site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think Musks always was buying twitter partly for control. Twitter is a classic example of a company that fails to create a lot of its own value creation. A lot of value goes thru twitter, I believe it’s the most powerful media property in the world, but it doesn’t monetize well. It always had a bit of being a trophy assets. With fairly high confidence I believe trump wins the election in 2020 if Musks was in charge. Which makes at 50 billion twitter relatively trivially cheap.

That being said I do believe he can turn around twitter and make it financially viable. If he can get twitter to 6 billion revenue and 4 billion costs then it’s worth 50 billion. Meta has 120 billion in revenue. And from twitter he can spin off into tick tocks and other side projects.

It’s going to be ugly financially for a bit but it’s an asset that creates value for people and musks just needs to figure out how to capture a bunch of that.

If he can get twitter to 6 billion revenue and 4 billion costs then it’s worth 50 billion.

Interest rates are 4.09% as of yesterday, so a highly liquid $2B revenue stream guaranteed by full faith and credit of the US government is worth $50B.

Even if Musk gets twitter to make $2B/year, it's certainly not highly liquid and/or guaranteed by the US govt. Hence it's worth less.

That said, if Musk can get twitter to $1B EBIT then debt service is handled and he eventually owns twitter outright and just needs to keep it in the black. Then it's his prestige property, much like the Bezos Post or the Soros Conspiracy (I have no idea what to call Soros's shadowy enterprise that gets you called antisemitic if you acknowledge it's existence and influence).

That’s not exactly how you do a dcf.

And your a bit high on rate. I am seeing 10 year at 3.8% and 30 year at 3.9% - which are better duration matches.

But twitter presumably once achieving $2 billion income would still be growing income at inflationary rates or more. Even if Twitter just grows at nominal income growth that’s another 3.5% yield.

Twitter at $2 billion at $50 billion valuation would have yes a 4% cash flow yield plus earnings growing at 3.5% a year which is still a nice premium over a 3.9% US treasury 30 year.

I looked at a 20 year: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd20y?countrycode=bx

Which I admit is perhaps a little cherrypicked to be the top of the long term yield curve, and also just a mental ballpark calculation: https://www.ustreasuryyieldcurve.com/

But twitter presumably once achieving $2 billion income would still be growing income at inflationary rates or more. Even if Twitter just grows at nominal income growth that’s another 3.5% yield.

Or it could be shrinking as competition in that space grows (due to Amazon + Microsoft getting in the game).

I agree that a blue chip history of growing with inflation twitter could be valuable, but that's not just getting twitter to $2B profit. That's getting twitter to the point of having had stable profits for long enough that equity markets consider it reliable. That's quite a ways in the future, just to get back to the $44B price tag.

Well figure is unpredictable.

But a standard dcf would just assume out a modest out year growth rate. They could do better and take market share or they could shrink but most would just throw in some kind of long term growth rate of nominal gdp trend.

Also $2 billion was just a number I threw out that seems possible. They could normalize to $4 billion or more. Don’t think anyone knows what twitters ultimate monetization value is.

Inside baseball - 20 year old doesn’t have market liquidity support. It’s been 20-30 bps higher yield than anything else near it for about a year. So odd you happened to pick that year because it’s been out of synch with every other benchmark for a year.

Equity is priced differently than debt. In part because debt is often a fixed return. If we give a 20x return then 2b is 40b. You need higher multiple to get to 50b. I don’t think you see that unless interest rates fall.