R’s might advertise hoping to get donations, not votes.
Wow, already down to $32.84 per share. Impressively swift drop.
Ah, true. Grifting ads. Although, once Grandpa’s pension check is gone, there is not much left to squeeze out of him.
Home equity loans! Trump will pay them all off once he’s elected!
I thought he was debanked?
We’re all Devo Debanked.
“Will revert to towards fundamentals.”
It comes from a very rough calculation I did in my head of DWAC, which hasn’t been updated for DJT. Also, in 2 years they would have burned through a chunk of their cash, so the equilibrium value is lower.
Fundamentals: 1) well now they have some liquidation value, but that cash will be burnt through. Realistically, the only path forwards for shareholders would be if a Saudi prince buys the company out as a favor to someone. Or Musk goes on another bender.
Fox makes a nice chunk of change off of advertising on their “news” shows. But yeah, if “X” is struggling to find a path to profit then it strains credulity to imagine any chance that Truth can.
Still that is the best case to be made for any non-meme value at all beyond liquidation proceeds after debts pain off. And again the best circumstance for demonstration of a growth path is now and the next several months when Trump rants will be of most interest to the most.
Though it’s Socrates himself who is particularly missed.
IOW, the only intrinsic value it might have would be if someone poured money into it, and then that would be its value. 
But since it would burn that away, too, it actually has negative value – a typical Trumpian venture!
How can Truth Social be worth $6 billion?
It isn’t. At close today (32.41/share, down another 5.40% today) the market cap is $4.43 billion.
Best case, the most undeservingly positive spin you can put on TS’s future is for it to supplant Twitter as the forum of choice for literally everyone. At it’s height, Twitter was worth, maybe half what Musk paid for it, call it $25B.
At it’s height, Twitter generated $5B of revenue per year, while TS generates less than $5M. TS has to grow 1,000x its current size while fighting off the entrenched player in this space, in order to be worth 6x it’s current market value. AND its primary selling point is the content generated by one 77 year old man.
Truly amazing.
Even more amazing is that said 77-year-old is barely literate, possesses almost no useful information about anything, and lies about everything!
Hmmm. But I heard Trump’s a skilled debater?
I’m not very knowledgeable about these things, but it’s my understanding that short sellers, when they want to close a short position, they repurchases the shares at the lower price, thus making a profit.
However, if a lot of short sellers want to lock in profits, this repurchase can then tend to buoy up the price (as a bunch of buying is going on). It seems this would tend to dampen out a sharp fall in price; if there are a lot of short sellers locking in profit by buying.
In the case of this Trumpy stock though, I understand there was not a lot of stock to borrow in the initial phases, so there will not be a lot stock out there shorted. So this “buffer” to buoy up the price of this stock in case of a sudden drop may not be there in this particular case.
Do I have the basics right?
No, it’s not the just the act of buying that drives up price. For every buyer, there’s someone selling too.
In the case of short sellers buying to lock in a profit, the demand is on the sell side, so there’s downward pressure on the price.
The short-selling that drives up the price is on the opposite end, when prices have climbed and the short sellers are forced to buy. Here the demand is on the buy side, so it drives prices even higher.
ETA: but you are right in the second part about very low supply of shares available to be shorted.
But if there are a lot of short sellers entering the market and buying… how does that not translate into pushing the price higher?
I’m thinking in terms of a product, say a widget. If there are a bunch of people suddenly wanting to buy widgets, does that not translate into a big demand for widgets, and thus an increase in the widget price?
(ETA: This is clearly why I don’t mess around with puts and calls, shorting or futures markets)
Because there are a lot more regular investors trying to sell their shares.
It’s my understanding that short sellings don’t actually buy stock they borrow it. I borrow a share from you for .10 cents, I sell that share for $2.00 now, I buy the stock back in a few months for $1.00, and when I give it back to you I’ve made .90 cents.
I get that, but if a bunch of short sellers buy the stock back on the open market for $1.00, does that not have any effect on the market price? Because all of a sudden there might be more buyers than sellers?
I’m not saying it would drive the price up much… but it might ameliorate the downward spiral just for a bit, until the shorts have all finished buying…
But there isn’t a demand to buy by the shorters. They are happy to wait until it drops even more. Meanwhile, there is a strong demand to sell by everyone else.
ETA: I might be oversimplifying, because shorting can help establish a floor on the price if it becomes so undervalued that all the shorts are buying and you get interest in buying from regular investors as well. So you’re not completely wrong on this.