Articles with wrong infos

[NickZ]

I read the article:
ukbusinessforums.co.uk/articles/revealed-the-very-biggest-business-mistakes-of-2023.7122/

here we read:
Now in his private hands, numbers for X are hard to come by.

But in October 2023, employees at X were awarded stock grants valued at a reported $43 a share. Multiplied up, that estimates Twitter to be worth $19 billion. While impressive-sounding, that price tag represents not even 50% of what the CEO of Tesla forked out in April 2022 for the then-social media darling.

And here is the chart for the Twitter Share price:
fortune.com/2022/07/12/elon-musk-twitter-deal-stock-price/

He bought Twitter at 53$ a share, a 43 $ per share is not 50% of the value.
My point is: are here no editors @ ukbusinessforums.co.uk???
I cannot place links so the missing prefix you need to add yourselves.

 

[Ozzy]

Are you sure you are working you maths out correctly with the same issued share capital? A company can have one share in issue or 20 billion shares in issue, but at £10 per share the company value is very different.

 

[NickZ]

Yes I'm pretty sure that 43$ a share is not a 50% drop in value when the price he (Elon) paid was 53$ a share.

 

[japancool]

X Says It Is Worth $19 Billion, Down From $44 Billion Last Year

The social media company’s valuation was disclosed in the paperwork for stock grants that it handed to employees on Monday.

www.nytimes.com

X, formerly Twitter, is giving employees equity at a $19 billion valuation—source

The Elon Musk owned social media platform is giving employees a new round of equity compensation, in the form of RSUs, that values X at $19 billion.

fortune.com

X Puts Company Value at $19 Billion

Elon Musk previously said he sees a clear, but difficult, path to X being worth more than $250 billion eventually.

www.wsj.com

Perhaps all these journals have got it wrong as well. You should contact them and let them know.

 

[NickZ]

Perhaps all these journals have got it wrong as well. You should contact them and let them know.

The article here in the UKbusinessforums.co.uk is the center of attention.
Is there any advantage in being biased?
Read the article, I bet you haven't.

 

[japancool]

The article here in the UKbusinessforums.co.uk is the center of attention.
Is there any advantage in being biased?
Read the article, I bet you haven't.

I don't need to read the whole article. You're not complaining about the whole articke. The specific bit you're moaning about is the $19 billion. Your assertion is clearly wrong, as proven by all the other articles that state the same thing.

Do you know how many X shares are outstanding?

 

[NickZ]

I don't need to read the whole article. You're not complaining about the whole articke.

Do you know how many X shares are outstanding?

Have a look into the background info and see the error
capital.com/twitter-shareholders-who-owns-the-most-twtr-stock

Complaint is about ukbusinessforums not doing an editorial work. Checking infos on articles.

 

[Ozzy]

Complaint is about ukbusinessforums not doing an editorial work. Checking infos on articles.

What makes you think the editorial is wrong. The links above and also the link you gave all confirm the editorial is accurate.

 

[japancool]

Have a look into the background info and see the error
capital.com/twitter-shareholders-who-owns-the-most-twtr-stock

Complaint is about ukbusinessforums not doing an editorial work. Checking infos on articles.

Your article dates from July 22, i.e. *before* Musk bught Twitter and took it private. There is no public information about who owns what percentage of X at present, nor about how many outstandng shares there are, because, and this is important, X/Twitter is no longer publicly traded.