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

Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 250 posts

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#221

Post by rchaud »

woodruffw wrote: post #174
nunez wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of great engineers in TN who would gladly work at Twitter while getting that SFBA paycheck Actually Twitter moving to Nashville or Memphis could be the greatest thing to happen to these cities (Memphis more than TN)...if they make it

I agree that plenty of devs in TN would happily take an SFBA paycheck without moving. But why in the world would any company, much less Musk’s Twitter, offer such a massively out of band salary? The entire point of moving to states like TN is to pay less for developers, not the same amount.

Musk's vendors aren't even getting SFBA paycheques, why would he offer CA comp for TN-based staff?

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#222

Post by vlovich123 »

ghola2k5 wrote: post #32
vlovich123 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bezos is selling off tens of billions of Amazon stock a year. Amazon stock doesn’t seem to be reacting to it. I don’t think the market reacted so much to Musk vs the fact that Tesla selling prices have plummeted because it turns out they’ve saturated their market (but until then people believed in the hockey stick growth). It was obviously ridiculous because secondary market sales higher than direct sales cannot be s…

Bezos isn’t the CEO of Amazon…

Bezos started selling stock while still CEO and remains the largest or one of the largest shareholders. He’s also still the executive chair of the board. If you think that a founder like Bezos selling his shares would have less of an impact than Jassey, I think you’re misunderstanding how this signaling works. In fact, most CEOs will sell shares in specific IRS-approved plans and it means nothing to the overall price.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#223

Post by rchaud »

jacooper wrote: post #219
rchaud wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article references the NYT as reporting they're not paying rent anywhere: > 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.

Use this simple trick to immediately lower your companie's cost!

I kid you not, there is a Dilbert strip that is effectively the pointy-haired boss saying "In an effort to streamline operations and cut costs, we've decided to start stealing stuff".

I'm paraphrasing, but it really was a one-liner like that.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#224

Post by rchaud »

gitfan86 wrote: post #121
gorbachev wrote: post #57

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.

Real Estate is a sketchy business. Musk is not going to stand out as an especially bad tenant. And if you dig into the history of these landlords you shouldn't be surprised to find out they have also fucked people over

Quite remarkable levels of whataboutery here. So a generalization like "landlords bad" makes it OK for a business not paying their rent?

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#225

Post by rchaud »

butlerm wrote: post #181
plorkyeran wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one involved thought Twitter was worth anywhere close to $44 billion when it was sold.

At least one person did, or it would not have sold for that amount.

That same person immediately had buyer's remorse and went to court to try to renege on the deal. It's not worth that much to even the buyer!

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#226

Post by rchaud »

butlerm wrote: post #180
cykros wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many have been estimating it at well under a $10 billion valuation. Elon Musk just became the first person to lose $200 Billion. I'd not be so quick to assume creditors are all getting paid here.

If Twitter ceased to exist as a service then I agree creditors probably would not get paid or at least not in full. Liquidation isn't all that likely though. It is more likely that creditors would end up in control of the business, and that is worth something unless a Twitter style social media network is actually unsustainable as an economic enterprise.

Creditors wouldn't care about controlling Twitter, as it generates no profits. They would have to find another buyer, and that would be hard going considering that Musk has chased off most of the big advertisers already.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#227

Post by klyrs »

butlerm wrote: post #197
nickthegreek wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one person tried not to buy it almost instantly after the ink was dry. Seems like even they didn’t think it was worth it.

I would say he certainly did think it was worth that, just not for very long.

If you buy a $1M sports car for $5M and drive it into a wall at top speed, its value is not $5M. Source: my dad was an insurance adjuster.

Your original claim is that twitter could use its $44B value to issue stock to pay down its debts. That a drug-addled edgelord briefly thought that twitter was worth that much is not strong evidence in support of your claim. Sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong or at least stop arguing.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#228

Post by rchaud »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #33

> Refusing to provide toilet paper or pay rent, but employees can’t work remotely. Why do people worship this clown again?

He's kryptonite for entire swathes of the nerd demographic.

1) The Dawkins-pilled atheist who subconsciously misses the messianic words of charismatic preachers

2) The well-to-do Burning Man hippie that remembers Exxon Valdez and Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and has sworn off ICE vehicles. These ones are most likely jumping ship these days, unless they belong to...

3) The "objective rationalist" who prefers facts to feelings, dislikes political correctness and leftist hysteria and thereby appreciates Musk's thoroughly unemotional and carefully considered public statements about Nancy Pelosi and the woke mind virus.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#229

Post by mcphage »

randyrand wrote: post #220
zamalek wrote: post #3

Luckily they don't need an office with their great remote work policy. Oh... wait.

Their old office was sized for a company 5x larger, of 100% non-remote employees. It's way too big.

Then it seems like downsizing is a great option. But to just stop paying rent... that's not the same thing.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#230

Post by rchaud »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #67
nostrademons wrote: post #26

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.…

Worth more than $13bn to who?

Anybody taking over Twitter will have years of work ahead of them to rebuild trust with advertisers, let alone addressing the core problem of growing user numbers. That was Musk's original job, which is not going well, even after he reinstated pillars of society like Andrew Tate and Trump.

Post reply on HN