> A P/E of 8 would be ridiculously low for the technology industry—heck, for any industry.

In this scenario they have fired everyone and given up trying to grow. A P/E of 8 would be way overvalued.

You would only have to pay out 360 million a year to shareholders on a market cap of 12B to get a 3% dividend yield. It may not be sexy, especially in Silicon Valley, but Twitter could be a perfectly viable company.

But that's the problem they have - the market is/was bought in on the basis that this is a $40bn company (or more), the price reflects an massive upside belief, but the reality is $12b is about right.

So - sack a lot of people, cut costs, hold cash in the business and disappoint investors... Will the investors wear that though?

> A P/E of 8 would be way overvalued.

I disagree. For one thing, a P/E of 8 is standard for industries which most think are either declining or entirely stable. Benjamin Graham used 8.5 as a "no-growth" P/E so it's hardly insane. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Graham_formula

Moreover, even without feature expansion, I do think Twitter will see growth, though that growth will be minimal. At the very least they stand to benefit from the ever-increasing number of people on the internet.

A P/E of 8, in today's interest rate environment, means the company is actually failing and you're buying a decreasing future stream of revenue. Out of the S&P 500, there are four companies with P/E below 8 (Delta, Noble Corp (oil rigs), Yahoo, and Valero (oil again)).