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

Post by nickysielicki » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #37

nickysielicki wrote: post #29

I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment lim…

You're claiming that Musk's purchase of twitter is objectively good for shareholders

Post by atmosx » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

anonymouse008 wrote: post #36

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.

Read some Matt Levine, he's way more articulate and makes finance quite fun. But if I were to take a stab at it: The market has been so weird recently that stock splits - which according to previous theoretical belief do not create shareholder value - have in fact increased the share price for extended periods. So issuing stock for whatever reason (high price, poison pill) could be seen as shareholder maximizing. One…

Post by TsomArp » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #37

nickysielicki wrote: post #29

I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment lim…

You're claiming that Musk's purchase of twitter is objectively good for shareholders

Post by gobengo » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #41

themitigating wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're claiming that Musk's purchase of twitter is objectively good for shareholders

Given that it’s at a share price premium for 90%+ of the lifetime of the stock since IPO, yes. Most shares were bought below the price Musk is asking.

Post by eqmvii » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 7:59 PM UTC

anonymouse008 wrote: post #36

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.

Read some Matt Levine, he's way more articulate and makes finance quite fun. But if I were to take a stab at it: The market has been so weird recently that stock splits - which according to previous theoretical belief do not create shareholder value - have in fact increased the share price for extended periods. So issuing stock for whatever reason (high price, poison pill) could be seen as shareholder maximizing. One…