitter website, similar to Google Adwords' advertising model. As of April 13, Twitter announced it had already signed up a number of companies wishing to advertise, including Sony Pictures, Red Bull, Best Buy, and Starbucks.[170][171] The company generated US$45 million in annual revenue in 2010, after beginning sales midway through that year; the company operated at a loss through most of 2010.[164] Users' photos can generate royalty-free revenue for Twitter, and an agreement with World Entertainment News Network (WENN) was announced in May 2011.[172] In June 2011, Twitter announced that it would offer small businesses a self-service advertising system.[173] Twitter generated US$139.5 million in advertising sales during 2011. The self-service advertising platform was launched in March 2012 to American Express card members and merchants in the U.S. on an invite-only basis. Twitter later reported that numerous small businesses and people who used the self-service tool provided feedback that indicated they were impressed by the feature.[174] To continue their advertising campaign, Twitter announced on March 20, 2012 that promoted tweets would be introduced to mobile devices.[175] In April 2013, Twitter announced that its Twitter Ads self-service platform, consisting of promoted tweets and promoted accounts, was available to all U.S. users without an invite.[174] Twitter's financial revenue statistics for the first quarter of 2014 was reported as US$250 million.[153] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts