51–60 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
it's radical to equate dollar values with objective goodness
One of my favorite books: "Small giants, companies that choose to be great instead of big"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
it's radical to equate dollar values with objective goodness
Note that I'm all for companies having much more legal responsibility to other stakeholders, not just shareholders, but that is somewhat irrelevant for a discussion of whether the board could be successfully sued over adopting this decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
it's radical to equate dollar values with objective goodness
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
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.
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.
As a shareholder and end user of the product, I agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The idea that the board's fiduciary means they must maximize profits at the expense of all else is a bit of a myth. Yes, they need to look out for their shareholders but they also need to do right by the company, and companies can be formed for any legal purpose and everyone (the company and the shareholders) values things differently. It's generally been upheld that the board has a lot of autonomy and, outside of gr…
The board has a lot of leeway into how they achieve profit for the shareholders, but all decisions they make must be nominally in the interest of that goal (assuming we're discussing a for-profit company such as Twitter). They can basically claim anything they do is done in the interest of shareholder value and be safe, but if they said "we know the company will lose money on this, but we really like X so we'll spend company money on it", they would pretty clearly be in breach of their fiduciary duty.