121–130 of 250 posts
Reputation matters.
I wonder if any commercial real estate company would rent Twitter anything at this point. It's pretty clear Musk intends to save money by f*cking others. Might as well go 100% remote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Musk stiffing a supplier for $100k. That seems unlikely to make their bankruptcy any more imminent. But it does signal (on the record, not just rumours) to literally anybody that Twitter is doing business with that they are distressed, and should be extended no credit. Payment up front, or no service.
it does signal ... that Twitter ... are distressed Disagree - this is automobile industry tactics where you pay your suppliers late and short because they have no choice. Musk is negotiating for lower rent.
Some claim Twitter is attempting to renegotiate. That may well be true. But this doesn't fit in well with the greater narrative. Since Elon's takeover of Twitter, it's been one PR disaster after the next. Mass layoffs, begging people to come back, cutting remote work, cutting in-office catering, the whole Twitter Blue debacle, unbanning some of the worst, the drop of advertising spend on Twitter (which, at least in p…
They had to cut costs to keep away from the "fast lane to bankruptcy". When not pulling in enough revenue, you have to act quickly. https://youtu.be/HE5CTKqWEV0?t=3570 Wasn't twitter supposed to stop working by now? They are still functioning, despite the layoffs. Maybe it worked?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Musk stiffing a supplier for $100k. That seems unlikely to make their bankruptcy any more imminent. But it does signal (on the record, not just rumours) to literally anybody that Twitter is doing business with that they are distressed, and should be extended no credit. Payment up front, or no service.
it does signal ... that Twitter ... are distressed Disagree - this is automobile industry tactics where you pay your suppliers late and short because they have no choice. Musk is negotiating for lower rent.
A commercial landlord in downtown SF has many, many choices. The power imbalance here is not even remotely close to the one given in your analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually not. Typically in a bankruptcy the debtholders become the new shareholders and then replace existing management with ones more friendly to their interests.
That wouldn't happen in this case because there would still be residual value in the equity. Is Twitter worth $45bn? No. Is Twitter worth more than the $13bn in debt? Yes. In this case, they can file, rollover the debt into a new company with no financial loss and then recap the equity with Musk (who obviously has the money to do so) and other shareholders. Also, the banks who own the debt do not want to run Twitter.…
Part of it is that due to the (IMHO absurd to be legal) financial instruments Musk used to loan (part of) the money used to buy twitter, twitter has now a pretty high financial burden. Means it now has to earn much more to be profitable then before. (It was something which you could oversimplified describe as Musk taking out a lone in the name of twitter before being able to represent twitter to buy twitter..., in practice it's more convoluted then that but it's kinda similar.)
Through in the broader picture this specific case of Twitter is more then an indicator for something being wrong, like either impending Bankruptcy, him doing improper business and being very untrustworthy or him crippling the operations department to a point where Twitter has lost overview about what they need to pay where.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be interested in knowing how many other tenants this landlord has chosen to file suit on when the tenant is 7 days over due (in default in 21st, filed the suit on the 29th)? Seem very aggressive. I wonder if politics has any bearing on their choice to file? Or the fact that Elon has publicly been considering closing the SanFran HQ?
I don't understand the urge to see politics everywhere, even in a normal business practice.
It's intellectually dishonest and absolutely insulting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be interested in knowing how many other tenants this landlord has chosen to file suit on when the tenant is 7 days over due (in default in 21st, filed the suit on the 29th)? Seem very aggressive. I wonder if politics has any bearing on their choice to file? Or the fact that Elon has publicly been considering closing the SanFran HQ?
The fact that Twitter currently has loan payments in excess of last year's profits could be a factor. Delaying means they will be more likely to be entangled in a bankruptcy and potentially get a worse outcome if they are. Even a low probability bankruptcy would encourage some urgency.
Luckily they don't need an office with their great remote work policy. Oh... wait.
https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-allow-remote-forever-probably...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if any commercial real estate company would rent Twitter anything at this point. It's pretty clear Musk intends to save money by f*cking others. Might as well go 100% remote.
They will in Texas, FL, or TN which is most likely where the company will be moved to
> Twitter hasn’t paid rent on its headquarters, or any of its other global offices, in weeks, the New York Times reported on Dec. 13. Isn’t rent paid once per month? When I was a renter, this could’ve been said about me literally every month, once two weeks had elapsed between payments.
So you think Twitter is being sued for non-payment of rent based on misinterpreted semantics?