It is undoubtedly true that when it comes to business, Donald Trump has a sort of opposite Midas touch where whatever he touches turns to crap but it didn't seem to put off his deluded supporters who paid for shares in his Truth Social network and then watched on as it tanked regally.
Experts warned wannabe investors that the company didn't have the fundamentals to back up its obscenely high valuation and Trump Media had lost $58 million in 2023 and made just $4.1 million in revenue but Trump supporters are not known for their smarts and the company has lost more than 60% of its value from its peak of £61.98 on March 26 when it started trading publicly to $26.95 today.
The Trump company has now announced a massive new influx of 21.5 million shares which will further substantially devalue existing shareholders’ stakes which must annoy Investors who put their cash into the former presidents Truth Social stock.
Analysts have been shouting from the rooftops that Trump's cash grab was nothing more than a scam and that investors should stay far away yet there were plenty of Trump supporters who believed that the shares were, and still may, go through the ceiling but even if it doesn't, some seem happy to show their support for Trump even if it costs them dearly.
See, not too smart when they are out of pocket but Trump stood to make £3bn, now down to $2bn and falling fast so you know what that Truth Social share certificate says about the person holding it?
Yes. Yes, you do. And it’s not that you are in possession of a nest egg or a badge of honor that you helped out your favourite sex offender, it says that you are unlikely to trouble any Brains Trust meetings.
Monday 15 April 2024
Trumps Truth Shares Tanking
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
funny, a leftist acting as if they understand business...
many, perhaps most, of the people that support trump are low and middle income americans. they are uneducated, physical laborers - willing to work hard, but they do not understand business, investing, or economics.
i don't know who bought shares in the offering, but i doubt it was high income or wealthy people. the befuddling part is the ipo valuation. what that shows is that the professionals doing the valuation did not understand the industry. the people doing the ipo valuation are the ones that screwed the investors...
are they "adding" shares or doing a split?
as usual with you, lucyp (whoever or whatever that might be), the post had a hint of truth but is misleading. yes, the stock has taken a decline from its peak (which was artificially driven up for many speculative reasons), but is higher than its opening price. this is far from unusual. and for the record, while i think truth social is a poor market offering, amazon was 5 or 6 or 7 years old before it had a profitable quarter... to early to judge "truth social".
Even funnier, a right winger pretending they know about business by trying to make simple things seem overly complicated.
What is there to understand or not understand? Forbes has it 66% down from its March 26 high of $79.38. Nothing overly complicated about that. If you bought the shares at anything higher than the $26.95 they are today, you have done your dough.
ha ha, you claim to be a journalist or journalism instructor (not a PhD). i was strategist for an F100 company for 20 years. do you really want to debate who understands business?
So you want to argue that owning shares which are worth less than you paid for them is not a bad thing. Did your woeful lack of understanding of most things carry on into your actual job????
no, lucyp, for many people the shares are still worth more than they originally paid for them.
though the price of each share has nothing to do with the future viability of the company...
all equity market investments are a gamble based on trader perception more than company viability - unless you can act like warren buffet and hold investments for decades.
ps - if i was as woefully inadequate as you opine, i would have to of tricked 5 ceo's, about 60 chiefs and presidents, and 3 board chairman of a fortune 100 company over a 20+ year span.... since that is EXTREMELY unlikely, you are wrong again...
pss - did i also trick the USPTO into granting 57 patents?
Post a Comment