101–110 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indeed, what happens when Elon starts his own platform instead and uses some of the ~$40 billion he'd otherwise buy Twitter with instead on paying top users of Twitter to exclusively use his platform instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a shareholder and end user of the product, I agree.
you want to cash out with a 20% bump and be out of the stock during a huge tech equity downturn when the stock was over 60% higher last year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board’s mandate is to maximize shareholder value. They have an offer that will objectively maximize that value. To scorn it in favor of intangibles is to act against the interest of shareholders.
No, a board is mandated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. That might be different than just maximizing the share price. They may believe this is a bad idea for the company as a whole, and that long term, it's objectively better for the company to not be owned by Musk.
you have a company that is worth $1mil and we only imagine that it can be worth $100mil (based on the size of the market we are addressing). someone comes and offers $200mil but we know he will shut the company down (i.e. liquidate all its assets, or even simply the desire to destroy the company).
While this might be sad for the company, why is it not in the interests of the shareholders to take the offer?
so if Musk is willing to offer more than shareholders expect to see in the forseable future, why does it matter what will happen to the company after that? their interest in the company ends when their shares are purchased.
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.
And existing investors all have the option to cash out today for just 17% less than Musk's final offer.
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.
People are overlooking the fact that a poison pill will likely increase the price of Musk's final offer, and in doing so will maximize shareholder value. Put another way, Musk may be willing to pay a lot more than a 25% premium for Twitter (he already said he doesn't care about price). Without this poison pill, Musk can force a takeover by accumulating shares. With this poison pill, the board has leverage to maximize…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indeed, what happens when Elon starts his own platform instead and uses some of the ~$40 billion he'd otherwise buy Twitter with instead on paying top users of Twitter to exclusively use his platform instead?
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…
I'm pretty sure a majority of shares of Twitter care about making the most money ahead of everything else. 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.
If Twitter isn’t a business to make money to them, what is it, and who is it for?