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

Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

shouldibuytwitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#41

Post by graeme »

cmer wrote: post #38
madeofpalk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. My understanding, at least from reading Twitter's lawsuit and other's commentary on it, is that Twitter lying about bot numbers is irrelevant because Musk agreed to, in contract, buy it regardless of those facts.

Based on information publicly available deemed correct and accurate by the company. This is false representation and downright fraudulent. If indeed Twitter lied about their not numbers, there will be a major lawsuit against the company.

Not quite:

1. Twitter represented that they made sample, exercised judgement, and could be wrong

2. That is hard to falsify

3. For it to matter in this lawsuit, it would have to be so false that it materially adversely affects the company

If 10% of users are bots, #1 wouldn’t even be false. If 20% of them were, it might be, but you’d still have to cause a material adverse effect. Like a large change in expected revenue.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#42

Post by sgjohnson »

cmer wrote: post #38
madeofpalk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. My understanding, at least from reading Twitter's lawsuit and other's commentary on it, is that Twitter lying about bot numbers is irrelevant because Musk agreed to, in contract, buy it regardless of those facts.

Based on information publicly available deemed correct and accurate by the company. This is false representation and downright fraudulent. If indeed Twitter lied about their not numbers, there will be a major lawsuit against the company.

The time for due diligence on that was before he signed the merger agreement.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#43

Post by majormajor »

motohagiography wrote: post #34

Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. That's implausible to me. It's kind of an outsider case where shorts could get squeezed pretty hard if they're wrong about that, as a Musk owned Twitter has huge growth in front of it. However, I'd propose there is also a c…

You have a whole lot of assumptions baked into this theory, but they all seem a bit irrelevant given that Twitter is the party pushing for speedier resolution...

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#44

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

motohagiography wrote: post #34

Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. That's implausible to me. It's kind of an outsider case where shorts could get squeezed pretty hard if they're wrong about that, as a Musk owned Twitter has huge growth in front of it. However, I'd propose there is also a c…

>Twitter has huge growth in front of it.

Twitter has been around for 16 years. In western countries, I think everyone who was going to join, has joined by now. What growth is left? Children becoming old enough to join, people with multiple accounts?

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#46

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

motohagiography wrote: post #34

Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. That's implausible to me. It's kind of an outsider case where shorts could get squeezed pretty hard if they're wrong about that, as a Musk owned Twitter has huge growth in front of it. However, I'd propose there is also a c…

You know its funny that you mention this through a political lens because the entire time I've been watching this narrative play out, this is the exact reason that I think Elon made his play. The value in twitter would be in delivering it to the 2024 R assumed candidate. If you can't hold the office, control the office.

I've speculated that the J6 committee might actually be the origin of Elons cold feet. Maybe he sees the assumed candidates position as far more tenuous than he previously thought, and thus the value of the platform is decreased as well. Maybe Elon sees charges coming for the assumed and in his calculus, this lowers the valuation.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#47

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #44
motohagiography wrote: post #34

Imo, the only hypothetical reason for Musk not to buy it would be because the real numbers on the bot issue showed the company has seriously defrauded investors, and the stock goes to almost zero. That's implausible to me. It's kind of an outsider case where shorts could get squeezed pretty hard if they're wrong about that, as a Musk owned Twitter has huge growth in front of it. However, I'd propose there is also a c…

>Twitter has huge growth in front of it. Twitter has been around for 16 years. In western countries, I think everyone who was going to join, has joined by now. What growth is left? Children becoming old enough to join, people with multiple accounts?

Right?

Twitter's done.

But that's not the point or where it value lies.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#48

Post by Sebb767 »

cwkoss wrote: post #32
Eji1700 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's allowed to actually walk. Legally speaking he waived due process and twitter is suing with the specific performance clause. If it were just about anyone else I'd say there's 0 chance they'd be getting out of this, but since it's musk he might be able to walk.

didn't he waive due diligence, not due process? Or do those mean the same thing in this context?

He signed that he knows everything he needs to know about the company and wants to buy it. Now he wants to back out with the claim that he actually did not know everything, which is a pretty hard sell.

Though it's important to note that his lawyers are well aware that this will never fly and therefore the actual court case is them trying to find an edge case where Twitter actually broke the contract (that's the shoddy talk about Twitter apparently rate limiting the data analysis). Which is still a hard sell, but there's at least a chance they'll get away with it.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#49

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cwkoss wrote: post #32
Eji1700 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's allowed to actually walk. Legally speaking he waived due process and twitter is suing with the specific performance clause. If it were just about anyone else I'd say there's 0 chance they'd be getting out of this, but since it's musk he might be able to walk.

didn't he waive due diligence, not due process? Or do those mean the same thing in this context?

"Due diligence" is the diligence (= carefulness) that you should exert before signing on the deal. Don't trust what the other side tells you. Instead, check.

"Due process" is the legal steps that have to be followed in a court case (especially a criminal one). You can waive due process - if you're not going to make the government work through all the steps, because you know that it's not going to get you any benefit in the end, say.

Musk waived due diligence, not due process.

Re: Shouldibuytwitter.com – A tiny takeover arbitrage model for TWTR

#50

Post by gbear605 »

cwkoss wrote: post #32
Eji1700 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's allowed to actually walk. Legally speaking he waived due process and twitter is suing with the specific performance clause. If it were just about anyone else I'd say there's 0 chance they'd be getting out of this, but since it's musk he might be able to walk.

didn't he waive due diligence, not due process? Or do those mean the same thing in this context?

They don’t mean the same thing, but the reason he’s giving for walking away (an estimate of the fraction of mDAUs that are bots) is not a valid reason under the contract. It would have to be a material statement (ie. affect the value by 25%, iirc), plus the phrasing in the filings was “In making this determination, we applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated.” The filing basically says nothing, so it can’t be wrong in a material way.

It’s just not a valid reason under the contract.

Post reply on HN