Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 303 posts

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#51

Post by _j5l3 »

adenozine wrote: post #45

For a startup-oriented discussion place, it's shocking how little users know about how mergers/acquisitions/takeovers actually occur in the market. Don't they teach this stuff anymore? I had to learn this in college, many years ago. Of course, it was a little less likely for eccentric billionaires to just "shop" in the market like this for ultra-large corporations. Still. We at least knew how the processes worked.

> I had to learn this in college, many years ago.

I majored in Computer Science and Physics. Which of these disciplines would mergers and acquisitions have been in? Should my algorithms class taught us about diluted stock and RSUs vs ISOs? Does my quantum mechanics professor have a unit on hostile takeovers?

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#52

Post by kasey_junk »

adenozine wrote: post #45

For a startup-oriented discussion place, it's shocking how little users know about how mergers/acquisitions/takeovers actually occur in the market. Don't they teach this stuff anymore? I had to learn this in college, many years ago. Of course, it was a little less likely for eccentric billionaires to just "shop" in the market like this for ultra-large corporations. Still. We at least knew how the processes worked.

Hostile takeovers were much more common in the past as well.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#54

Post by taubek »

vimy wrote: post #44
afavour wrote: post #38

My read on it is that the shareholders didn’t want Musk controlling the company (owning 51%) and dragging them along with him. Being the absurdly rich person he is, he’d likely not care too much about how service changes would affect the stock price. However they are quite happy to let Musk buy all of them out (owning 100%) at a reasonable price then let him do whatever marketshare-tanking moves he wishes. They don’t…

But owning 100 % was Musk's offer all along.

Yes, this has also confused me. What is so different now than 10 days ago?

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#55

Post by jszymborski »

colechristensen wrote: post #29

The poison pill was intended to prevent a takeover without the board’s approval (buying 51% on the open market) The board is negotiating an approved takeover which is entirely different I.e. the board was saying “you can only buy Twitter if we say so” There was no reversal of intentions

Does anyone know if the terms were made more favourable to Twitter since the adoption of the Poison Pill?

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#56

Post by logifail »

flutas wrote: post #47
incomingpain wrote: post #8

The poison pill says elon cant buy more but current shareholders can buy more at a discount relative to the stock market. Basically Elon was just going to shell out slightly more money or fail and everyone who didn't buy is screwed. It however takes shareholders to want to buy more. Twitter is quite undefended. Poison pill was never going to be effective in any major way. At most they were going to delay the inevitab…

> However even a saudi prince incorrectly believed he still owned twitter stock. Wait, did I miss something on this? Last I had seen he still owned the stock but rejected Musk's offer.

> Last I had seen he still owned the stock but rejected Musk's offer.

Musk did ask him a) how much stock the Kingdom owned, and b) their views on freedom of speech[0]

I didn't see a reply :)

[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1514683079968931841

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#57

Post by lumost »

taubek wrote: post #54
vimy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But owning 100 % was Musk's offer all along.

Yes, this has also confused me. What is so different now than 10 days ago?

Musk could have screwed the other shareholders by buying 51% and leaving it at that.

Hostile takeovers haven’t been common for a while, and so twitter was unprepared when one started.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#58

Post by [deleted] »

vimy wrote: post #44
afavour wrote: post #38

My read on it is that the shareholders didn’t want Musk controlling the company (owning 51%) and dragging them along with him. Being the absurdly rich person he is, he’d likely not care too much about how service changes would affect the stock price. However they are quite happy to let Musk buy all of them out (owning 100%) at a reasonable price then let him do whatever marketshare-tanking moves he wishes. They don’t…

But owning 100 % was Musk's offer all along.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#59

Post by johnobrien1010 »

lumost wrote: post #57
taubek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this has also confused me. What is so different now than 10 days ago?

Musk could have screwed the other shareholders by buying 51% and leaving it at that. Hostile takeovers haven’t been common for a while, and so twitter was unprepared when one started.

Good analysis from Matt Levine for those who are interested:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...

Re: Ask HN: What happened to Twitter poison pill?

#60

Post by JaimeThompson »

logifail wrote: post #56
flutas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However even a saudi prince incorrectly believed he still owned twitter stock. Wait, did I miss something on this? Last I had seen he still owned the stock but rejected Musk's offer.

> Last I had seen he still owned the stock but rejected Musk's offer. Musk did ask him a) how much stock the Kingdom owned, and b) their views on freedom of speech[0] I didn't see a reply :) [0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1514683079968931841

Musk doesn't care what the Kingdom does, he is just trolling.
Post reply on HN