241–250 of 1001 posts
Not well versed in any of this, but could this be Musk just toying around with Twitter and/or him bluffing to get a reaction? Does he have any legal obligation to go through with the purchase if Twitter was open to it?
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.
If Twitter was worth more, it'd be worth more.
With that logic, you should put a huge chunk of your savings into Twitter to benefit from the insight, as it's currently trading at 39% below its 52-week high.
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 Some companies are down more than others, and some are doing fine. Twitter revenue is largely driven by ads and they are likely also going to be hit by Apple's privacy changes like all other ad based businesses. Meta (Facebook) has already said they expect ~$10 billion revenue hit from the changes. It's feasible to think that Twitter revenue for the year may actually drop and the stock price may not recover to the 2021 levels any time soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.
Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. >that my communication-medium Twitter is first and foremost a publishing platform, you should not rely on it as a private communication medium. None of the chat apps I know censor stuff, so use them instead. Use Twitter for public communication if you want, but since it's in the public domain you can't complain too much…
Sure I can complain. When it's the defacto public forum any administrative conversation-tweaking is pure poison to our society.
And also, yes, there is an implicit promise that the conversation between you and me is not getting fucked with by an invisible rat in the middle. So when I smell one of those rats, heck yes I'll complain. That's objectively ratty.
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…
Yeah, as mentioned, Elon is a god, but in my humble opinion, his talents are in engineering (and Twitter just seem like a problem an engineer wouldn't even want to solve).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, if some ETF accidentally exceeds 15%, then what? First of all, that'll screw over a bunch of small investors, right? Second, could Elon swoop in at that point? Edit: Also, if Elon is reading this, I'll happily buy 14.9% of twitter, and vote as part of your block. Just pay me enough to cover the sale and taxes, plus 1%.
> Edit: Also, if Elon is reading this, I'll happily buy 14.9% of twitter, and vote as part of your block. Just pay me enough to cover the sale and taxes, plus 1%. You might want to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with inchoate crime. What you publicly proposed to Elon is a crime, since you intend to conceal beneficial ownership of shares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, if some ETF accidentally exceeds 15%, then what? First of all, that'll screw over a bunch of small investors, right? Second, could Elon swoop in at that point? Edit: Also, if Elon is reading this, I'll happily buy 14.9% of twitter, and vote as part of your block. Just pay me enough to cover the sale and taxes, plus 1%.
An ETF isn’t going to “accidentally” exceed 15% ownership of Twitter. Seriously, do you think funds playing with the kind of money to buy 15% of twitter often make careless purchases? >Edit: Also, if Elon is reading this, I'll happily buy 14.9% of twitter, and vote as part of your block. Just pay me enough to cover the sale and taxes, plus 1%. Such an arrangement would make Elon the beneficial owner of your shares.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-28/barcla...
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…
I hope it isnt: I think that starting a top down, meaning "look I built this, everyone move over from twitter", competitor has a very low probability of success, regardless of who starts it. There is too much of an attack surface, there will be too much drama on real Twitter about it, early adopters will be gun nuts or some other out group and that will be how they get characterized, etc etc.
The real chance at a competitor would be something that grew organically, that people wanted to move to because it offered something valuable before it reaches scale. This is how actual businesses start. The top down approach is how massive flops happen.
Incidentally, the same holds true for the Facebook metaverse and imo suggests it will certainly fail
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).
As an outsider, I'm personally intrigued by the prospect. There are two things he's mentioned that I think could be very beneficial (outside of freedom of expression) to society:
1. Transparency - open sourced algorithms for what shows when and transparency about moderation decisions
2. Reduced short-term financial incentives - Given it'd be bank-rolled by someone with a lot of money and private, they wouldn't need to play the gray area game of increasing advertising & data sharing that other sites do.
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…