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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by Nextgrid »

computerdork wrote: post #124

First off, I should say I think Elon is the man. What he's been doing at "engineering" companies is of course absolutely incredible (go Starship!). But not so sure he should be mucking around with a social-networking/media company, in which messy social and legal rules are even more important than the technologies themselves. Yeah, his idea that free speech should be the overriding principle is at it's heart true, bu…

I don't believe in nor really care about his points regarding "free speech" (whatever that even means, considering everyone has a different concept of it).

However I believe the current model of social media being funded by "engagement" has peaked, is hard to grow in a world already saturated by advertising, and is at risk from privacy & pro-consumer legislation slowly being enacted around the world.

I just don't see a future in the current model, yet the social media industry seems to be stuck in this local maximum without an easy way out. A hostile takeover of a large existing player by a risk-taker is the "kick in the butt" that the industry needs. It may go well, it may go wrong, but IMO it's at least worth a try.

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

#172

Post by JKCalhoun »

Cookingboy wrote: post #148
recuter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fascism means cashism!

(Sorry, unable to resist.)

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

#173

Post by Ferrotin »

nickysielicki wrote: post #16
s17n wrote: post #12

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.

The board of a public company cannot reasonably claim that they’re worth twice(!) what the market currently values their company at simply because they feel it’s true. Unless they have advertising contracts and growth metrics in the pipeline that represent a reasonable doubling of revenue and value, they’re acting legally irresponsibly. Justifying this is difficult. This is objectively a good offer.

Twitter has the potential to be much higher than its current value. It’s currently at a zero-earnings pricing. I don’t know whether Agrawal will turn it around, but if Elon or somebody like him stepped in, maybe they could clean house and do it. If Twitter employees are freaking out right now, it’s because they have so many people doing stuff that isn’t bringing in money.

I think the board is right to reject the offer. Twitter could be worth more. Twitter in Elon’s control would be a more valuable company.

If I were a shareholder, I’d want them to reject 52.40. Maybe not 92.40. The ideal outcome would be if Elon gets 51% control and I got to remain a shareholder.

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

#174

Post by randyrand »

randyrand wrote: post #82

How are poison pills legal? If the board can make arbitrary rules can’t they just zero out Musks or anyone else’s shares right now? 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.

From ArsTechnica:

“Even before Friday, Twitter had bylaws that "could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying, or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors," the company said in a February 2022 SEC filing. That includes "a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms," and the ability to "authoriz[e] 'blank check' preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock."

Sounds like the board can do pretty much anything they want with Twitter’s stock. I find it incredible that a regulated public company can issue abitrary shares with any terms they want.

They made these rules before Friday. but it also sounds like they could have made them today if they wanted to.

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

#175

Post by and-not-drew »

hackernewds wrote: post #132
and-not-drew wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You're right that theoretically, they shouldn't create value, but I think even back to the 80s and 90s it's been shown that companies that go through a split tend to out perform the market for years after the split. The…

So that selection bias seems to project that buying before a share split is actually not an educated+good decision

I think it still is. I'm going to try to find a source, but I saw an analysis where they measured from a year before the split, the day the split was announced, and the day the split was executed all until one year after the split was executed and the returns on all of them beat the market as a whole.

That being said, holding before the announcement performed the best.

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

#176

Post by tonguez »

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…

"Who does this benefit besides the board?"

the people who run the US/world who depend on censorship to maintain their power

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

#177

Post by colinmhayes »

krona wrote: post #128
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.

What's wrong with a leveraged buyout, for example? It seems like the norm these days, not the exception.

Twitter has no equity. There's nothing to leverage.

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

#178

Post by tomcam »

tyre wrote: post #139
_3u10 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I made 10% getting in after the disclosure was made. I’d actually invest in a twitter owned by Elon and likely ditch all my other profiles too. A platform that makes money and has free speech would be wonderful. Maybe he can steal Rogan from Spotify too.

What’s a concrete example of speech that you’d make which is specifically banned on Twitter?

Not OP but Elon has stated explicitly that all speech legal in the USA, so if I had the choice it would include parties left, right, and center: Occupy Wall Street, the AntiMedia project, Global Revolution Live, President Trump, Milo Yiannopoulus (sp?) Alex Jones, Robert Stacy McCain, Laura Loomer.

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

#179

Post by ceejayoz »

akvadrako wrote: post #155
alasdair_ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They'll need to pay taxes on the realized gains The bulk of the holders of stock in most public companies are institutional investors that don't need to pay taxes on the realized gains.

Why don't they pay taxes on realized gains?

Because they're largely managing tax-advantaged accounts.

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

#180

Post by swayvil »

Cookingboy wrote: post #148
recuter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.
Post reply on HN