this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
221 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

59269 readers
4099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
221
Fidelity marks down X valuation by 71.5% (techcrunch.com)
submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Fidelity marks down X valuation by 71.5%::Asset manager Fidelity has marked down its investment in Musk-owned X by 71.5% from the original valuation of shares. 

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db2@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago

71.5% so far

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean this is just ridiculous. He bough twitter for twice what it was actually worth fmv. He's since gutted it infrastructural and culturally.

If it went public today under his leadership, there is no way it would be worth even 5% of its prior value.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

He bought it with the specific intent of using it to measurably impact the election we’re having in 10 months.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And for 44 billion, so he basically got screwed out of a small fortune to ruin it for someone else. It would have been cheaper and as effective to distort the election to keep running it the way it was.

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

"small"

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I know this and have repeated it elsewhere. In this particular sense, it does have the value he paid.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Yep.

By design. Which is a good thing for the rest of the world. Twitter has been a cesspool from the start.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

As a Fidelity customer who uses their index funds, I would like to know which managers approved this fuckup on their part so I know who to blame when I move to Vanguard over the course of the year. Morningstar needs to take a mallet to their ratings over this.

It's not their play money they fucked with -- ITS MINE.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 12 points 10 months ago

That's not how fund managers work. They make money they charge you. They lose money they charge you. They don't make money they charge you. Oh and then there's the standing charge for the service. YOLO.

[–] ramblinguy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

Why would this even impact you if you're using their index funds? Twitter isn't even public so it can't be in any index

[–] tryagain@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

In their defence, it was a relatively small investment of only $19m. I guess the story is that this must be an indication of how other, larger, investors might also be looking at X.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When can we expect a lawsuit against Fidelity for saying bad things about "X" and how Musky destroyed it?

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

This is not about Technology.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Oh no, Anyway.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Shit’s near worthless.

[–] bender223@lemmy.today 4 points 10 months ago

I only have two words. Womp womp