81–90 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.
If North Korea offered $60 billion to buy Twitter would Twitter be forced to sell? Not comparing Musk to NK, but money isn't the only consideration when an offer to sell comes in.
Or say “Anyone with the last name of Musk now owns type D share with 1/100th ownership value”.
Poison pills seems pretty close to doing just that.
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…
Elon's offer is at the same time an hostile offer, and conditional on obtaining financing from banks. This is never heard of in the history of hostile acquisitions, and is a BIG risk for the board to entertain any attempt by anyone to buy Twitter before they know what their loan percentages are.
I could offer them $150 a share tomorrow, contingent on financing and would get laughed out of the room.
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.
If North Korea offered $60 billion to buy Twitter would Twitter be forced to sell? Not comparing Musk to NK, but money isn't the only consideration when an offer to sell comes in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 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 c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If Musk fails, are there likely to be any lasting effects to Twitter or more generally to the market?
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…
But just offering a 50% premium might not be enough. They'll need to pay taxes on the realized gains and they'll need to find other places to put their money.
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.
If North Korea offered $60 billion to buy Twitter would Twitter be forced to sell? Not comparing Musk to NK, but money isn't the only consideration when an offer to sell comes in.
But if France put a bid on twitter, they would be forced to entertain the offer.
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…
> and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. It depends on what the interests of the shareholders actually is. Monetary only, or are there other considerations they care about? I assume the boards of such companies have had private discussions with the majority shareholders to find out exactly what their priorities are, and then acted accordingly.
Is a board allowed to consider anything but?