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

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#271

Post by Pulcinella »

henry_bone wrote: post #267

I see the author's scepticism of the bots argument, but I don't think it's one that should be dismissed so easily. I don't know anything, but isn't the value of these big tech properties largely in the number of actual human daily active users? When Facebook acquired whatsapp, I remember reading that it wasn't the tech per se that facebook really wanted. It was the daily active users. Whatsapp had (still has? dunno)…

That’s not how any of this works. E.g. the contract he signed already has the price he agreed to buy Twitter for.

Re: Elon’s Out

#272

Post by saurik »

mabbo wrote: post #265

A fun side effect of all of this: if you believe in the court's ability to force Musk to buy Twitter, you should continue to buy up stock until it reaches the price Musk agreed to pay for it. If you don't believe he'll be forced to pay, you should sell and/or short until it's at whatever you think the right market value for a stock of Twitter ought to be. And wherever the price is between those two is a direct functi…

Well, minus a discount for however long you think it will take before that actually happens, taking into account such things as inflation, interest rates, and market performance (due to the opportunity costs of holding this stock until then).

Re: Elon’s Out

#273

Post by treis »

petilon wrote: post #71

This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke. I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billi…

He's sold plenty of Tesla stock over the years. No real need for him to make up a story.

Re: Elon’s Out

#274

Post by bradleyjg »

henry_bone wrote: post #267

I see the author's scepticism of the bots argument, but I don't think it's one that should be dismissed so easily. I don't know anything, but isn't the value of these big tech properties largely in the number of actual human daily active users? When Facebook acquired whatsapp, I remember reading that it wasn't the tech per se that facebook really wanted. It was the daily active users. Whatsapp had (still has? dunno)…

We’re to believe that before buying 11% of the company, before making a bid to buy all of it, Elon or his advisers never considered the possibility of bots but all of a sudden in the due diligence it occurred to them?

The timing makes no sense for bots to be a legit explanation. Elon is just a troll.

Re: Elon’s Out

#275

Post by throwaway09223 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #150
throwaway09223 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…

Anytime the idea of a wealth tax is brought up, I see commenters coming out of the woodwork to say that it would be impossible to actually collect it from the wealthy. Though I will note that it seems like we are able to collect yachts and planes from Russian oligarchs now, so perhaps our techniques have advanced in the last few months.

This is a different problem and has to do with privacy. The government can't compel you to disclose everything you're doing without cause, and without due process.

Having a court ordered judgement entered against you is cause and is a result of due process. It's an entirely different scenario.

Re: Elon’s Out

#276

Post by ethagknight »

I find it amazing that not one of the top comments gives Elon ANY consideration that maybe, just maybe, he has a legitimate case against Twitter. We don’t know what he’s found, what he was told, what he was promised, what changed on Twitter’s side. Some very top level people bailed or were fired shortly after Elon’s acquisition proposal was announced.

It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more likely is that he has uncovered some deep Twitter bullshit and he plans to unveil it in court. Forced to air the dirty laundry by the court, he avoids defamation suits.

Elon is extremely intelligent. Not perfect, not omniscient, maybe he screwed up? Or maybe he has a lot more info than any of us internet loons at the moment?

Re: Elon’s Out

#277

Post by kolbe »

hotpotamus wrote: post #150
throwaway09223 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…

Anytime the idea of a wealth tax is brought up, I see commenters coming out of the woodwork to say that it would be impossible to actually collect it from the wealthy. Though I will note that it seems like we are able to collect yachts and planes from Russian oligarchs now, so perhaps our techniques have advanced in the last few months.

Russian oligarch yacht seizures are a better argument for them than for you. They're worth tens of billions of dollars, and all the US can get is a nine figure boat.

Re: Elon’s Out

#278

Post by plonk »

avalys wrote: post #108
BobbyJo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.

Musk owns about 25% of Tesla, mostly after investing about $50M in Tesla's early funding rounds. His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop…

You say that like it’s natural that Tesla’s success makes billions flow to the one person at the top. Musk obviously isn’t making cars and managing the entire company by himself and doesn’t deserve to be richer than literal countries for making the right bet at some point in his life.

What should have happened is wider distribution of profits among Tesla employees, who are the ones actually doing the work. It’s fine if the CEO is considered an extremely valuable employee and gets a larger share, within limits. Pretty sure he could live a great life with a few million dollars, which would both limit his undeserved power and benefit everyone doing the work.

Re: Elon’s Out

#279

Post by zerocrates »

parineum wrote: post #176
typon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild to me that people think that Elon might actually face legal consequences for this. The Delaware court isn't some magical place run by elves. It's a court in the US. You know what's a lot cheaper than $34 billion dollars, or heck even $1 billion dollars? $200k for 3-4 judges. The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the ric…

> The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the richest billionare is going to be subject to any serious consequences? It's absurd to even entertain this. You know who has the authority to overturn that decision? Our democratically elected legislature.

I wouldn't be so sure a hypothetical federal law enshrining a Roe-ish right to abortion would itself survive the inevitable challenge to its own constitutionality.

Re: Elon’s Out

#280

Post by danielheath »

daenz wrote: post #247
Spivak wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t care and keep seizing and selling off assets until you hit the target number or you run out of things to seize. You’re acting like the asset value at all matters to the courts.

Couldn't other shareholders sue the government for tanking the stock and essentially "stealing" value from them?

They could certainly try; you can start a lawsuit without any real basis if that's how you want to spend your money.

Trying to argue, in court, that you are entitled to have your investment insulated from loss due the primary owner selling it?

Post reply on HN