No sympathy for Twitter here. Twitter chose whether and when to go public. If Wall Street is being mean to Twitter, tough nuts. It should have been no surprise; this is how Wall Street works.
With Disney and Google supposedly bowing out of the negotiations, Apple uninterested and Salesforce tepid at best, perhaps the best option would be for Twitter to go private with owners that are happy with the company as it is now — a middle-sized Internet global media platform, rather than a Facebook-killer. But could such buyers be found? Or would any buyer expect meteoric growth?
During Ruby Tuesday’s second-quarter earnings call, an unidentified caller posed as Bud Fox, Charlie Sheen’s character from the movie “Wall Street,” and asked CEO JJ Buettgen if the burger chain’s business had been affected by the death of Harambe.
Its user base is actually growing pretty well, the video strategy isn’t bad, and it’s got the NFL deal, Presidential election, and summer Olympics to look forward to. It has hundreds of millions of users. That can be the basis for a profitable, healthy service.
But Twitter is not going to reach Facebook-class – billions of users – for years, if ever. Twitter needs to convince its investors to go along with that, and not destroy the service in an effort to wring short-term returns out of it.
And it needs to convince advertisers of the same thing.
That’s worries both the right and the left. The right worries because of the amount of money the Clinton campaign can bring to the election. The left worries about who the Clintons are beholden to.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have been the power couple’s No. 1 Wall Street contributor, doling out nearly $5 million to the Clintons. As a senator, Hillary raked in $5.7 million from financial services firms, fairly typical for a New York legislator. Financial-services firms accounted for about 12 percent of the total amount raised by the Clintons. By comparison, Mitt Romney – Mr. 47 Percent – raised 13 percent of his 2012 campaign funds from financial-services firms.
Put it altogether and it’s easy to see how Hillary Clinton could become the preferred candidate of Wall Street in 2016.
And that has both the right and the left trembling, but for different reasons.
Republicans worry that middle-of-the-road donors will gravitate to Clinton as a centrist and historic figure who they are comfortable with. After all, it was former President Clinton who eliminated the barriers between commercial and investment banking, a Wall Street priority that now irks many liberals who believe the action led to the financial collapse.
Taken together, the left will view these numbers as more evidence Hillary Clinton won’t have the grit or motivation to push for additional regulations, transparency and oversight that they believe is required to reign in the financial firms.