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

Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1000 posts

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#871

Post by toyg »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #587
toyg wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a "why dropbox when i can rsync" comment. Tesla brought glamour and practicality to a field stymied by boredom and theoretical concerns. They pledged to build an EV people would actually want to use, bringing all the latest tech to drive UX with no regard for tradition. They set to solve consumer problems, and they are succeeding in doing that.

Glamor? Sure. Practicality? Eh. Maybe for daily commuting. When the IC companies convert over, Tesla shareholders are going to feel a ton of pain. The novelty will have worn off and the company will still pace at a mere fraction of its competitors. And at the very least, they'll all have vastly better QC than Tesla.

> Practicality? Eh.

The "supercharger" network is something that no other manufacturer was doing or was seriously interested in doing, and it's an extremely practical concern.

> When the IC companies convert over

... a lot of them they might well end up buying batteries from Tesla. Tesla will also continue to be the benchmark against what EV will be measured, in the same way Ford continued to be a reference for decades after competitors matched them.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#872

Post by toyg »

lillecarl wrote: post #540
toyg wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a "why dropbox when i can rsync" comment. Tesla brought glamour and practicality to a field stymied by boredom and theoretical concerns. They pledged to build an EV people would actually want to use, bringing all the latest tech to drive UX with no regard for tradition. They set to solve consumer problems, and they are succeeding in doing that.

Great drive UX as opposed to what? Have you driven a modern Mercedes of the higher price tiers? They're pretty damn great to drive or be driven in (comfort and fun wise), but they don't have gimmicks like the door thing and such. If you're talking about those gimmicks I disagree, and if you're talking about "motor/battery/esc technology" I also disagree, they didn't innovate anywhere, they just hit the right market w…

If they "hit the right market" it means that market had not been hit before, so by definition they've done something new.

I don't have an interest in Tesla nor do I particularly like Musk, but objectively speaking, they must have done something right - they started a mass-car company from scratch in the third millennium, something very very hard; they popularized a technology that had failed to get traction for decades, and have taken the fight to behemoth corporations that had been bearish on the sector's overall future since the '90s. That simply cannot be just marketing or "gimmicks".

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#873

Post by [deleted] »

kyledrake wrote: post #189

I've been using Twitter since it's main novelty was that it was a successful Ruby on Rails app, and honestly I've been trying to figure out where the exit is for my personal use of Twitter lately. If the acquisition goes through, Twitter won't make enough money to service it's debt, and the things they will do to fix that are pretty much guaranteed to lower the quality of the platform, which frankly has never worked…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#874

Post by eru »

dekhn wrote: post #233
TameAntelope wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're discounting the very real possibility that Parag is operating as if the deal will not go through, and is making large strategic decisions in anticipation of that being the case. For Parag, I don't see it "burning his reputation" at all, considering either a) he's right and will face the tall task of helming a Twitter that continues to disappoint its investors or b) he's wrong and it won't be his problem when E…

CEOs of large companies that are forced out during acquisitions often fail upward. It really depends on how they behave right before the close. Effectively, the CEO has to advocate for the company and get the most out of the acquisition, and if they do, they are often rewarded (with seats on board or choice of next job). realistically, he will be able to retire for life after this if he chooses, and will be able to s…

> realistically, he will be able to retire for life after this if he chooses, [...]

People who have enough drive to become CEOs seldom want to retire like that.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#875

Post by trashtester »

Traster wrote: post #84

So there's two options right - the first is that Parag is for some reason making big strategic decisions about the direction of the company despite the fact that we all know he'll be gone if the deal closes. Or he's making big strategic changes at the behest of the acquirers before the deal closes. Neither of these things seem particularly kosher moves to make. The question is how to figure out which one it is. It wo…

Look at the tweets of these guys a few months back. Both have several positive mentions of Tesla, Starlink and/or Musk himself. They may actually be Musk fanboys....

It may be that they are fired because Parag and the other leaders are concerned they will (or have already) share(d) information or otherwise cooperate(d) with Musk in ways Parag wants to prevent.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#876

Post by dannyw »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #813
cromd wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put $5M in index funds, you’d grow it by about $400k a year (8%) on average, to start. It’s hard to imagine going broke with that by doing “normal middle class” things. For added security, one could add in a part-time job.

8% is extremely optimistic. 4% is more like it, maybe even 3.5%. I'll use 4% for what follows. That's $200k. Take out 20% LTCG, now you're at $160k. Rent is like $3k/mo, so $36k/yr. Say you have modest living expenses of another $34k/yr. Now you're at $70k/yr to break even. That leaves you with $90k to save/compound. So, ok, you're doing very well as a renter with $5M invested, even in the Bay Area. And, given that y…

9% is the long term annual return of the stock market over the past century.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#877

Post by ze9epp4g5dto8su »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #611
dghlsakjg wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can get that time with their child by quitting their job. The ‘benefit’ part is that you get your job back after a few months.

No, the "benefit" part is that you get full salary and benefits while you're not working.

No post body was provided.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#878

Post by zarzavat »

p1esk wrote: post #845
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. But it’s a bit ridiculous to get 42 million USD and not be satisfied. And the original comment is ridiculous to suggest that it’s not sufficient compensation.

If your salary was $25k/year (a respectable amount for the majority of world population), would $1M seem like a lifetime financial stability? I think so. Yet if your salary is $250k/year, it probably wouldn't, and this would sound ridiculous to people who make $25k/year. If you make 25k/year getting 1M is almost as good as getting 42M, because you are not used to thinking about anything you can do with 42M that you c…

Most people on $250k are just trying to “survive” (as in, have a house and a family) in a high cost-of-living area. If a house costs $2M then $250k is only just sufficient after deducting taxes and living expenses. Their spending is not so different from someone earning $25k in a low cost-of-living area.

There’s nowhere in the world where the cost of living requires $10M/year. To spend that much money you are forced to spend it on high-end luxuries. Of course there are people who could easily consume that amount of money, but most people on that income would put it into investment instead of consumption.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#879

Post by aenis »

brutus1213 wrote: post #658
throwaway_1928 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Job offer or not, $42 million for doing almost nothing is a great deal.

I'm always curious .. how do these execs negotiate such contracts (where contingencies like getting acquired/fired lead to a payoff). Does this start at the VP or EVP level? I assume there are professionals/lawyers involved in the contract part (representing the exec I mean)?

I'd recommend reading "Barbarians at the gate". It will give you a very good idea.

When it comes to levels, those kind of golden parachutes are offered only at top levels. VPs, SVPs, etc. are help and get normal packages when they leave, at least in normal, large blue chip companies.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#880

Post by c-fe »

throwaway92394 wrote: post #242
BbzzbB wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These mergers never are almost never at parity months before closing. This one isn't even so far a spread, 15% rebate on proposed takeout price. Activision, with an offer from Microsoft for which even Buffett is partaking in the arbitrage, sits at 20%. Even back at the announcement in January, before this market turmoil which can threaten these deals, it traded at a like 14% discount. With that in mind, special situa…

If the market was highly/certainly confident the deal was going to go through it would be at ~54.20$ or higher (technically, although not likely much higher). If you're 100% sure the deal goes through then that's essentially a free 6$ per share guaranteed right now.

Out of interest, why higher? Twitter does not pay dividends, and if you discount it to today, the 54,20$ in the future are worth less than 54,20$ today since no interest is paid on these shares? Even when i take inflation into account, the 54,20 have more buying power now than in the future so again I dont see why you would pay more.
Post reply on HN