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

501–510 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#501

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

ethagknight wrote: post #276

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 l…

Maybe, instead of the "Elon is a genius playing 4D chess" speculation, we can simply look at his actions and conclude than no reasonable person would seriously go about buying Twitter the way he did.

Given this and previous behaviour it seems pretty reasonable to assume that Musk was doing it for the lolz and to get attention as "the savior of free speech".

It's useful to note that after he signed the contract the market decided he wasn't serious about it. That's the closest we have to an objective judgement on Musk's intentions.

Re: Elon’s Out

#502

Post by bradknowles »

colechristensen wrote: post #484
Victerius wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Further questions: (1) Would it be legal for someone to own the legal entity owning their shares of publicly traded companies? (2) What if he moves all of his stock in offshore accounts?

The one used by most is DTCC, it’s basically owned by the banks who use it, not something that could be bought. The legal entity which maintains the list of teslas owners is ultimately tesla, but that duty will be likely given to dtcc. A stock is ultimately just an entry on a list maintained by the company, most offload the managing of the list to DTCC and usually the pointer isn’t to you but to your broker dealer. T…

Note that the last time I checked, DTCC had over one quadrillion dollars of assets under management. They operate at a financial scale unlike any other entity on the planet.

For them, $44b is the crumb left behind after you've eaten the small potatoes.

Re: Elon’s Out

#503

Post by splintercell »

erosenbe0 wrote: post #458
avalys wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wall Street Journal this afternoon: "“What are they going to do if there is a judgment and he says, ‘Well, I’m still not going to buy it’?” said Zohar Goshen, professor of transactional law at Columbia Law School. “They don’t really have tools to force him to go through with it. You don’t put people in jail because they don’t buy something.”" https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-elon-musk-set-for-unpre...

Twitter's lawyers will pursue billions in remedies through every conceivable route, for decades if necessary.

> Twitter's lawyers will pursue billions in remedies through every conceivable route, for decades if necessary.

No they won't. This is Twitter, not Oracle.

Re: Elon’s Out

#504

Post by swyx »

Strom wrote: post #210
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…

> Because TSLA is way too overvalued. He has to know that it is overvalued. Indeed he does. He has talked about this publicly in various interviews over the years. [1] > Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock Musk definitely really dislikes short sellers, no doubt about that. However that is different from pretending that TSLA valuation is reasonable. -- […

musk said that in May 2020, when the stock was at $140. it is 437% higher now even with the market pullback.

Re: Elon’s Out

#506

Post by spaced-out »

ta8645 wrote: post #314
svachalek wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did powerful enemies force him to make a public bid to buy Twitter, and then force him to back out of it? I'd like to hear the non kooky conspiracy explanation for that.

Who said anything about him being forced to do such a thing? People make bad decisions all the time, including Musk. But given human nature and frailty, people under a great deal of pressure and opposition like musk is, are likely to make worse decisions than they otherwise would.

The only people I see "opposing" Musk are randos on Twitter he gets into arguments with. I wouldn't exactly call that a "great deal of pressure".

Re: Elon’s Out

#507

Post by ByteJockey »

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.

Wait, is that what you always see as the argument against it?

Whenever I've seen it brought up it's always that it would require a constitutional amendment (specifically in the US). The federal government isn't allowed to do taxes that way under the current system (Article 1 Clause 2 Section 3).

Hell, the feds weren't even allowed to do a straight income tax until the 16th amendment.

Re: Elon’s Out

#508

Post by mcguire »

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?

"The government" isn't doing anything here.

Elon and Twitter have a contract. Elon wants out; Twitter doesn't want to let him out; the contract only has limited conditions to allow Elon out. The court is simply deciding which of two options is the case:

1. Elon's reasons are valid; he gets out of the contract for a $1B payment.

2. Elon's reasons are not valid; he has to satisfy the contract and pay $54.20/share for Twitter.

If the judge decides in favor of #2, it is Elon's responsibility to come up with the money. (If he doesn't do so willingly, someone court-appointed will step in and do it for him.) If that tanks Tesla, that has nothing to do with the court.

Now, Tesla shareholders can sue Elon for getting the company into this pile of stank....

Re: Elon’s Out

#509

Post by ETH_start »

This is an absurd article. The idea that Musk was just "pretending" to want to buy Twitter, and went through the process of tendering a purchase offer for show, defies any kind of common sense.

Re: Elon’s Out

#510

Post by daenz »

cycomanic wrote: post #403
daenz wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>due to the primary owner selling it We were talking about the courts seizing the assets though, it's not being voluntarily sold.

Why would that make a difference. When someone defaults on a house/car the seized asset is often sold under value, nobody has any ground to sue.

If someone's car is seized by the government, it doesn't cause the value of everyone else's cars to drop by 50%, and if it did, I think people would sue the the government.
Post reply on HN