TWTR
Can someone with more clue please tell me that the following cynical thought I keep having is wrong and laughably misinformed (and then explain why)?<p>Twitter's investors (who have plowed hundreds of millions in to a loss making company) decide to sell some of their stock at $26/share (after consulting with banks to arrive at this price). This will make right the losses they've experienced so far and pass the problem down the line. The banks buy at $26 and then immidiately flip for north of $40. This lines their pockets and passes the problem down the line once more to joe public.<p>End result: investors in loss making company cover their investment and make some profit, banks make some juicy profit for facilitating the game, joe public swallows the hype and makes the whole dance possible by eventually footing the bill.<p>Edit 1: thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. I guess I can only continue to feel cynical if I believe that the original investors did all of this knowing full well that twitter never has a chance of living up to its valuation i.e. they just wanted to cover their losses, make a nice profit on top and punt the problem down river. The alternative is that the investors do honestly believe in the future profitability of the company and have decided now is the time to take some well earned profit as a reward for taking the financial risks in getting the company to where it is today.<p>It's going to take me some time to make my mind up as to which of those two scenarios I believe.<p>Edit 2: still difficult to understand why the banks have managed to come away with doubling their money though.<p>Edit 3 (final one!): See <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691157" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691157</a> for a nice reply that seems (to my clearly very untrained eye) to make the investors motives a little less cynical.