Heavy debt load? Where could that have come from.? A leveraged buyout at an overvalued price or something?
No, a lot of this debt is debt that Twitter already had.
Edit: Factual corrections.
No, it isn't.
probably both. twitter was never profitable afaik, the whole idea was to have either some rich moron or (more likely) a megacorp buy it and everyone who contributed would get a fat final paycheck. but the way musk handled things definitely didn't help either.
I just want to point out the idea that these companies not being profitable is bullshit. It just means they've moved money that would be profit into some other place and now they can call it something other than profit.
Got $100k extra profit? Pay it all out as bonuses to your executives, now that $100k is an expense instead of profit.
on the surface level, makes sense, yeah. but twitter hosts video, that stuff isn't cheap -- hell, even images aren't cheap and twitter has piss poor ad integration and a meaningless subscription that they made pretty much as uncool to buy as possible. hosting a platform that size is hella expensive.
Twitter was not even close. It had a lot of dead weight, wasted a big fat billion on wages every month alone. He fired 85% of the work force and Twitter managed to release more features this year alone than in the past 3 years. They have so many people working there that didn’t do anything at all.
I mean everyone remembers those tiktokers that worked at Twitter. They spent more time on useless meeting, drinking and eating at the company expense and toying around than working.
Twitter reported its first-ever profitable quarter Thursday after more than four years of trading on the public market. The company announced $91 million in profit for the fourth quarter of 2017. Profitability was the #goal, CEO Jack Dorsey told investors in February 2017, and Twitter nailed it. The stock was up by more than 14 percent in after-hours trading.
Heavy debt load? Where could that have come from.? A leveraged buyout at an overvalued price or something?
No, a lot of this debt is debt that Twitter already had.
Edit: Factual corrections.
No, it isn't.
probably both. twitter was never profitable afaik, the whole idea was to have either some rich moron or (more likely) a megacorp buy it and everyone who contributed would get a fat final paycheck. but the way musk handled things definitely didn't help either.
I just want to point out the idea that these companies not being profitable is bullshit. It just means they've moved money that would be profit into some other place and now they can call it something other than profit.
Got $100k extra profit? Pay it all out as bonuses to your executives, now that $100k is an expense instead of profit.
on the surface level, makes sense, yeah. but twitter hosts video, that stuff isn't cheap -- hell, even images aren't cheap and twitter has piss poor ad integration and a meaningless subscription that they made pretty much as uncool to buy as possible. hosting a platform that size is hella expensive.
Twitter was not even close. It had a lot of dead weight, wasted a big fat billion on wages every month alone. He fired 85% of the work force and Twitter managed to release more features this year alone than in the past 3 years. They have so many people working there that didn’t do anything at all.
I mean everyone remembers those tiktokers that worked at Twitter. They spent more time on useless meeting, drinking and eating at the company expense and toying around than working.
https://mashable.com/article/twitter-profitable-earnings-2017-first-time
it was profitable at least at some point
Mission accomplished!