Connect with us

Business

Column: With his Truth Social stock, Trump may be laughing all the way to the bank — but his investors have reason to weep

Published

on

Column: With his Truth Social stock, Trump may be laughing all the way to the bank — but his investors have reason to weep

With their life savings, childrens’ college funds and their own retirement prospects at stake, most people probably view investing in stocks as a serious business. Now and then, however, the markets produce comedy gold.

Hello, Trump Media & Technology Group.

The owner of Truth Social, a social media platform exclusively hitched to Donald Trump, staged an initial public offering March 26 amid a torrent of speculation over how many billions the IPO would produce for Trump himself. In the event, the figure was a paper gain of about $5 billion for him, virtually pure profit.

It’s a scam. Just like everything he’s ever been involved in, it’s a con.

— Barry Diller on Trump and Trump Media

Advertisement

The cult of Trump had sent the shares soaring as high as $79.38 on that first day, valuing the company at about $9.5 billion. By the end of the day it had settled back to $57.99. Since then, it has mostly been on the schneid, falling steadily.

As I write, midway in the trading day Tuesday, the shares are quoted at $22.80, down more than 14% on the day. That brings the shares’ slide since they peaked at $79.38 on March 26 to about 70.2%.

Trump, who loves hyperbole, might revel in a three-week plunge that could be some sort of a record. Whether he would call it “beautiful,” one of his favorite superlatives, is another question.

The slide has pared the market value of Trump Media by more than $6 billion from its peak. Trump is still sitting on a paper holding worth more than $2 billion, but his outside investors, many of whom are small investors who bought at or near the top, have been been taken to the abattoir.

Advertisement

“I think they’re dopes,” the veteran entertainment executive Barry Diller said of Trump Media’s investors during a CNBC appearance on April 4.

That’s not to say, given the stock’s volatility, that it might not recover and end up in the green for the day, though whether it can recover the full 69.8% loss, even over time, is subject to doubt.

Still, the raw numbers, being right there for everyone to view in bright red, aren’t as interesting as the underlying grift. Let’s examine that.

It’s fair to say that few if any experienced investment professionals expect Trump Media to have staying power as a high-flying stock. I raised the most pertinent issues a few days before the IPO: The company had meager revenues and huge losses. It was to be taken public via a device — a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC — that was often used to circumvent government rules for disclosures to investors.

Trump Media’s expected value of $5 billion at the IPO swore at common sense, or at any traditional standard of securities valuation. In short, Trump Media looked like any number of other Trump ventures, such as Trump University — all promise, no delivery.

Advertisement

“It’s a scam,” Diller told his CNBC interviewers. “Just like everything he’s ever been involved in, it’s a con.”

No one at Truth Social responded to my request for a comment about Diller’s remark.

Earlier, I asked whether anyone should believe in the valuation projections, and whether anyone in their right mind would invest. My answers were probably not, and probably not. That was conjecture, not investment advice.

After the IPO, however, more issues were disclosed that contributed to the stock’s precipitous slide. The company’s first annual report, issued April 1, incorporated an obligatory section on risk factors to be pondered by investors that included the traditional warnings about the costs of competition, the prospects of litigation, and the dangers of technology failures — and a couple that aren’t normally seen in corporate disclosures.

One covered the downsides of Trump Media’s linkage with Trump — that Truth Social faced “greater risks than typical social media platforms because of … the involvement of President Trump.” Those risks include “harassment of advertisers or content providers, increased risk of hacking of [Truth Social’s] platform, lesser need for Truth Social if First Amendment speech is no longer believed to be suppressed by other similar platforms, criticism of Truth Social for its moderation practices, and increased stockholder suits.”

Advertisement

The report made clear, if anyone was unaware of this, that the value of its brand “may diminish if the popularity of President Trump were to suffer,” as it would from “the death, incarceration, or incapacity of President Trump.”

Perhaps more telling was the company’s disclosure that it was not planning to “collect, monitor or report” the traditional metrics used by other social media platforms, such as Meta and X (formerly Twitter). Among those performance measures are “average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, … monthly and daily active users” — in other words, all the statistics that tell a social media company who, if anyone, is using it, and what their participation is worth in dollars and cents.

Having that information would only “divert” the company’s management, the report said, though it wasn’t clear about how management would fashion a strategy for the future if it doesn’t know where it is at present, including just how many users it has.

The annual report also updated Trump Media’s financial statements to cover the full year 2023: The platform lost more than $58 million on revenue of a bare $4.1 million. Previous disclosures had covered only the first nine months of 2023, when the company said it lost $49 million on $3.4 million in revenue.

On Monday, shareholders got another surprise. Trump Media said in a public filing that it planned to issue 40 million new shares to insiders (36 million of them to Trump himself) and that warrant holders were entitled to 21.5 million additional shares of stock, which could be expected to reach the open market almost immediately upon the warrants’ conversion.

Advertisement

That means existing shareholders are about to be heavily diluted, left with less of the company than they anticipated. The shares plunged more than 18% on Monday.

Who benefits from these maneuvers? Trump does. He is in effect the owner of 64.9% of the company, including the 36 million new shares; no one else owns more than 7.3%. For him this isn’t much of an investment; 36 million of his 114.7 million shares are a handout that didn’t require him to put up his own money. The rest were issued to him via the IPO in return for his interest in Trump Media as a private company.

Trump’s financial role in the founding of Truth Social in 2021 may have been minimal or nonexistent; Reuters reported in 2022 that most of the $38 million raised in the company’s first year came from businessmen who were political allies of Trump and from borrowings from unidentified lenders.

Trump has almost no ability to convert his shareholdings to cash in the near term, however. As a Trump Media insider, he is prevented from selling or borrowing against his shares for at least six months.

If and when he places any of his shares on the market, he would be selling into a declining market. Trump Media is the memiest of “meme stocks,” its value entirely divorced from financial fundamentals and based entirely on his involvement in the enterprise.

Advertisement

That places the value of his stake on a knife-edge. Any indication that he is reducing his commitment would almost certainly provoke a stampede for the exits among other shareholders. Trump would be racing to cash in before the value of his holdings reached the vanishing point.

Who are the other shareholders? According to a survey by the Washington Post, many are retail investors who believe that Trump’s touch is gold, or thought that buying his shares was a way to express faith in Trump and perhaps make some money on the side. At this moment, they are staring into the abyss.

Business

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Published

on

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison made his case directly to theater owners Thursday, pledging to release a minimum of 30 films a year from the combined Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery company during a speech at the CinemaCon trade convention in Las Vegas.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” Ellison said in a brief on-stage speech, adding that Paramount has already nearly doubled its film lineup for this year with 15 planned releases, up from eight in 2025.

He also said all films will remain in theaters exclusively for 45 days, starting Thursday. Films will then go to streaming platforms in 90 days. The amount of time that films stay in theaters — known as windowing — has been a controversial topic for theater owners, as some studios reduced that period during the pandemic. Theater operators have said the shortened window has trained audiences to wait to watch films at home and cuts into theater revenues.

“I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life to elevating and preserving film,” said Ellison, clad in a dark jacket and shirt with blue jeans. “And at Paramount, we want to tell even more great stories on the big screen — stories that make people think, laugh, dream, wonder and feel — and we want to share them with as broad an audience as possible.”

Ellison’s CinemaCon appearance comes as more than 1,000 Hollywood actors and creatives have signed a letter opposing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Supporters of the letter have said the deal would reduce competition in the industry and “further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape.”

Advertisement

Some theater operators have also questioned whether the combined company could achieve its goal of releasing 30 films a year, particularly after the cost cuts that are expected after the merger closes.

“People can speculate all they want — but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment,” Ellison said. “And we’ll show you we mean it.”

The speech came after a star-studded video directed by “Wicked: For Good” director Jon M. Chu that was shot on the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue and showcased directors and actors including Issa Rae, Will Smith, Chris Pratt, James Cameron and Timothée Chalamet that are working with the company.

The video closed with “Top Gun” actor Tom Cruise perched atop the Paramount water tower.

“As you saw, the Paramount lot is alive again,” Ellison said after the video. “And we could not be more excited.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Published

on

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

new video loaded: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Ben Casselman, our chief economics correspondent, explains why wages are not keeping up with inflation and what that means for American workers and the economy.

By Ben Casselman, Nour Idriss, Sutton Raphael and Stephanie Swart

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Published

on

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

Advertisement

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

Advertisement

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

Advertisement

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Advertisement

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending