We discuss often the goal of killing all of what is our US STOCK MARKET---WALL STREET as all STOCK OPTIONS AND OWNERSHIP go private----and the major shareholders having all the power are all global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS. TWITTER is called an US corporation when in fact it has from the start been tied by a majority of stock to OLD WORLD KINGS. Our US pensions, 401Ks, MUTUAL FUNDS always tied to these NEW TEMPORARY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS have the profits rigged to those global 1% with TIERED TRANCHES----while our ALL-AMERICAN 99% WE THE PEOPLE keep losing any gains.
AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed
Meet Twitter’s second-largest shareholder.
A PRINCELY SUM
This Saudi prince now owns more of Twitter than Jack Dorsey does
By Alice TruongOctober 7, 2015
Just because global banking 1% makes a BEOWULF of one of our 5% freemason/Greek players does not make that TEMPORARILY MERELY RICH BEOWULF ----as this TWITTER ------DORSEY-------of any use to our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE even if your name is DORSEY.
So, as with BILL GATES----ELON MUSK----BRANSON----none of these BEOWULFS will have wealth MOVING FORWARD.....nor will DORSEY. These are simply global banking 5% freemason/Greek players as FIGUREHEADS.
ALL OF THESE MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS FOR TWITTER ARE GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS.
65.09% Total Number of Holders 806 Total Shares Held 495,466,713 Total Value of Holdings 16,677,409,560 Net Activity 3,966,576
Top 5 Holders of Institutional Holdings
1.VANGUARD GROUP INC70,255,589
4.CLEARBRIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC26,840,485
5.STATE STREET CORP25,270,345
TWITTER AS FACEBOOK WAS BUILT TO FAIL----TEMPORARY BUSINESSES TO MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGY GRID-----USING ALL OF OUR 99% WE THE PEOPLE SHAREHOLDER WEALTH AND TAXES.
So, with this global corporation being TWITTER tied to OLD WORLD GALWAY families as 5% freemason/Greek players -----NOT OLD WORLD ROYAL ----just being used to sack and loot the US and take it to colonial status ----very soon these 5% families will be under the bus with NO MONEY.
Who owns Twitter?
A look at the players who could make or break a deal.
Ev. Jack. Ballmer. The Prince.By Kurt Wagner Aug 11, 2016, 6:30am EDT
Who is going to buy Twitter?
That’s the $18 billion question Silicon Valley has been asking itself for over a year since it became apparent Twitter wasn’t growing the way investors once hoped.
In that time, the list of suggested suitors has grown steadily: Google is always a popular option, and others like News Corp, Silver Lake, activist Carl Icahn and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have been tossed around, too.
Last week, well-known Twitter investors Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft CEO who owns the Los Angeles Clippers, and Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal joined the list, a combination that was really interesting since together they own roughly 9 percent of the company.
And it shouldn’t come as a surprise if hedge funds or private equity firms start sniffing around, too.
Which got us thinking: Who are the other key players with either the influence or ownership necessary to make or break a potential Twitter deal? The list, it turns out, isn’t long.
Despite Twitter’s single-class stock structure, which means anyone with a big enough checkbook could theoretically come in and buy up the lot, a takeover won’t be as easy as dropping a few dozen billions.
A takeout price for Twitter will require some kind of premium to its $13 billion market value, even for a slow-growing company that loses money.
LinkedIn, which had also seen a slowdown in growth and is not profitable, was recently acquired by Microsoft for $26.2 billion, or about 33 times its yearly operating profit (Ebitda, for you balance sheet geeks).
If you apply the same multiple to Twitter, you’re looking at a takeout price of a little over $18 billion, or a 38 percent premium to its latest trading price of $19.04.
Add on the fact that much of the board is new, with little financial stake in the company. It’s possible they are loyal to CEO Jack Dorsey, who essentially appointed them, and don’t have the financial incentive to push change the way older, more frustrated investors might.
To be sure, a board director’s duty is to the shareholders and not the CEO, but that’s always a hard one to parse when, again, most of the board was nominated by the CEO.
Any interested buyer will likely need help from those who do have financial incentive — the folks in the chart above who can either apply pressure on board members or make a bunch of noise in public, like investor Chris Sacca did around the time former CEO Dick Costolo left last summer.
A few things to note about the list.
- Ev Williams seems to be the most important piece of this puzzle. As a company co-founder who’s also the biggest individual shareholder, it’s likely any takeover bid would require his agreement. He’s also the only other board member with experience running Twitter, which he might want to do again someday (although it didn’t go very well last time).
- Board member Peter Fenton and his VC firm Benchmark have a much smaller stake in Twitter than they did one year ago — almost 80 percent fewer shares, to be precise. But while Fenton doesn’t own as much as he used to, he’s still on the board, which gives him more influence than most outsiders.
- Most of these numbers are from SEC filings, but Ballmer’s stake is estimated. He said publicly in October that he owned 4 percent of the company, so we calculated his total shares based on the number of shares outstanding at the time. It’s possible he has purchased or sold shares since then, but we don’t know for certain. Ballmer declined to comment on his ownership stake through a Clippers spokesperson.
The idea of a takeover, be-it hostile or not, is still floating around because many investors still want it to happen. (Hence the stock jump.) Twitter’s user base isn’t growing, and now its business isn’t growing the way Wall Street likes, either. Every three months, the company delivers disappointing earnings that put a big, fat rain cloud over any positive progress it’s making toward a turnaround.
Bringing the company private, or hiding it behind some other acquirer, certainly looks appealing to those who believe Twitter just needs time.
So who is going to buy Twitter? You can expect the list will keep growing.
No bigger global banking 1% FAKE NEWS media then VANITY FAIR----but we want to look at the goals of MOVING FORWARD ending all free and accessible communications in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES because these 1000BC DARK CONTINENT zones do not want all those global labor pool 99% whether US citizens or immigrants to be able to communicate with one another ---or to attain REAL INFORMATION. That is what these FACEBOOK and TWITTER global corporations were installed to do----all the technology and business plans developed by US military agencies now privately owned by global military corporations---NOT SOVEREIGN US.
We discussed in detail the goals of FACEBOOK -----global banking 1% always SPIN FEDERAL SPENDING as a social benefit when the goals are far-right wing global corporate FASCIST. FACEBOOK and social media with STREAMING VIDEOS-----STREAMING MUSIC----all required the same internet and cable infrastructure as do global HEALTH CORPORATION SYSTEMS-----global EDUCATION CORPORATION SYSTEMS-----global MILITARY/SURVEILLANCE CORPORATION SYSTEMS do. While CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and those 5% freemason/Greek players PRETEND all this is DEMOCRATIZING media-----creating populist access to all kinds of music, arts, culture----trillions of dollars from BUSH/OBAMA has been spent for ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID to be used ONLY for global corporations.
FACEBOOK included many of these diverse communications structures needed for global online businesses. That was why ZUCKERBERG as a global banking 5% freemason BEOWULF was installed as a FIGUREHEAD in this TEMPORARY CORPORATION now on its way out because Obama era secured US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global corporate campus building and operations funding $20 trillion dollars in US Treasury debt ----directed only at funding these global online systems. They no longer need SOCIAL BENEFIT FACEBOOK to keep our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE entertained.
The Big Difference Between Facebook and Twitter
There is a simple reason why one became a 1.2 billion user juggernaut and the other can’t sell itself.
November 3, 2016 2:00 pm
Last week, Twitter C.E.O. Jack Dorsey made the fateful decision to fold Vine, the six second video platform that it purchased four years ago. The reasons for Vine’s demise are sad and complicated and largely parallel Twitter’s own conundrums—internal politics, existential questions, mismanagement, and apprehension to execute on ideas, among others. Twitter, of course, has been embroiled in a torturous quasi-official sale process in which a number of flirtatious admirers—Disney, Google, and Salesforce—eventually passed. Salesforce C.E.O. Marc Benioff, who cited the platform’s problem with harassment and abuse, has been the most transparent about his reasons for walking away.
Indeed, Twitter does have a trolling problem. But there is another significant reason that the social media has become unattractive to potential buyers, and it has nothing to do with trolls. Just as Twitter rode Sand Hill Road’s wave of excitement over social media companies, it appears to have failed to pivot the next big thing: messaging services. This reality was reflected in this week’s dramatic earnings reports. Twitter, which recently revamped its direct messaging service, announced it would be laying off nine percent of its staff. Facebook, which operates the wildly successful platforms Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, reported nearly five percent growth in the quarter—a staggering feat for a company with $7 billion in quarterly earnings and 1.79 million active users.
But in terms of social media companies innovating as fast as their users demand it, Snapchat is far and away ahead of the curve. Last month the company announced it would be rebranding as Snap, a camera company, and announced a hardware product: Spectacles. What Snapchat has done well that no other social media company has been able to do is try a hundred different things, ditching the ideas that don’t work and embracing the litany of services that do. Instead of settling as an ephemeral messaging platform, Snapchat created Stories, a place for your photos and videos to be see by all your friends for a 24-hour window, and then Discover, a media hub to view stories and video from outlets like Cosmopolitan, Complex, and the Wall Street Journal. Some experiments haven’t been so successful. Snapchat once had a Venmo competitor called Snapcash, but it didn’t gain traction. But no matter: for every failed Snapcash, Evan Spiegel has five more ideas up his sleeve. Perhaps this is why Snapchat is said to be going public at a $25 to $35 billion valuation.
Lot's of articles written by global banking 1% FAKE MEDIA outlets as to why these two global communications corporations are DIFFERENT. OBAMA era PRIVATIZED US AIRWAVES to global telecommunications corporations telling US 99% WE THE PEOPLE this was all about bringing HIGH-SPEED downloading-----the WIFI-filled US CITIES.
Facebook because it is tied with so many images----mega-data packets ------lots of virtual spaces-----created a need for lots of AIR WAVE SPACE. TWITTER as simply TEXT MESSAGING----as we do with DIGITAL PHONES-----requires none of that AIR WAVE SPACE needed by global online corporations. TEXT MESSAGES---being like email are on the margins of AIR WAVE SPACE capacity transmission based on CELL PHONE TOWERS-----
Facebook vs. Twitter: Here's how they're different
Julia Boorstin | @JBoorstin
Published 12:52 PM ET Fri, 4 Oct 2013 Updated 1:00 PM ET Fri, 4 Oct 2013
It's natural to mention Twitter and Facebook in the same breath, but they are very different companies. Yes, of course Facebook's built on the idea of connecting friends, while Twitter is designed for people from all over the world who haven't met to carry on a global conversation.
But Twitter's initial public offering filing revealed just how unlike these two companies really are.
First, Twitter is a much smaller company, with 215 million monthly active users, compared with Facebook's 1.15 billion. Last year when Facebook filed to go public it had 845 million.
At the time of its IPO filing, Facebook was profitable, and had been for three years—Twitter still isn't profitable. It made progress toward profitability in 2013, with net losses decreasing 38 percent to $79.4 million. But, in the first half of this year, thanks to a slew of acquisitions, its net losses increased 41 percent to $69.3 million.
Why the discrepancy? Twitter didn't include any ads for years—it launched its first ads, "promoted tweets," in the summer of 2010, but didn't launch any ads on mobile until last summer. Facebook, in contrast had some sort of ads when it launched back in 2004, and opened up to ad networks in 2006.
And while Facebook spent 7.5 percent of its revenue on "general and administrative costs" in 2011, the year before it filed, in 2012, Twitter spent 18.8 percent of its revenue. Before its IPO Facebook spent 11.5 percent of its revenue on sales and marketing, Twitter spent 27.3 percent.
To Twitter's credit, its revenue is growing very fast, faster than Facebook's. In 2012 Twitter's revenue tripled to $317 million, and in the first half of 2013 Twitter's revenue more than doubled to $254 million.
Also, Twitter has strength in mobile, which is in sharp contrast to Facebook when it went public. Three quarters of Twitter's users access the service through a mobile device, accounting for 65 percent of ad revenue.
At Facebook's IPO it had zero mobile revenue, posing a major challenge—detailed in its S-1 filing under "Risk Factors." Now Facebook has grown mobile to over 40 percent of its mobile revenue; for both companies this is still a major area of growth.
Even Twitter and Facebook's ownership structures are different. Twitter has no controlling shareholder with special voting rights: The largest stakeholder is co-founder and former CEO Evan Williams with a 12 percent stake, while Chairman Jack Dorsey has 4.9 percent.
It only has a single class of shares, while Facebook is a totally different story. It qualifies as a "controlled company" with a huge amount of power lying in the hands of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, thanks to his 57 percent ownership of Facebook's Class B voting shares.
We'll see whether giving each shareholder the same vote—just like each Twitter user has the same voice--ends up helping Twitter, or whether the fact that Facebook's controlled by Zuckerberg's controlling vision gives it the advantage.
Where FACEBOOK and social media was designed to draw our US 99% of the infrastructure needed for AIR WAVE global ONLINE CORPORATIONS------TWITTER as cell phone TEXT MESSAGES are off that GRID. They function with cell phone towers. This is why FACEBOOK is soon to disappear removing our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE from AIR WAVES capacity to be used ONLY by global corporate campuses------and pushing all our US 99% and new to US immigrants to TEXT MESSAGING----TWITTER being yet another TEMPORARY GLOBAL CORPORATION making our citizens feel they still have the ability to COMMUNICATE.
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-------WILL SEE THOSE CELL PHONE TOWERS DISAPPEAR.
OBAMA made Blackberry SMART PHONES popular to justify trillions of dollars in Federal spending building that AIR WAVE infrastructure needed for global online corporations---while TRUMP is making TWITTER cool, both working to MOVE FORWARD global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ONE WORLD.
This is why US national FAKE NEWS is filled with TRUMP and TWITTER-----filled with global banking 1% freemason STARS as they TWITTER.
This Video Explains How Your Texts Are Sent From One Phone to Another
When you send a text message to someone else, there’s a long, complicated path from your phone to theirs. If you’ve ever wondered just how that network works, this video breaks it down.
In the simplest terms, when you send a text message, it’s picked up by the nearest cell tower, transmitted to a nearby mobile switch center, and stored there until it can be delivered to its destination. Most of the time it’s only stored for a few seconds, but if the target phone is offline or out of network, it can take a little longer.
Admittedly, some of this information might be pretty basic for the average Lifehacker reader, but it’s important to keep in mind when we talk about things like the security of two-factor authentication. If you’re using SMS messages to get authentication codes, those cell towers and switching centers add a lot of weak links that attackers can target. Which is why you should use something more secure like authenticator apps when you can.
Global banking 1% made a mint pushing our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE onto cell phones and social media-----now they are getting those same 99% OFF of air waves soon to be designated for ONLY GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES/FACTORIES.
There really is no difference between TWITTER AND TEXTING.
Again, this is simply a NEXT STEP in MOVING FORWARD killing all communications in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES not controlled and tied to global corporate campuses. Our citizens will be made to think they can still at least TEXT one another-----while cell phone TEXT MESSAGING is lowest rate on cell phone bills------soon as we say our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE will not be able to afford INTERNET ONLINE CELL PHONE RATES whether Smart phone or text plans.
This is all happening because of communications policies installed by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global banking 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown players----now TRUMP will simply push all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to a TEXTING communications only-----TWITTER TEXTING will only be TEMPORARY.
The Difference Between Twitter & Texting
by Serm Murmson
Smartphones can blur the line between Twitter and texting.
Twitter Vs. Jabber
Empty Your Twitter DM
Similarities Between Facebook & Twitter
Twitter and texting are two services that broadcast short messages. While they operate via similar protocols with similar length restrictions, they are used across different platforms, and are aimed at different recipient groups. Twitter messages are often more public in nature, whereas texting is a better platform for private messages.
Twitter and texting differ in the way in which messages are directed. On Twitter, a user broadcasts a tweet on her account; any people who follow her account will see that tweet. Additionally, if a user has allowed her tweets to be viewed publicly, those tweets may be seen by users who do not follow her or they may be accessed by an app. Text messages, on the other hand, are aimed at a much smaller audience. While a text message can have multiple recipients, each one of those recipients must be specifically and intentionally addressed. Texting is therefore better for sending private messages to a person or group of people.
Short Message Service
Text messages operate via the SMS protocol, which dictates that messages must be under 160 characters in length. This protocol extends beyond cell phones; therefore, texting can be used to send data from a cell phone to a database, or vice versa. For example, a cell phone user can access the Google database by sending a text query to 46645 (GOOGL). This will return location and phone data for a business in the form of a text message.
Twitter via Texting
Twitter was created with SMS in mind. The length of a tweet is limited to 140 characters. A user can link her cell phone to her Twitter account online. This enables her to send tweets via text message. However, this is not mandatory. A user does not need a cell phone in order to create and use a Twitter account.
Twitter is foremost an online social networking service. Therefore, it depends on the Internet. While users can opt to receive Twitter notifications via text message, the default platform for Twitter is Internet-based. Texting, on the other hand, takes place independently from the Internet. Text messages are exchanged within or between cell phone service providers.
We picked upon our STATE OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY leaders to show when in Maryland our public universities were taken to being CORPORATIONS ------serving global banking 1% and not PUBLIC INTEREST which was of course that same period of KIRWAN AND DORSEY......University of Maryland system made corporate -------we discuss this in detail as the creation of QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL status for our PUBLIC AGENCIES.
This is why our public universities in Maryland are pushed to design curricula surrounding the needs of global banking 1% and global corporations----and not our local Baltimore City economy----it is why our public universities in Maryland do not HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE------or strive to provide REAL INFORMATION.
Below we see the SAME QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL structure installed to advance ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID policy all controlled by global corporations owned by OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---nothing ALL-AMERICAN happening with these funding and research structures capturing our PUBLIC STATE AND CITY UNIVERSITIES----and all the TALKING POINTS and ACADEMIC writing coming from our universities.
RATHER THAN SHOUT AGAINST ALL THIS MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID AS DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----OUR US PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE CAPTURED TO PROMOTING ALL THIS.
All this was the MASTER PLAN for Maryland and Baltimore from back in 1980s-90s------same time all REAL INFORMATION coming from local media, local journalism, local academic writing was CAPTURED to global banking 1% WEALTH AND POWER only.
These are the gorilla-in-room public policy issues on communications for all our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and new to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE immigrants-----not TRUMP TRUMP RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
Maryland Technology Development Corporation
The fiscal 2016 budget includes a negative deficiency of $1 million for fiscal 2015 to implement cost containment actions under the Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund.
Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO) is subject to its share of statewide across-the-board cost containment actions that reduces its general funds by approximately
$788,000 over fiscal 2015 and 2016.
After accounting for cost containment actions, the fiscal 2016 allowance for TEDCO declines by approximately $176,000 in general funds from the fiscal 2015 working appropriation.
The corporation does not report personnel data through the State budget system because its employees are not State employees; however, the corporation reports that it has 15 full
-time positions and 7 part-time positions
Maryland Technology Development Corporation
Analysis of the FY 2016 Maryland Executive Budget,
Analysis in Brief
Program’s Funding Spurs Downstream Investment
A measure of success of the corporation’s
Technology Commercialization Fund is the extent to which recipients can secure follow
In fiscal 2014, recipients were able to secure downstream funding in excess of what was originally
w Measures for the Maryland Innovation Initiative
The Maryland Innovation Initiative, created
by Chapter 450 of 2012, is designed to combine the technology transfer expertise of TEDCO and the
research expertise of the State’s research universities to spe
ed commercialization opportunities. The
corporation has begun to track the number of start
up companies that are formed as a result of the
program’s funded projects.
We know this 1970s global banking 1% freemason STAR group singing FREE BIRD was selling the FAD of REAGANOMICS-------GLOBAL DARK AGES LAISSEZ FAIRE-------as FREE----but the top priority for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE is protecting our ability to COMMUNICATE-----to access REAL INFORMATION------and both cannot be rebuilt unless we STOP MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID and end the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE ----bringing our US public universities back to working for PUBLIC INTEREST ----COMMON GOOD.
We must remove LOCALLY those corporate structures capturing our public government agencies----whether COUNTY/CITY or STATE.
About this website
Lynyrd Skynyrd -
Free Bird (Live August 21st, 1976)
... well just found that clip on a hard disk - not sure about the location and…