366
Trump's Truth Social loses $4 billion in value in one week, while revealing wider loss
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
366 points (97.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7209 readers
381 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It feels like someone is pumping the stock up.
Not your average small business owner either, someone with weight is basically defying every metric of long term/short term investment on a stock that has done nothing but depreciate in value over the past year.
On a product, no one uses.
And said, "That's worth at least as much as Amazon."
Trump has people trying to get his base to buy the stock with the express purpose of pumping it up to give him more assets to work with to fund his legal battles.
I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC is currently investigating it because they haven't been trying to hide it at all.
Sounds like the work of Blackrock or gs
Blackrock may have deep pockets but they're not that idiotic.
They are corrupt and if they want to help Trump get into office so their shady investments can continue then it wouldn't cost them even pocket change to pump up trump stocks. It's such a small amount of money to them they probably assigned an intern to the account.
Bud, I know it's pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I'm not saying they aren't causing a good bit of harm but you don't become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
Then let's assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn't it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it's worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can't just freely swing that around like most people think
They already make contributions that doesn't stop them from giving money in other dark ways like this as well. Just like they give money to pacs, as well as the candidates directly as well as a million other ways to keep the real amount given hard to track.
Assets under management come with management fees they can do whatever the fuck they want with that money. When they have trillions under management the fees are a lot. The more shady shit they do the more money they make for clients the more money they get in fees. Look up 2 and 20.
Maybe so, but they’re also on the opposite side of the aisle. The company that owns Sweet Baby Inc. and deliberately pushes inappropriate levels of DEI via bribery-with-extra-steps probably isn’t about to aid or endorse a Republican, especially one who’s that brazen about the shitty things he does.