[falcolas]

Aah, yes, the company who lost billions in "value". And yet their stock is already back up 60% of the amount it dropped in a mere 3 days.

I have to imagine they're doing this for the continued exposure. There's no such thing as bad press and all that.

[spywaregorilla]

> And yet their stock is already back up 60% of the amount it dropped in a mere 3 days.

Alternatively phrased as after 3 days, only a mere 40% has been lost. Hits different though.

[falcolas]

That's the key word: lost. Nothing's been lost - neither Eli Lilly nor their shareholders have lost any money (unless they sold their stock, at which point they aren't shareholders). The price of their stock dipped, and is rising back up.

At worst, Eli Lilly would have had slightly higher interest rates on their next round of debt funding.

[AlexandrB]

You're assuming that brand value has no financial value. Forget the stock price, this probably impacted EliLilly's brand in a way that will cost a bunch of money to "fix". If it sparks renewed calls for regulatory action on insulin prices, it could cost them quite a bit more than just brand value as well - either in lobbying, political "contributions", or profits. But that's speculation for now.

[malfist]

Stock prices don't move unless people are selling. So shareholders absolutely lost money.

[throwuwu]

The people selling based off of tweetstorms or breaking news are not mom and pop investors saving for retirement. They’re day traders trying to squeeze profit out of fluctuations.

[shagmin]

It's also possible in the last few days people sold shares at the discounted price, who were saving for retirement and other things.

[throwuwu]

Timing the market is impossible, besides selling now would be a good thing if they bought the stock at any point more than 1 month ago. Go look at the stock chart.

[parkingrift]

The stock has recovered 60% of the maybe-Twitter-related losses. The stock lost 5% of its value on November 11th, and recovered 60% of that to date which means the maybe-Twitter-related drop in value is 40% of 5%, or 2%.

However, Friday also saw a broad drop in pharma stocks. If I'm quite generous I'd say 50% of that 2% can be attributed to the Twitter tomfoolery.

[jjcon]

> https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

They also lose a lawsuit on the day of that tweet (and the drop was pretty typical for that day on the market) so I'm not really convinced their stock was altered much by a fake tweet.

[benj111]

80% from what base line?

>by Friday morning, Lilly stock had dropped by more than 5% from the day before. The Twitter stunt pulled down the stock price of other diabetes drugmakers, including Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Lilly’s stock has yet to recover and, on Monday morning, remained down more than 4% over the past five days.

So the article suggests its only recovered 20% of the fall.

And anyway what is a fair amount of value to lose over a fake tweet? is 1% ok? 2%?

[falcolas]

I'm looking at the actual stock market as of right now. They've been trading for hours, and their price is up overall.

> And anyway what is a fair amount of value to lose over a fake tweet? is 1% ok? 2%?

Given that when the stock prices return and continue to rise - there's no actual monetary losses... sure. Those are all fine. At worst, their interest rates on new loans would be a bit higher is all.

[shagmin]

>there's no actual monetary losses

Average daily volume of Ely Lilly is 3 million shares - at $356 price/share that's $1,068,000,000 traded each day affected, not to mention stock option premiums jumping due to heightened volatility, etc.,. I'm pretty sure there were some actual monetary losses in there.

This company is doing the same thing plenty of other companies and people are doing, this company just went through a bit worse before it made that decision.

[Spivak]

I mean I doubt it, I think it’s more that not having a Twitter presence at all is better for everyone who isn’t joining in the fun of bullying Elon.