Twitter's 10-K highlights huge ad impression growth, falling prices


Twitter's (TWTR -1.3%) first 10-K filing reveals the company's "ad engagements" rose 74% Q/Q and over 6x Y/Y in Q4. At the same time, this surge in ad impressions/inventory led the company's average cost per engagement to fall 18% Q/Q and 69% Y/Y.

Twitter notes the launch of its promoted tweet/trend/account ad products on mobile served to grow inventory, as did their launch in new international markets. The company unveiled a slew of new ad products in Q4, including ones specifically aimed at TV viewers and mobile app users.

Also disclosed: Twitter's U.S. ad revenue per 1K Timeline views is still more than 6x international levels ($3.80 vs. $0.60). The U.S. figure rose 48% Q/Q, and the international figure 67%. This gap is the reason international sales accounted for only 27% of Q4 revenue, even though Twitter's international active user base is more than 3x as large as its U.S. base.

Twitter says it paid $36M to buy 900 patents from IBM, and thus end an IP dispute with the IT giant.

From other sites
Comments (47)
  • 6269751
    , contributor
    Comments (1216) | Send Message
     
    I like Seeking Alpha but they should label their datasources. This one sounds like "PR Newswire." They are trying to positive-spin their financial reports, but the stock is down 15.56% YTD, as well as 1.51% so far today. I guess investors aren't seeing the rosy picture yet, despite the PR "highlighting."
    7 Mar 2014, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    626....I do agree with you, which is why it's down 2.33% today (even lower at one point). Using the analogy of cooking, when someone is trying to flavor burnt rice, no matter what was done, the rice is still burnt and will still taste bad, so TWTR's attempts to create a rosy picture doesn't cut it for investors with a nose for smelly rats. I'm insulted that they think they can pull a fast one by us that easily. Shame on them.
    7 Mar 2014, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    $TWTR IPO only out since November 2013.

     

    Give it time. Oscar night proved the popularity of Twitter.
    8 Mar 2014, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (1163) | Send Message
     
    Sorry you feel that way. The post also makes note of Twitter's falling ad prices, and the huge gulf between its U.S. and international monetization. I'd say it features both positive and negative news.
    7 Mar 2014, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • CJJ2014
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    There is a difference between falling ad prices and falling ad costs. One is TWTR's cost, therefore the lower the better, and the other is the price paid by advertiser, the higher the better.

     

    Which is it?
    7 Mar 2014, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • ValueinvestorEU
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    again reciting the same article again and again. great journalism.

     

    It does not state that the 36 million dollars is relating to the IBM patents. those are most likely included in the Q1 report and not the 10-k, except for under the legal items and without numbers.

     

    My guess is that the 36 million dollars are other unrelated patents costs as when Twitter internal legal department is filing new patents to increase the portfolio. It is highly unlikely that the 36 millions is the total cost for 900 patent it would be the cheapest 900 patents ever bought...

     

    Please mark this post and feel free to ridicule me if I am not right.

     

    the 36 millions is NOT near the cost of the IBM patents...

     

    No material from Twitter should be trusted, they cannot even describe to their sharesholders what the total oustanding diluted equity is... that company is all smoke and mirrors.
    7 Mar 2014, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (1163) | Send Message
     
    Read the Bloomberg article. They paid $36M for the IBM patents.

     

    http://bloom.bg/1f7AvFE
    7 Mar 2014, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • ValueinvestorEU
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    I have read the bloomberg articles.

     

    Bad journalism, they are drawing conclusions they cant draw. Read for yourself page 82 in the 10-K. Am I also suppose to believe the outstanding shares that bloomberg had in their database? - because that number is obviously false as well as it is significantly less than the outstanding shares (excluding RSUs and options) that the company themselves reported.

     

    but its like that to be on the short side, people wont believe it untill they actually see the company report it. people didnt understand the treatment of RSUs either and some media's were surprised that the GAAP result was that low.
    7 Mar 2014, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • ValueinvestorEU
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    Sorry I can get a bit worked up when a company like Twitter can get away with this. People need to take a hard look at what they really write and not what you think they write.

     

    All reporting from that company so far has served the purpose of misleading instead of disclosing, thats my view and one that was pretty well backed up by the fact that Bloomberg, factset, nasdaq and yahoo finance all had significant different sharecounts from one another up untill recent..

     

    But people will eventually believe....
    7 Mar 2014, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Long Term Value
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    I think the share count is 569.9 million shares. Page 73 of 10-k
    8 Mar 2014, 03:10 AM Reply Like
  • ValueinvestorEU
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    First page

     

    588,378,111. as of february 28th 2014.

     

    That is non-diluted number. the diluted number is still shortly above 700 million shares.

     

    my point was just that those databases had different numbers that all omitted something from the sharebase, so simply listening to mainstream media is not the way to go for a serious investor and the conclusion that Bloomberg drew with the patents is another example.

     

    No where in the 10-k does it say that those 36 million dollars are for the IBM patent, most likely it is other unrelated patents as twitter is "building a patent portfolio". Doing research and benchmarking the purchase of 900 licenses to other cases you will find that it is very highly unlikely that they only paid 36 million dollars.

     

    900 patents usually costs between 500 million to 1 billion. The fact that Twitter bought it for an undisclosed amount furthermore is a telltale. if it was a petty 36 million dollars they wouldnt mind writing that in the 10-k, but they didnt. Knowing how IBM has acted in other cases I rule out the possibility that they would cross-license 900 patents for pocket change.

     

    The fact that there is still doubt about the outstanding unexcersised equty instruments is because Twitter do not want us to know, their entire 10-k is shrouded in incomprehensible language when it comes to issues they dont like to talk about
    8 Mar 2014, 03:29 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    Valueinvestor......I'm right there with you, my friend. I know IBM or Big Blue very well, having worked with them in years past. If you had infringed their patents, they will leave no stone unturned to squeeze every last drop out of you (much worse than what Apple is doing with Samsung), so it's absolutely unthinkable for them to let TWTR walk away scot-free with only pocket change. I would think that the final figure is closer to $1B but they may agree to a payment plan that may involve something else, which has yet to be divulged. Nobody can pull the wool over Big Blue. They've been in this patent business longer than anybody else, as they've invested much more into R&D than anyone else. Their biggest problem is their size and their inability to market their discoveries effectively, which make it difficult for them to make money, except to sell licenses. So, the $36M may not be payment for patent purchase and may just be for licensing fees. Whatever it is, Twitter is not coming out with clean hands, which makes what they say unbelievable.
    8 Mar 2014, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    So don't buy the stock!

     

    I own it because I use and enjoy Twitter as do millions.

     

    Overthinking a stock can be detrimental!
    8 Mar 2014, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Long Term Value
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    You are right. The number of shares I stated was as of 12/31/13. Seems to grow all the time....
    8 Mar 2014, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    phemale.....as I recall, you were losing money at one time with TWTR, until you were able to average down your costs and now, you're probably in a better position to praise TWTR again. As I told you before, we're talking about the stock TWTR and not the service Twitter, which I don't use and I don't care how popular it is because I've no intention of learning how to use it at this time. Let me make this point very clearly to you again, viz. it doesn't mean that even an insanely-popular product or service cannot be over-valued, as it can be pumped-up by hype and frenzy, which makes it more costly than it's actually worth.

     

    As for the stock TWTR, I still have the conviction that it's largely over-valued, particularly as the management hasn't been showing clean hands to date and I do suspect a lot of hanky-panky is going on with them that we don't know about. Take, for example, their reported purchase of the 900 patents from IBM, which they didn't disclose an amount until we screamed about it and reported the matter to SEC. Now, they gave us a ridiculously-low pittance of $36M, which is unthinkable for IBM to let go of their 900 patents practically for free and release them from the legal dispute practically scot-free because IBM's investments in these patents are certainly more than the $36M that they're getting.

     

    BTW, I've also told you before that I don't buy into TWTR. I've been shorting it, since it came out, and I've been making money from it, so I've never done any over-thinking about TWTR. All I can say is that it's over-valued and it's going to go down, regardless how much it's being pumped up every now and then. Also, it used to be pumped up by the traders, so that they can dump it for profit but if you notice the volume traded on TWTR, it's been going down, which suggests that trader activity has lessened very significantly. Without the traders to pump up the price, TWTR is not going up much any time soon. Whenever it does go up, there'll be vultures like yours truly waiting to short it down again.

     

    All I can say is place your bets where your mouth is and then, we'll see who will take the losses. Don't say you've not been warned. Have a great week ahead and I hope you do actually make some real money. May the odds be always in our favor.
    9 Mar 2014, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    benitus,

     

    I'm holding it long in my IRA, not a day trader, and am adding as goes lower.

     

    Over past few years I've watched people downplay $LVS $CMG $TSLA $WFM $DECK as overvalued and those stocks are now doing incredibly well. I'm sticking to my gut over this one.
    9 Mar 2014, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • ValueinvestorEU
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    Phemale

     

    Everyone is a genius in a raging bull market, and most often the stocks that goes up the most are the least deserving. the same people then complain the market is rigged when their stocks fall 80-100% in a couple of years.

     

    please atleast do some basic calculus and you would see that Twitter is not worth anywhere near the current price. If you wont do that you should not really be investing your money in individual stocks but intead rely on index funds.
    9 Mar 2014, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    valueinvestor......well said, pal. Couldn't put it any better. I feel so sorry for so-called investors who stick their heads in the sand (no reference to you, phemale) and tell themselves that everything will turn out fine, then find that the train has left town when the noise has died down. Good job, my friend.
    9 Mar 2014, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    phemale....I'm glad to know that you're holding it in your IRA and that you actually intend to add on as it goes lower because that will reduce your average costs but you should take some profits when it bounces up, so that you can reduce your costs much faster. However, I would really urge you to put aside your feelings for TWTR and what others have to say, and take a seriously hard look at the stock. Then, decide for yourself what is the downside potential and what is the upside potential, since the heydays of its dizzying heights (all thanks to traders who pump up the stock and then dump it for a huge killing), so that you can at least have a grip on the likely direction it will take in the near future.

     

    One simple rule of thumb that I recommend to those who have no clue how to consider a stock's potential is to count the number of days it has gone down and the number of days that it has gone up, since the time it has come down from the top, and the answer is there for all to see. (Some will use a 50-day or 100-day moving average). Please don't forget that TWTR used to be a hot favorite among traders (still a favorite but declining), who were largely responsible for pumping up the price. These people have the funds to move mountains and do you think they won't do their due diligence before jumping into the stock with their millions. I'm only watching out for you, my friend.

     

    BTW, I've absolutely no interest in those stocks that you mentioned and I'm only familiar with TSLA, which I do think is over-valued, but it defies logic because it's held mostly by people who are passionate about TSLA (traders have by and large gone to play elsewhere), so it's not fun to play with one-sided stocks. Besides, I can't play with so many stocks at the same time. My trading portfolio has less than ten stocks at any one time but my investing portfolio is entirely different, which I only look at from time to time, regardless of which way it goes, so long as it's earning the dividends that I expect. Have a wonderful week ahead.
    9 Mar 2014, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • Andrei Volgin
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    This report spells trouble for all social networks. Most of their growth, if any, comes from overseas expansion, where ad prices, according to Twitter, are 6 times lower. We will see a sharp slow-down in revenue growth for ad-supported companies (FB, LNKD) that rely on international user growth.
    7 Mar 2014, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Stone Fox Capital
    , contributor
    Comments (8604) | Send Message
     
    or maybe the international ad rates will jump.. A huge part of the problem is that all these companies are US based with probably limited international sales departments or user bases spread amongst numerous countries. Its just a matter of connecting with advertisers in these other countries.
    7 Mar 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Andrei Volgin
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    Are you suggesting that people in countries like India, China or Brazil will suddenly become as rich as people in the U.S.? The difference in average incomes is huge, and it's not going anywhere.
    7 Mar 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    Quote.."international sales accounted for only 27% of Q4 revenue, even though Twitter's international active user base is more than 3x as large as its U.S. base", unquote.

     

    Andrei....it's not just the ad prices being lower but that many of the international accounts are bogus or fake accounts, so the actual number of active user accounts overseas is only a fraction of what was claimed, which will account for lower ad revenue, besides the fact that ad prices overseas are lower than the U.S. market. Moreover, overseas markets have more choices to use and Twitter isn't as popular as in the U.S., so overseas advertisers aren't buying into Twitter as much as in the U.S.
    7 Mar 2014, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    Hah. Not if our minimum wage remains as is while tapering/inflation begins. India, Brazil, China emerging while we're stagnating.
    8 Mar 2014, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • James Sands
    , contributor
    Comments (2437) | Send Message
     
    Andrei,

     

    That 6xs multiple is down from 15.5 as of March 2012. Based on this year's estimates this number will most likely drop near 4.8. Twitter's international advertising revenue is growing quite robustly. Twitter's yoy international revenue numbers are still above 200% on a quarterly basis for all of 2013. Q4 2013 sequential growth was 54% down from 63% in 2012. Advertising revenue per 1,000 timeline views increased sequentially in 2013 Q4 yoy to 67% from 47% in 2012.
    8 Mar 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Andrei Volgin
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    @James,

     

    Look at the difference in income levels. Even if you narrow it down to Twitter users only (Internet users in most markets earn more than the rest of the population), it is still huge. You can hire most college graduates in India for $500-1,000 per month, for example. Advertisers will never pay the same rates to reach these people as they do in the U.S. It will take decades to close this gap, and only if the income gap disappears.
    8 Mar 2014, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • James Sands
    , contributor
    Comments (2437) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the opinion, but I'm not so sure there is a correlation with this example. If this were truly the case companies like Baidu wouldn't be estimated to generate $10 billion in revenue for 2015. Advertising is volume based, thus the reason most analysts continued to ask about ad load with Twitter.

     

    Technology provides an opportunity, never available before that is dangerous to be underestimated. Plus, there are plenty of international advertisements being monetized within the U.S. revenue category, so international demand is prevalent.
    8 Mar 2014, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    phemale...you may wish to know that our minimum wage is still higher than the average wage in those countries you mentioned and much more than what many of them are actually earning, so those who buy into the mantra that our minimum wage is not a living wage are fighting only to get more without having to work more or harder, i.e. they're just being lazy, because the minimum wage that they earn are not supposed to take care of all their needs, as they need to work more or work harder if they want to earn more. Many Hispanics and recent immigrants do hard manual work (in restaurants, landscaping, garbage disposal, etc.) on minimum wage without complaints (sometimes with two jobs) and they can raise at least a family of four, send their kids to school and college, own a car or two to get to work or school, etc. because they're thrifty and they're thankful for being able to work.

     

    The biggest problem we have in our present-day society is the entitlement mentality that has been created by the present admin, so these lazy buggers are not satisfied with what they're getting for free and they want more and more. It sickens me and hurts me deeply inside to see how our beautiful nation is slowly being destroyed by the spending policies of this administration. They only know how to raise taxes to pay for their spending, as if the money is coming from God alone and not from hard work. They've absolutely no idea how to make our country strong and rich, as they only know how to bleed us dry, with all their stupid policies (EPA, IRA, banks, etc.). Every one of those 28 states who cut their taxes were able to spend more on their social needs because businesses were able to grow faster and hire more, so that everyone gets to take home more income. That's the sad truth about the demise of our country, from being the richest nation in the world to become the most indebted nation in the world. The amount of interest that we pay annually is more than the GDP of more than half the nations in the world.

     

    I can't wait for the day when our country would shine again. The Repubs have idiots in Congress who don't know how to turn the tables on the Dems and are getting blamed for a dysfunctional Congress when it's the Dem-controlled Senate who're refusing to table bills from the House, so nothing gets passed. They get blamed for sequestration when it was the admin who proposed it in the first place. Please forgive me for getting carried away, so I must stop now before I embarrass myself, if I haven't done so already. I'm just an old geezer who has seen better days, especially when Reagan was around.
    9 Mar 2014, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    @benitus, while Reagan was a very engaging person it was during his presidency and due to some of his policies that our economic decline
    began in earnest.

     

    Under his stewardship this great country went from being he largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation. So while we did indeed prosper under Reagen we have paid a huge price since.

     

    In regard to raising taxes. Our most prosperous years as a country saw personal income taxes of 70% and above. Did you ever stop to think that
    Reagan lowering taxes from 69% to 28% when he left office is why our
    nations debt increased so much?

     

    In regard to dems v repubs. Both parties suck and are owned lock stock and barrel by corporate interests. To point to one party as worse than the other
    in regard to economics is simply to be partisan. While democrats give hand outs to the poor (for votes) republicans give huge handouts to big business
    (also for votes).
    9 Mar 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    Benitus,

     

    "you may wish to know that our minimum wage is still higher than the average wage in those countries you mentioned and much more than what many of them are actually earning"

     

    Typical minimum wage denier spiel.

     

    Australia $16 by the way.

     

    Just touching on one claim you make, undocumented immigrants pick our fruit, so it's cheap, live in hovels, whole families sharing a few rooms. See "30 Days" Morgan Spurlock's series episode of picking produce. Worst part is taxes taken out of meager paychecks yet no benefits. We make out like bandits!

     

    http://bit.ly/PhddDR

     

    You can go on with the GOP talking points, heard them all thousands of times. We have different points of view. My days during Reagan were not good, very bleak in fact. Taxes no less than now.

     

    Sequestration was the gun held to President Obama's head. And as a trader you should be angry at GOP nutjobs for debt ceilings crises every single time. Don't get ME started!!!

     

    I'm too busy to argue with you.
    9 Mar 2014, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2947) | Send Message
     
    False equivalency. Both parties are not the same.

     

    Women/gays/minorities know which party supports our rights...... and sorry but it's not the Republican Party of Lincoln. That party is long gone.
    9 Mar 2014, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    @phemale60, there are differences when it comes to social politics to be sure. That said when it comes to monetary politics the proof is there that
    both parties (yes there are always a small less than a handful of exceptions)
    kow tow to the corporate oligarchy. Unfortunately our election process is one that the more money you have the better your chances of winning regardless of qualifications.
    Until we have a third (or more) viable party along with publicly only funded campaigns it will only get worse. Its unfortunate - but it is reality.
    I do find it amusing that republicans run on a platform of shrinking govt. and once elected expand it more than the previous democratic administration. This was never more evidenced than when G W Bush was in office.
    9 Mar 2014, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    @phemale, one last thing. I would be cautious in putting many eggs in the TWTR basket.
    While I think TWTR is a great form of communication and for sure here to stay they just are not growing their membership base. It is slowing and that is very worrisome going forward.
    TWTR is not new, in fact they are 8 years old and I think their numbers have been shrinking for the last 3 quarters (check that) which leads me to believe they are at a saturation point which will limit them greatly in growing their advertising revenues.
    I don't own it, but I do follow it.
    9 Mar 2014, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    phemale....I feel so sorry for you, to be filled with so much invective and being unable to remain objective. I wasn't referring to unlawful immigrants but actually new immigrants, so please don't lose control of yourself. Also, I was referring to the third-world countries where these immigrants came from, among which you mentioned in your previous post, viz. India, Brazil, China. I wasn't referring to other developed countries, which can afford higher minimum wages and countries such as these are also struggling with their economies that are much worse than us (at least they don't have our debts).

     

    You seem to be living in a world of your own, with so much vitriol about these unlawful immigrants. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely against those who break our laws and sneak into our country, who should be thrown out (instead of being allowed to remain by the Obama admin, using all kinds of tricks). But, for those who manage to integrate themselves into our society, they are by and large contributing to our economy, even though many are given handouts by our admin in their unending attempts to win votes. They do not live in hovels, they do not pick fruits, but they may share accommodation with other immigrants. Those who pick fruits are mostly temporary workers on seasonal six-month work permits and most of them actually return home, although we can't stop some from sneaking out and remaining behind.

     

    You are absolutely out of touch with the unlawful immigrant situation and it's wrong to rely on only one source of information. I was once actually a volunteer "minuteman" working to track down unlawful immigrants on our southern border more than 10 yrs ago. At the time, I remember a Police Chief of a major city in Texas saying that, they don't arrest these unlawful immigrants because they're doing work that nobody wants to do and they're contributing to keeping the costs down for lawful residents; they're generally law-abiding but those who break the law are immediately handed over to the INS agents.

     

    I'm sorry that you had suffered under the Reagan admin but I was referring to our national economy and our ability to defend ourselves. He turned our economy around (remember the last bull-run?) and he did end the Cold War because he had the courage to take the bull by the horns, unlike Obama, who started his presidency with an apology tour and has progressively weakened our defenses. He touts military successes that were achieved through policies that were put in place by the Bush admin. The current problem in Crimea was mishandled by his admin, who encouraged Putin by dismantling our missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic; allowing Russia to cancel the Ballistic Missile agreements; etc., etc., because he doesn't know that Putin is a former KGB thug. He was caught on an open mic talking to Medvedev that he's going to be more flexible after the re-elections. I can go on and on about the incompetence of this liberal President. You should know that he has incurred more debt than all previous presidents combined, largely because he has been spending borrowed money, money that we don't have, which future generations have to bear, and he doesn't take responsibility for his failures, blaming others rather than himself.

     

    When you say that sequestration was a gun held to the President's head, it goes to show that you don't know what you're saying because it was the President who told the Repub and Dem budget negotiators that, if they couldn't agree on a budget, then sequestration must kick in, which was a term introduced by him, not the Repubs (where have you been?). Yes, I'm indeed angry at the so-called debt ceiling crises because the Dems and the admin have repeatedly failed to rein in their spending, while Repubs have been trying without success to reduce spending with each ceiling increase, so don't go blaming the Repubs.

     

    You can get started at me anytime, sister. For everything you wish to point out about the Repubs, I can point out more about the Dems, and I think I've been around longer than you have. My only regret is that both McCain and Romney lost their elections because they were too nice and refused to fight dirty like Obama. The main problem with Obama is that he hasn't got any executive experience (as a community-organizer) and he surrounds himself with idiots and fools, who're only good at campaigning, and incapable of running our country efficiently and firmly. During his first-term, he had more than doubled the number of federal employees but with so much less results. At least, I used to own 22 businesses in several countries before I retired in 2006 when I saw the economic downturn coming and sold off everything I had.

     

    Well, you had your say and I had mine, so let's go back to our little corners and cool our heels, before we make fools of ourselves. Life is simply too short. Have a good week ahead and enjoy your life. God bless.
    10 Mar 2014, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    226.....I hate to get started with you on anything because I know you won't give up but I would like to point out that GW Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 911, which necessitated the creation of Dept of Homeland Security and the TSA (I think), besides stepping up efforts to control our borders, among other measures, all of which required more manpower. If you bother to compare apples to apples, you will find that Bush had indeed reduced govt wherever he could.
    10 Mar 2014, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    226....much as I would like to refute your contentions, I would hesitate to do so, for the sake of our friendship, and I know you won't give up on your convictions, even though I may be right, so let's keep our peace and focus on making money instead.
    10 Mar 2014, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    @benitus, we are not friends we are acquaintances (anonymous) on a message board.

     

    You can't disprove one thing I posted as they are 100% factual.
    Read some of the literature from David Stockman, Reagans former budget director.
    He feels the GOP has destroyed our economy and gives the hows and whys
    in a factual and concise manner. Remember he is Reagans former budget director.
    We went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation under Reagans watch. Thats a fact that can't be disputed.
    10 Mar 2014, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman: 'The GOP Destroyed U.S. Economy'

     

    Sure, lots of people say that. But not all of them were Ronald Reagan's budget director. Now mind you, Stockman's hardly a liberal -- he's bemoaning the fact that Republicans haven't managed to slash social spending and entitlement programs, but he's saying that as long as we have these programs, the only honest thing to do is raise taxes, not cut them:
    "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

     

    Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

     

    Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

     

    Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

     

    Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."
    10 Mar 2014, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    226....I'm so sorry to know that you don't reciprocate my friendship. In that case, you're certainly not worth my time and effort to respond to your fallacious remarks. I would suggest that you don't pick a fight with me, just because you're a liberal or democrat. May I remind you that we're here to make money, not to pick quarrels and waste our time, so I would consider it beneath my humble dignity to engage any further with your arrogant attitude. As I often say to others, you had your say and now, I've had mine, so I would humbly suggest that you and I back off to our own corners and mind our own business from now on, lest we continue to make further fools of ourselves. As the Chinese would say, "well water should not mix with river water", to put it mildly. Thank you so much. Have a wonderful future ahead.
    10 Mar 2014, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    benitus, I am neither liberal or a democrat. I am a teller of the truth.
    Instead of pouting - prove anything I posted false instead of your diatribes about emotions and insults.
    I find it interesting you can post a pages long diatribe about how this admin. is ruining the country / economy how great Reagan was and blah blah blah but if someone disagrees with you or debates you your reply is to be insulted
    and pout.
    You can give but you can't take, obviously.

     

    GHW Bush, now he was a real republican and a real American.
    10 Mar 2014, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    226.....what part of "I don't want to engage with you" do you not understand, or is your ego too big for you to take rejection? Get a life, instead of instigating trouble for others. You engage in fallacies and lies, so you're dishonest and totally unworthy of respect, since you indulge in insults and have no respect for others. You don't even know the meaning of "pout" or "pouting". Are you really too stupid to understand my request to leave me alone? Must you have the last word because you're not going to get it, period. Are you insisting on trading insults because I can dish out as good as I get and you're not going to like it but I refuse to be drawn into a meaningless quarrel with you and I refuse to dignify your attacks in any way. If you've got nothing better to do with your time, go find the nearest lake and jump into it. Good-bye.
    11 Mar 2014, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    benitus, if you don't want to engage with me than quit replying. See how that works.
    I don't have a dishonest bone in my body. You spout your nonsensical political views and when called to the floor you simply whine about getting insulted instead of refuting one fact I post. Then you post another diatribe calling me stupid, an instigator, big ego, I engage in fallacies and lies, etc... and you have the gall to tell me I insult you.
    You are a thin skinned nobody who posts constant insults and then cries like a little baby when someone gives some back.
    If you don't want to engage then don't. But you continually do engage and then try to demand I don't.
    That don't fly with me pal.
    I post nothing but the truth.........you can't handle the truth.
    11 Mar 2014, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    If you don't want to engage then shut up and quit replying to me.
    Its as simple as that.
    You want to post insults at me calling me stupid and a liar yet this is nothing but pure projection on your part. And then you expect me to just go away after your slander. Not gonna happen, sport.
    I post only the truth. You, not so much.
    11 Mar 2014, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    benitus
    If you don't want to engage then shut up and quit replying to me.
    Its as simple as that.
    You want to post insults at me calling me stupid and a liar yet this is nothing but pure projection on your part. And then you expect me to just go away after your slander. Not gonna happen, sport.
    I post only the truth. You, not so much.
    11 Mar 2014, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2889) | Send Message
     
    226.....you're one of most idiotic nincompoops that I've ever encountered on the internet (next to my eldest son). You started this unending torrent of insults and I only exercised my right of reply. Each time, I asked you to cease and desist but you persisted in continuing to waste my time with stupid retorts. Like I said before, you're not worth my time and effort, as it would demean my dignity, to engage with you any further because you seem bent on having the last word and you don't realize that you're making yourself seem stupid and undignified. It's your over-sized ego who can't take being told the truth about yourself, so you're only shaming yourself publicly if you continue this unworthy exchange. Good-bye.
    11 Mar 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    I started nothing. You are a liar who insults and then gets indignant and cries when insulted back.
    You pos not to engage and you can't even help yourself from engaging non-stop.
    Obviously I am worht your time and effort because you just can' seem to quit me, right sport?
    As for stupid and undignified - look in the mirror.
    11 Mar 2014, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • 22643611
    , contributor
    Comments (2101) | Send Message
     
    Ignore my multiple replies as they apparently was a long delay in postings on
    SA.
    11 Mar 2014, 09:25 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs