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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by [deleted] »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #172
Cookingboy wrote: post #148

Earlier 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…

Fascism means cashism! (Sorry, unable to resist.)

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by recuter »

pcmoney wrote: post #197
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…

Poison Pills are rarely exercised, this is a positional move. Unlikely Elon is the only interested party at this point. If the board can use a pill to force a slower buy-out discussion and negotiation it is very much beneficial to shareholders. Their stock price was over $70 in the trailing 12 months. Even with Elon's offer they are still worth 10 NFL teams combined. I can find zero credible evidence to support your…

I wasn't aware NFL teams was a unit of measurement. One has to wonder if you think I am wrong why you wish for me to short the stock and lose my shirt.

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

#214

Post by gigatexal »

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…

52 week high was 70 something. His offer is too low anyway. And he said it was his final offer. He’s just an egomaniacal billionaire who is bored.

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

#215

Post by threeseed »

015a wrote: post #205
Cookingboy wrote: post #148

Earlier 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…

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 buil…

> Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement

How are SolarCity and Boring doing these days ?

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

#216

Post by elforce002 »

Ferrotin wrote: post #173
nickysielicki wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 offe…

Well, Twitter is 16 years old with $5 billions in revenue. Their maximum was ~$70 per share and that was 1 or 2 times. I don't think 92.40 is even reasonable since you have incumbents ranging from IG to tiktok.

Heck, Tiktok could add a timeline just like twitter and decimate them since Gen Z and millenials (26 and younger) are basically there. Facebook is old school and will start slowing down going forward. IG is for business since the appeal (sharing photos with friends) has been lost. Snap has its niche and Gab, Gettir, etc... are catering to the right.

People like controversy and that's the main reason twitter is relevant. Left and Right like to expose each other. That's the main reason alt-tech is not mainstream.

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

#217

Post by defen »

axg11 wrote: post #129
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #105

So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).

The pushback is simple: Twitter stock price was higher than Musk’s offer for most of 2021. We are in a downturn affecting the entire tech industry, and it’s likely that prices will return to previous levels at some point. Elon’s offer is a lowball and Twitter can bring more value to shareholders with or without Elon.

> We are in a downturn affecting the entire tech industry, and it’s likely that prices will return to previous levels at some point.

So why not take the offer (which is 20% higher than the current market price for the stock) and put the received cashed into other tech stocks? Is Twitter uniquely/excessively down compared to other tech stocks, and due for a bigger rebound?

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

#218

Post by dev_tty01 »

jacquesm wrote: post #187
twblalock wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offers aren't hostile. Trying to take over a company after an offer has been rejected is hostile.

Not necessarily, the offer could be amended and increased that's perfectly normal and still not hostile. Hostile is when you pursue against the wishes of the current owners of the company and their management , so in other words if they have indicated that they are either not for sale or that they are not going to sell their shares to you. You could then try for a hostile takeover by buying up as much as you can on t…

Even then, the Twitter board has staggered terms, so it is impossible to do a wholesale replacement of the board and thereby gain control of Twitter. The board voted unanimously to invoke the poison pill provisions in the bylaws so it isn't a matter of swaying a small number of board members.

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

#219

Post by zwily »

outside1234 wrote: post #144
rufus_foreman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, right now it is an unsolicited offer. That doesn’t mean hostile, in financial terms.

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

#220

Post by SilasX »

threeseed wrote: post #198
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…

a) The poison pill only affects those who are looking to control the company in some way. Which isn't most large investors at all. So I doubt you will find any who will be concerned by this. b) Twitter's stock price is now $45, peaked at $77 only last year and is profitable. Not sure where you get this ridiculous idea the company is unsellable. c) There are plenty of free speech competitors to Twitter. None are even…

>The poison pill only affects those who are looking to control the company in some way. Which isn't most large investors at all. So I doubt you will find any who will be concerned by this.

That's not the right way to think about it. Anything that scares off ambitious, optimistic activists from buying big stakes, will then suppress the stock value in general, which hurts all shareholders, including the smaller ones.

More broadly, going public is a tradeoff. You potentially give up control to outsiders, in return for greater share value (and the cash infusion). Moves like this go the opposite direction: decrease the potential for outside control, and with it, the upward pressure on the stock's value.

Post reply on HN