[andrestan]

There are plenty of public companies that reach a steady state. What happens for those companies is their PE ratios shrink, they start paying out dividends and their expectation is to be a big lumbering giant whose valuation isn't expected to have dramatic swings based on outsized expected future earnings. What happened here is not "Wall Street" saying that Twitter must die, it's saying "Hey, your newly expected future earnings are no longer able to justify your prior valuation and therefore here's your new valuation based on all currently available information".

[Waterluvian]

Okay so twitter has been in a "valued based on anticipated growth" state. And other companies can matriculate to a "valued based on reliable dividends" state? This I can understand. Thanks.

[repolfx]

Yes. Bear in mind tech companies are terrible at paying dividends. Google has never paid one, Apple only really started after Jobs' death. No dividends means no reason to hold a stock unless you think the value will go up significantly (and ultimately the value is driven by an expectation that one day divis will be issued).

Facebook and Twitter are getting hammered because it's clear they're spending insane quantities of cash on attempting to "cleanse" their platforms of undesirables. Facebook alone announced they were going to hire tens of thousands more people to work on "security" (lol). That bloated spend reduces future dividend potential and causes their stock to be less valuable.

[sushid]

All this is new territory, mind you. This is why older traditional/value investors like Buffett don't dabble in tech. The PE ratios are through the roof and we don't know what it will mean once we start seeing these companies truly decline.