Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#11

Post by NoOneNew »

jacobolus wrote: post #8
NoOneNew wrote: post #2

While reading this, I feel Musk just pulled a Bobby Axelrod on Twitter. I'm curious what's about to happen because of it.

A web search indicates that “Bobby Axelrod” is a TV show character. What does “pulling a Bobby Axelrod” mean in this context?

His character, along with his foil Chuck Rodes, trick people into knee jerking traps. The more "public" of a trap, the better for them. A lot of wall street plays in the show are based on real world plays. This article read like it came out of an episode.

Billions is a great show by the way.

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#12

Post by s17n »

maxclark wrote: post #9

Predictably stupid. They're going to come back and say the company is worth >$70B.

That's how the game is played. If you want to take over a company without the consent of its executives, it's going to be a fight and you're probably going to lose.

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#13

Post by darthnebula »

ceejayoz wrote: post #7
bombcar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can certainly do it but it’s end Twitter as a going concern. People like to pretend.

If suspending Trump didn't end Twitter, suspending Musk won't.

Don't be too sure of that...

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#15

Post by antr »

s17n wrote: post #12
maxclark wrote: post #9

Predictably stupid. They're going to come back and say the company is worth >$70B.

That's how the game is played. If you want to take over a company without the consent of its executives, it's going to be a fight and you're probably going to lose.

> ... consent of its executives...

*sigh*

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#16

Post by nickysielicki »

s17n wrote: post #12
maxclark wrote: post #9

Predictably stupid. They're going to come back and say the company is worth >$70B.

That's how the game is played. If you want to take over a company without the consent of its executives, it's going to be a fight and you're probably going to lose.

The board of a public company cannot reasonably claim that they’re worth twice(!) what the market currently values their company at simply because they feel it’s true. Unless they have advertising contracts and growth metrics in the pipeline that represent a reasonable doubling of revenue and value, they’re acting legally irresponsibly. Justifying this is difficult. This is objectively a good offer.

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#17

Post by WalterBright »

Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand.

As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake.

As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#18

Post by themitigating »

anonymousiam wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

This site is littered with hyperbolic opinions

"Twitter’s management wouldn’t have to worry about being kicked to the curb and they can continue doing what they do best, restricting conversation and censoring whatever they don’t like."

Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

#20

Post by xyzzy21 »

WalterBright wrote: post #17

Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN