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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by mise_en_place »

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…

They're doing it on purpose so people will sell off TWTR, then they will secretly buy and approve the acquisition offer. It's a blatant insider trading scheme.

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

#142

Post by EdiX »

paxys wrote: post #106
nickysielicki wrote: post #41

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.

Not everyone buys a stock for a quick short-term turnaround. If I expect Twitter to 20x in the next 5 years why would I want to sell my share to Elon? And existing investors all have the option to cash out today for just 17% less than Musk's final offer.

Twitter has operated for 16 years and public for about 10, explosive growth of their userbase is in their past and monetization strategies have already been implemented for years. There is no reason to believe it has the potential for such growth.

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

#143

Post by quest88 »

recuter wrote: post #127
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…

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? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…

He can buy one of those other competitors used by right-wing folks. Hell, if "free speech" is so important to him and to everyone else he wants to rescue he can just tweet to use those other platforms. It's certainly cheaper.

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

#144

Post by outside1234 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #100
philistine wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elon's offer is not a hostile offer. He has made an offer, management has not yet rejected it. It is just an offer to purchase the company, as of now. If the offer is rejected and Elon continues to attempt to gain control of the company, that would be an attempt at a hostile takeover.

Hostile, in financial terms, is whenever the board or CEO did not initiate a conversation around an acquisition, and it is just made to the company.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

tomComb wrote: post #96
themitigating wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the stock goes higher in the future?

I'm sorry that sort of argument makes no sense. Anything could happen in the future, but the price today is what the market judges it to be worth. The historical price is irrelevant as well. Looking at the historical price is the same sort of thinking that leads to "throwing good money after bad".

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by jungturk »

dEnigma wrote: post #54
gobengo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's radical to equate dollar values with objective goodness

It's not that radical to equate dollar values with "good for stockholders". At least in my impression that is what most stock holders care about.

There's an entire sector of funds that include criteria around environmental, social, and governance impacts in addition to returns on investment.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-reso...

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

#147

Post by WalterBright »

cwkoss wrote: post #57
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.

Are you going to sell? If not, why not?

I'm considering selling.

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

#148

Post by Cookingboy »

recuter wrote: post #127
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…

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? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…

>Woke means broke I guess.

That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith.

It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered. It's also very well possible that after talking to Elon through private conversations that you were not part of, they fundamentally disagree with his value and the direction he wants to take the company.

>I think his plan B will be to start a competitor.

Hey, maybe he would buy Parler, that would sure get him all the attention he desperately craves for. /s but maybe not.

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

#149

Post by fabrika »

14 wrote: post #64

Anyone care to speculate what his plan B would look like? Could he make a twitter clone/replacement then offer existing members $50 for their username and password plus x amount of engagement on his new site?

My bet is X.com as a twitter replacement.

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

#150

Post by ameister14 »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #90
SkyMarshal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>It depends on what the interests of the shareholders actually is. Monetary only, or are there other considerations they care about? Is a board allowed to consider anything but?

So most directors can get around the shareholder primacy rule pretty easily by tying the changes they want back to shareholder value.
Post reply on HN