Five questions answered on Twitter’s plans to be listed on the stock market

We've confidentially submitted an S-1 to the SEC for a planned [initial public offering]."

Twitter has announced it plans to join the stock market. We answer five questions on the social networking site’s plans for stock market flotation.

How did the company announce its plans to join the stock market?

On Twitter of course. The company sent out a tweet saying "We've confidentially submitted an S-1 to the SEC for a planned [initial public offering]."

Twitter said little else about its flotation plans, refraining from giving a timing or price for the offering.

How much is Twitter worth?

Investors have valued the microblogging site at more than $10bn (£6.3bn).

But how does Twitter actually make money?

Mostly through advertising and companies paying for promoted tweets. These tweets post on people’s timeline, typically reaching 200 million active users, who alone send more than 500 million tweets a day.

According to advertising consultancy eMarketer, Twitter is on track to post $583m in revenue in 2013, up from $288m in 2012.

What affect do analysts think floating Twitter on the market will have for the company?

Analysts have said it could result in increased advertising because there could be a drive for increased advertising revenues post-flotation.

"There's a few issues [such as] how many revenue streams can be developed beyond just advertising, the impact of more people accessing the service via smartphones," said Colin Gillis, a New York-based technology specialist at BGC Partners told the BBC.

So why now have Twitter decided to float the company on the stock market?

Andrew Frank, social media expert at technology research company Gartner, speaking to the BBC offered some possible reasons: "[The IPO] gives its investors a way to get some of the money back that they put into the company at the beginning.

"It gives the employees a similar kind of event to reward them for the success they've had so far. And it gives Twitter itself extra funds to invest in new projects and innovation."

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

Trident is dangerous – and not for the reasons you think

Fixating on Trident is like replacing the guest bathroom while your own toilet flush doesn't work. 

Backing Trident is supposed to make a politician look hard, realistic and committed to Britain’s long history of military defence.That’s why the Tories delighted in holding a debate on renewing the nuclear weapons system in June 2016.

But it was the Tory Prime Minister who floundered this weekend, after it emerged that three weeks before that debate, an unarmed Trident missile misfired - and veered off towards the United States instead of Africa. Downing Street confirmed May knew about the error before the parliamentary debate. 

Trident critics have mobilised. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, called the revelation “serious”. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons, said the error was “pretty catastrophic”. 

The idea of a rogue nuclear missile heading for the White House may have fuelled the disarmament movement. But even if you enjoy the game of nuclear poker, fixating on Trident is dangerous. Because while MPs rehearse the same old Cold War arguments, the rest of the world has moved on. 

Every hour debating Trident is an hour not spent debating cyber warfare. As Peter Pomerantsev prophetically wrote in April 2015, Russian military theory has in recent years assumed that it would not be possible to match the West militarily, but wars can be won in the “psychosphere”, through misinformation.

Since the Russian cyber attacks during the US election, few can doubt this strategy is paying off - and that our defence systems have a long way to catch up. As shadow Defence secretary, Emily Thornberry described this as “the crucial test” of the 21st century. The government has pledged £1.9bn in cyber security defences over the next five years, but will that be enough? Nerds in a back room are not as thrilling as nuclear submarines, but how they are deployed matters too.

Secondly, there is the cost. Even if you back the idea of a nuclear deterrent, renewing Trident is a bit like replacing the guest bathroom when the regular loo is hardly flushing. A 2015 Centreforum paper described it as “gold-plated” - if your idea of gold-plated is the ability to blow up “a minimum of eight cities”. There is a gory but necessary debate to be had about alternatives which could free up more money to be spent on conventional forces. 

Finally, a nuclear deterrent is only credible if you intend to use it. For this reason, the British government needs to focus on protecting the infrastructure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, now under threat from a US President who declared it “obsolete”. Eastern Europe has been nervous about the bear on its borders for some time - the number of Poles joining the country’s 120 paramilitary organisations has tripled in two years.  

Simply attacking Trident on safety grounds will only get you so far - after all, the argument behind renewing Trident is that the status quo will not do. Furthermore, for all the furore over a misfired Trident missile, it’s hard to imagine that should the hour come, the biggest worry for the crew of a nuclear submarine will be the small chance of a missile going in the wrong direction. That would be missing the rather higher chance of global nuclear apocalypse.

Anti-Trident MPs will make the most of May's current embarrassment. But if they can build bridges with the more hawkish members of the opposition, and criticise the government's defence policy on its own terms, they will find plenty more ammunition. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.