how is it that twitters takes in over 500million but loses 130 million net?

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by prc117f, Jul 28, 2015.

  1. prc117f

    prc117f

    How is this possible? how could they have so much expense that it costs 630 million to run this company?

    colo servers cannot cost to much to run twitter, its not exactly a heavy duty web app. so where does all the money go that they actually lose 21 cents per share?

    It looks to me like the money is squandered somehow.
     
  2. xandman

    xandman

    I have never understood internet company income statements or revenue models. I don't think I ever will.

    Though I fondly remember the year 2000, I think you have to be from the Bay Area to "Get it".

    Trade Momentum.
     
  3. prc117f

    prc117f

    Yeah it all sounds like Hollywood math. I don't understand how any of it works. Taking in so much cash yet actually ending up in the red by 130 million.
     
    Freja Knudsen likes this.
  4. xandman

    xandman

    Yep. They coined the term "burn rate". Essentially, income doesn't matter and they intend to "burn" through capital. Be it stockholder equity or debt. What matters is that companies grow fast enough and scale up. Their eventual dominance will ensure that fat returns to shareholders will be made. Given that returns are in stock appreciation rather than dividends, you have to stomach the valuations for the "future".

    This was great when the internet was new and we didn't know the extent of change that would occur. However, it is already 2014. The biggest contribution of the internet is quick access to information and free porn for all.

    So far, the oldest, biggest and most successful example of an internet business from that era is AMZN. Perhaps, Google which came a bit later. I think they still go with that model defying the business pundits. So, you can't say it doesn't work.

    But that's retail and Twitter is, random brain farts with little mouth control. Kinda like us on ET.
     
    Freja Knudsen likes this.
  5. i960

    i960

    Apparently they need 4100 employees to keep twitter running - a large amount of which are probably working and living in SF directly. I'd probably start there.
     
  6. hajimow

    hajimow

    Did you include private jets and parties in your calculation?
     
  7. For last quarter looks like they spent a ton on R&D and selling expenses...like $440m :eek:
     
  8. loyek590

    loyek590

    ah, the Bay Area, man, it was beautiful before the internet

    now a kid in Indiana or Chile can live just like a man in NYC.

    talk about leveling a playing field

    I'm not sure we know how to value things anymore. Some of us have seen times when dollars were not a very good measure.
     
  9. Zestilio

    Zestilio

    So, what’s wrong with this? Nothing, if you don’t mind a sort of Wild West business ecosystem. The nice thing about big companies with substantive physical businesses is that you can collect taxes from them, regulate them, enforce employment laws, and do all the other things that go out the window in the “new economy.”
     
  10. loyek590

    loyek590

    I was brought up on John Wayne movies, so I like the Wild West.

    The funny things is, when He came on the scene, he was the only liberal communist cowboy who could tame the Wild West.

    Now we remember him as the last free man who lived in the Wild West.
     
    #10     Jul 29, 2015