"Twitter is junk"
-
That's what's so weird: It still made a loss of $145,000,000[^] for Q2, and it still gets more valuable! You expected that in the Dot Con years, but I'd expect someone to sit back and think! Sorry, sorry. I was expecting accountants to think...don't know what came over me there... :-O
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
It's cr@p, but it's Phenomenally popular, so it's worth a lot of money. S&P are probably running some kind of con. As usual.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
S&P are probably running some kind of con. As usual.
What I've learned is new journalists, speculators, etc. usually know nothing about the market. Just enough to sound like they do and that's it. If they themselves haven't made millions in it then their advice is pointless. It's just the blind leading the blind. They get paid to sound like they know what they're talking about, but they don't or else they'd be in Tahiti with blondes serving them hand-in-foot.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Hey! My wife is an accountant. I think you meant stock analysts?
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
PhilLenoir wrote:
My wife is an accountant.
I sorry to hear that. Is it curable? :laugh: Stock analysts make up predictions on what return you will get recommend stocks, accountants control the money that buy them. And the price of stocks only changes based on what people actually shell out wonga for. This may be influenced by stock analysts, but doesn't have to be. And I've got it in for accountants today... ;)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
My wife is an accountant.
I sorry to hear that. Is it curable? :laugh: Stock analysts make up predictions on what return you will get recommend stocks, accountants control the money that buy them. And the price of stocks only changes based on what people actually shell out wonga for. This may be influenced by stock analysts, but doesn't have to be. And I've got it in for accountants today... ;)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
No, but it's well paid - how do you think I can afford to retire next year? I don't think you can blame accountants for the idiots that have too much money and too few brain cells (investors) who are the sheep (metaphorically Griff - don't worry, fluffy is OK!) that stampede for their cheque books when some stock guru says "buy, buy, buy; it's almost too good to be true". Idiots can be accountants as they can be programmers (you've been to QA - right?). Fortunately my wife isn't one of them (unless you include the fact that she married me, a piece of evidence against that statement) It's when they have the power that they get dangerous. The outfit I work for is run by an engineer - that's almost as bad (especially when engineers have MBAs).
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
That's what's so weird: It still made a loss of $145,000,000[^] for Q2, and it still gets more valuable! You expected that in the Dot Con years, but I'd expect someone to sit back and think! Sorry, sorry. I was expecting accountants to think...don't know what came over me there... :-O
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Most of their money comes from mobile usage, which is still increasing exponentially, so GA figures can be ignored because of favorable projections -- and you don't even have to do much work to create social-media projection models; all you have to do is look at China. What they may be missing, though, is that (unlike we dumb westerners who believe facebook is our friend) Chinese "netizens" have already realised that loyalty to social media service providers is worthless, so they can all switch to other providers far quicker than we've seen happen in the West, and a giant one day can have an awful lot less users the next. Imagine, for an oversimplified hypothetical example, what a service that allowed you to post 50 characters would do to twitter*. Here, we would expect it to be slow to take off, and think that everyone would keep using twitter for a long time, but the Chinese netizens seem able to move en bloc frighteningly quickly, and their "I won't be loyal to you because you don't really give a sh1t about me" attitude should be factored into the projections for twitter, too, because users in the West are bound to start thinking the same way sooner or later. * It'd produce 25% more cr@p, I would say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Twitter rated as 'junk' by S&P[^] See, we knew that ages ago.
Sign a petition calling for the boycott of Israel until it returns to its legal 1967 borders.
-
Most of their money comes from mobile usage, which is still increasing exponentially, so GA figures can be ignored because of favorable projections -- and you don't even have to do much work to create social-media projection models; all you have to do is look at China. What they may be missing, though, is that (unlike we dumb westerners who believe facebook is our friend) Chinese "netizens" have already realised that loyalty to social media service providers is worthless, so they can all switch to other providers far quicker than we've seen happen in the West, and a giant one day can have an awful lot less users the next. Imagine, for an oversimplified hypothetical example, what a service that allowed you to post 50 characters would do to twitter*. Here, we would expect it to be slow to take off, and think that everyone would keep using twitter for a long time, but the Chinese netizens seem able to move en bloc frighteningly quickly, and their "I won't be loyal to you because you don't really give a sh1t about me" attitude should be factored into the projections for twitter, too, because users in the West are bound to start thinking the same way sooner or later. * It'd produce 25% more cr@p, I would say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
users in the West are bound to start thinking the same way sooner or later.
I've been thinking that way for years! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
S&P are probably running some kind of con. As usual.
What I've learned is new journalists, speculators, etc. usually know nothing about the market. Just enough to sound like they do and that's it. If they themselves haven't made millions in it then their advice is pointless. It's just the blind leading the blind. They get paid to sound like they know what they're talking about, but they don't or else they'd be in Tahiti with blondes serving them hand-in-foot.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If they themselves haven't made millions in it then their advice is pointless.
And if they had (and it wasn't by luck) then they wouldn't be sharing the tips...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
But S&P are the people who said that if 100,000 people have callously been given mortgages that they won't be able to pay, those mortgages are a triple-A investment, so it follows that if they say something is junk, that's where you should put your money.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If they themselves haven't made millions in it then their advice is pointless.
And if they had (and it wasn't by luck) then they wouldn't be sharing the tips...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Not for free at least.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You probably get as reliable prediction on a stocks performance by having an old gypsy woman read some chicken bones for you.
Play my game Gravity: Android[^], Windows Phone 7[^]
Yup. How do you tell the difference between a ratings agency and a charlatain medium? The medium asks you for money, while the ratings agency steals it before it even existed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
