Mutual fund Fidelity, which owns stake in social media platform, marks down value of its shares in disclosure obtained by Axios

The social media platform X has lost 71% of its value since it was bought by Elon Musk, according to the mutual fund Fidelity.

Fidelity, which owns a stake in X Holdings, said in a disclosure obtained by Axios that it had marked down the value of its shares by 71.5% since Musk’s purchase.

Musk acquired Twitter for $44bn in October 2022 and renamed the platform X in July 2023. Fidelity’s estimate would place the value of X at about $12.5bn.

The number of monthly users of X dropped by 15% in the first year since Musk’s takeover amid concerns over a rise in hate speech on the platform.

  • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
    182·
    1 year ago

    I mean, what is your alternative definition of “worth” if it isn’t “What you can get for it”

    Like you’re right that a valuation of something is not definitive to something’s worth, until somebody, anybody is willing to buy it for that much. After which, the worth could change.

    So if I sell a box of first for $1 million, and somebody is willing to buy it, it is in fact worth $1 million. However once that fella buys it, it isn’t necessarily still worth $1 million anymore.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      83·
      1 year ago

      The alternate definition is “discounted future earnings”.

      So if I have a cardboard box with $100 inside, it’s worth $100 even if nobody will buy it.

      If I have a machine that will print an authentic $100 bill exactly once, it’s worth $100 even if nobody else believes it will work.

      Thus, something can be worth more (or less) than its selling price.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        The $100 contained inside the box wouldn’t be the box’s “worth”, it would be part of the box’s worth. It would be $100 PLUS whatever somebody is willing to pay for the box itself.

        The $100 inside the cardboard box is Twitter’s physical assets. But the current physical assets owned by Twitter are only part of the equation, there is still an inherent worth in owning the company itself, and possible income in the future.

        That doesn’t make the box’s worth $100 or $0, it makes the box’s worth “At least $100”.

      • AntY@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        But how do you define the value of a $100 bill? Is it worth one hotdog, 100 hotdogs or as many hotdogs as someone is willing to trade for it?

    • Anarch157a@lemmy.world
      62·
      1 year ago

      I mean, what is your alternative definition of “worth” if it isn’t “What you can get for it”

      “Worth” and “Price” are different things. A meal that costs $20 has more worth than a box of dirt with a price sticker of $1 million.

      The $44 billion Muskolini paid was Twitter’s agreed price, not it’s worth.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Not if somebody actually buys the box of dirt for $1 million. If the price sticker of $1 million doesn’t inherently assign it its value, then neither does the $20 price sticker on the meal.

        You could say what makes the meal worth $20 is the fact that somebody is willing to actually pay the $20, but then the box of dirt also has somebody willing to pay $1 million dollars for it.

        So if “worth” isn’t equal to the price tag, or what people are willing to pay for it, then what are you basing the worth on?

    • silverbax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Yes, and I was inundated with techbros claiming that’s not how it works. I mean there is some argument in some cases where you can get some tax write off based on losses, but a true valuation is only what you can sell for.

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      21·
      1 year ago

      I’d say worth would be an average of all possible sale prices for an asset. As opposed to the single sale price to a megalomaniac.