They'd rather tank their own company than allow free speech.
What should be allowed?
[deleted]
Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#202Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#203I 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? So let's say you put in a shareholder rights plan that allows all current shareholders to buy 10 new, discounted shares whenever a new shareholder reaches 20% ownership and for every share they buy from then on. That eff…
> That's not always legal, but it would help the interests of shareholders.
Except the guy at 19.9% trying to move up. Considering he has already invested quite a lot of money on the company, shouldn't the board also work for him ?
Why should he be treated differently and his share give him different "rights" than others people share ?
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people…
The topic of discussion is corporate governance and finance, and you immediately pivoted to some irrelevant culture war BS.
The topic of discussion is Elon Musk trying to purchase Twitter, which is very much at the intersection of finance and culture war.
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#205Earlier 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…
All of this is possible, but the reality is: Twitter is a 16 year old company that has changed imperceptibly since its inception. Elon has several polls over the past month, voted on by literally over 3M people, vehemently disagreeing with some of the policies Twitter holds dear. Their revenue is flat and down. They literally had a chokehold on global politics during the Trump era, and did nothing with it toward building a better business, or even a better social network.
Their board can believe all they want. But they're failing, miserably. Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement, like Twitter's leadership does. This move by their board serves no-one but them; it doesn't serve Twitter's users, it doesn't serve their customers (advertisers), it doesn't even serve the vast majority of shareholders (which will be evidenced by an unprecedented sell-off on Monday).
Goldman advised them to block the purchase, because $52/share was too high, while simultaneously holding a $30 sell benchmark on TWTR. Its not even ironic that this is where Twitter's stock is going; its what they predicted, and then caused. The idiots in the room are the Twitter board, who actually believed the advice was given in good faith.
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people…
> The balance sheet speaks for itself
a) Revenue increased 37% y/y.
b) User count growing at 2% y/y.
c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f...
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Twitter is "losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year" (I don't know if that's how we're using air quotes now, just following your lead), it is already circling the drain. No need to buy anything, it would be trivial for him to setup a clone and fund it indefinitely while it tears itself apart.
Revenue grew 37% since last year.
And they were profitable when you exclude their once off litigation expense.
Not sure about your definition of circling the drain but Twitter definitely isn't.
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#208Earlier 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.
> If I expect Twitter to 20x in the next 5 years why would I want to sell my share to Elon?
Vote with your dollars: buy shares at a price higher than Elon's. Borrow if you must. If you are not ready to take that risk, then maybe your expectations are more wishful thinking than anything real.
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#209Earlier 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?
I'm not the OP but Twitter has at various times suppressed information about covid and covid vaccines. They are well intentioned but they occasionally overreach.
As a quick example, [1] lists some categories of tweets which they will delete. Twitter seems to have overreached with category 2:
> Claims that specific groups or people (or other demographically-identifiable identity) are more or less prone to be infected or to develop adverse symptoms on the basis of their membership in that group;
This is nonsense. Your risk increases with your age. Your risk increases with your BMI. Men are at higher risk than women. Those working in customer-facing roles are at higher risk than those who can work from home. Each of those statements are apparently banned on twitter.
[1]: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misin...
Re: Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people…
>Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? No. But you immediately made this into a Camp A vs. Camp B problem when in reality there could be a million different reasons for the Twitter board to not want to get acquired means you weren't trying to discuss this specific situation, you were looking to turn this into a debate on "wokeness". That's why I said you weren't discussing in good…
> Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. So obviously he thinks Twitter has the potential to achieve much higher value through implementing XYZ. The board agrees too but just disagree on what that XYZ is.
Yes, but one version of XYZ (the board's) has been tried while the other (Elon's) has not. Elon's plan might lead to even worse results than the board's, but he doesn't think it would, hence his optimism if they adopt his plan.