176

Trump Media stock scrapes new 52-week low in heavy trading after DJT lockup lifts (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

Trump, a main draw for Truth Social users and many retail investors in the company, said earlier in September that he will not sell his stake. The stock price briefly shot up after his remarks.

Other early investors have made no such promises. They include ARC Global, a sponsor of the blank-check firm that took Trump Media public, and United Atlantic Ventures, an entity controlled by two former contestants on Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice.”

I believe it's not only that these investors made no promises not to sell, but that several of them specifically expressed that they would be selling as soon as they were legally allowed to do so.

It's hard to accurately value Truth Social. But I think if Trump were to leave the platform, its value would go to zero, and that makes it very risky. I just saw a price of 12.74. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still quite overvalued, and so it makes sense for those investors to try to sell at this price.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 36 points 1 month ago

It's losing money hand over fist, has a tiny user base and little name recognition. They have no assets worth anything.

The fundamentals are clear: the stock is completely worthless except as a wild gamble. People would be better off investing in penny-stocks.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

The fundamentals are clear: the stock is completely worthless except as a wild gamble.

And as influence peddling/money laundering for Trump.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

And we know Mr Trump hasn't dumped his stock because ... he said so?

Are we back to believing anything this lying felon says?

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

If he sells now, the value drops immediately to zero and a big thing with Trump's name all over goes down in flames just before the election. That doesn't help him at the polls.

We can't trust him to do what he says, but we can trust him to look out for himself.

[-] niucllos@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

We can trust him to look out for himself as he sees it, not necessarily rationally. And also not to plan long-term if he needs a cash infusion now. Will be interesting (I guess) to see which pressure wins out

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Anyone with over a 10% stake in a company has to give notice two days before any transactions.

[-] vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago

Trump’s statements certainly weren’t enforceable under contract law, said Robert Bartlett III, a professor of law and business at Stanford Law School. The former president’s press conference remarks weren’t accompanied by the formalities that made the lockup agreement binding.

But securities law might have something to say if Trump didn’t mean it when he said he had “no intention of selling.” That would make it a misstatement, under securities fraud laws, said Bartlett. And given how much Trump Media stock moved after the Sept. 14 press conference, a plaintiff could argue that the misstatement was “material.”

A sale by Trump on Friday would be an easy case, said Adam Pritchard, a University of Michigan law professor who’s written extensively on securities regulation.

‘If he sold today, that would be fraud,” said Pritchard on Friday. “The chance of lawsuit would be exceedingly high and even the SEC might decide it was worth a lawsuit.”

But Trump didn’t say he intended to hold his stock forever. If Trump starts selling stock some weeks from now, it becomes harder to argue that his statement was false, said Pritchard.

https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/trump-djt-stock-sell-lockup-d4b275bf?mod=mw_quote_news

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

‘If he sold today, that would be fraud,” said Pritchard on Friday. “The chance of lawsuit would be exceedingly high and even the SEC might decide it was worth a lawsuit.”

Add it to the pile. Maybe we'll get around to punishing him for one of these things in the next decade.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

Closed at $12.44. I love it.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 33 points 1 month ago

if you ever thought anything with trump involved was a good investment decision, then you deserve to lose on it

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Shorted with options.

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Really? The short interest is easy to high to make it worth it

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

If so then you were late to the table.

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Oh yeah, maybe a few months ago...

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I opened my position on March 27th then traded conservatively. It's one of the easiest plays I've ever made. My comprehensive analysis was, "Trump will fuck this up."

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You mean the IV on the options? Yeah probably so.

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

When it merged, couple days later, the short interest was above 100% with a ton of naked shorts

[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 31 points 1 month ago

Certainly not a pump and dump...nope..nope...no way

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

At the moment, every single person who has paid money for a share so far is in the negative. Which is nice.

Needs to go way way further so that it's worthless to the people who created it out of thin air/got money laundering payments too.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

every single person who has paid money for a share so far is in the negative.

Clearly the people that sold above $60 made money on all the suckers that were stupid enough to buy.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

True

[-] SelfProgrammed@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Trump and other company insiders were bound by lockup agreements that barred them from selling their shares in the initial months after Trump Media went public.

Those restrictions expired at the closing bell Thursday.

I bet he won't sell on Friday, which will lead to people having faith that Trump will stand by his word for once, the stock will go up a little, Monday he sells it all.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

He’ll get screwed by the SEC if he sells after saying he won’t. He’s gotta wait at least a few weeks now.

His fellow shareholders don’t need to though, and I’m gonna laugh soooo hard if Trump ends up being the one left holding the bag.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

He’ll get screwed by the SEC if he sells after saying he won’t.

Oh, this is the thing he'll actually face consequences for?

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

with shit like this, don't you have to publicly declare intent to sell? there are forms and shit

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think you’re right, since he had such a large stake.

Pretty sure you can’t publicly state intent to not sell, which pumps the price, then sell. Which is what he’d be doing and run afoul of laws against pump and dumping (stock price manipulation).

Minority share holders have a right for protection against things like unreasonable compensation or personal benefits of bigger share holders. They can take him to court if he infringes their rights.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Worthless stick still worth more than $0.

[-] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Trading volume accelerated significantly as the lockup lifted. More than 14 million shares changed hands on Thursday and nearly 22 million were exchanged Friday, far exceeding the 30-day average volume of about 8.3 million shares.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Actually closed higher than open today (9-24) which is the first time in a LONG time.

It’s CLEARLY a way for foreign governments and billionaire supporters to funnel $$$ to trump without the pesky election laws getting in the way.

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

And he wants people to trust him with fucking crypto can you imagine?

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024

176 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19096 readers

2780 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News