Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

691–700 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That might actually hurt Musk's argument, because Google is incredibly lucrative despite the belief that ad clicks are overwhelmingly fake. They're still charging advertisers for those clicks.

Yes, and?

I don’t think it quite aligns with monetizing a user base with a large portion of fake users.

Plus the advertisements are distributed unlike Twitter.

Re: Elon’s Out

#692
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is alluded to at the end of the article: > Is it fun for him? If he manages to walk away having spent only millions in financing fees, millions in legal fees and say $1 billion in termination fees, was it worth it? What did he get out of this? The guy really seems to like being on Twitter, and he did make himself the main character in Twitter's drama for months on end. That’s nice for him I guess. Also he made t…

You do admit it is a circus, and no official explanation holds its ground. Why do you belittle the real reason, whatever it is, by negatively branding it a conspiracy theory? The real reason for this by definition falls in the category of a "conspiracy theory", since it is not included in any official explanation.

Saying he's just bipolar and had grandiose ideas before crashing down would not count as a conspiracy theory.

"Conspiracy theory" implies you're blaming it on... a conspiracy. Not any unofficial explanation count as a conspiracy theory.

Re: Elon’s Out

#693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol.. you should be his lawyer. Your honor, his affluezna made him do it. It isn't his fault.

Seems like people forget billionaires are human and "to err is human" somehow doesn't apply to them

Sure it applies, but that’s why binding contracts were invented. Otherwise it would be a free-for-all with everyone claiming “I’m only human!”

Re: Elon’s Out

#694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing how much background you have a simple summary would be: A Straddle is a strategy that allows you to bet that a stock's price will change by x% by a certain date. To make money on a straddle you want the stock to go up or down by more than that percentage, the more it changes the better. So if you believe that the matter will be resolved one way or the other by whatever date then you'd want to buy a St…

how do you actually trade complex options like this? E-Trade or Robinhood or something? I'm sure I could get myself in a whole heap of trouble trading options, but it looks fun..

Yes. You can trade options like this using pretty much any brokerage including E-Trade and Robinhood. TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, etc.

I'd steer you away from Robinhood, not just for the sake of the meme culture that's developed around it, but because other platforms generally have better research tools and support.

With all of that said, jumping straight into options trading is a big leap to take and with active investing in general I'd encourage you to look at it not as 'investing' but as gambling.

If you're doing it for fun that's all good just don't bet more than you can afford to lose.

Re: Elon’s Out

#695

So much noise here and ill-informed comments fail to give a broader understanding of what's going on. Elon bought up Twitter shares early in the year for a reason, because he wanted more control over Twitter. He bought up so much Twitter shares that when it was announced via the SEC, Twitter offered a board seat under the clause that he wouldn't acquire too much % control over the company. He obliged, but then left w…

Almost everything in this comment is wrong or misleading. The point of an acquisition agreement isn’t to give the buyer optionality to acquire another company, it’s to ensure the buyer honors its commitment to acquire another company during the period between the time the buyer agrees to acquire it, and the time is it able to close on taking ownership. Maybe EM developed buyer’s remorse because of the decline in equi…

And yet somehow NFL and NBA players break their contracts all the time.

Re: Elon’s Out

#696
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…

This such an elaborate conspiracy, even if true, he's set himself up legally to all but have to acquire the company after Twitter beats him in court. This seems much less plausible than Elon is an impulsive person who likes attention.

Re: Elon’s Out

#697
post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much conspiracy theory. I think simply that Musk do not see the imminent market crash. Now he is going in tribunal to negotiate a lower price. The think will end with Musk owning Twitter in a way or another.

This is the obvious answer for any rational observer. Everyone seems to want to attribute it to some projected character fault in Musk, a chance to elevate their morality or intelligence higher than a famous rich guy. Musks offer was strategically made before yearly earnings, when everyone posted bad earnings the market tanked.

On the contrary, explanations like the one by the GP seem to attribute way more superhuman character to Musk than who he is: just another person, and one with a pretty peculiar personality at that. His traits could have brought him spectacular success, but could also make him prone to eccentric episodes like this, especially as the years go by. I don’t see anything petty minded in just analyzing the situation in this way.

Re: Elon’s Out

#698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a little confounded that you suggest Elon believes shorting to be “morally wrong”. Why conflate his ego and financial stake with “morality”? Plus, Elon has proven himself to be morally nefarious more than anything. With the law and social expectations and plenty more. The only thing I can find about Elon and his utterance of morality is him saying it was morally wrong to ban Donald Trump. What a joke.

> I’m a little confounded that you suggest Elon believes shorting to be “morally wrong”. Why conflate his ego and financial stake with “morality”? Because in the over ten years I have of watching what he says and what he does I've found him to be a forthright person who says what he thinks. He's not the type to intentionally deceive others. He's often wrong, but he's upfront with what he thinks. Also he's shown many…

That's your problem. You've actually done your research and actually listened to the man and watched how he has acted over a 10 year period, giving you much better insight than people who only read click-bait headlines. It's not even worth arguing with people who don't know what they're talking about.

Re: Elon’s Out

#699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the court force Elon to buy the company when the remedy in the contract is a one billion payout?

It appears that that's the remedy for failing to get funds, not for cold feet; there's a performance clause for the latter, so Levine suggests "Musk’s goal here is presumably to walk away from Twitter and pay only $1 billion in damages." - that Musk is negotiating by making a stink to even be able to pay instead of going through with the deal he signed.

Your repeating opinion of someone with extreme biases for clickbait. This fantasy of forcing musk to buy the company doesn’t exist in any contract. Your asking the court to make up a new contract and enforce it.

That’s not how the court works, except in extreme circumstances which don’t apply to this twitter acquisition attempt.

Also, Musk asserts that upto 50% of twitter users are bots, which is totally believable. So the chances Musk will have to pay anything is actually remote, since twitter would have to produce evidence that would reveal trade secrets.

Here’s my prediction: Musk will pay nothing because Twitter has allowed itself to be infiltrated with bots and revealing this will be far more damaging than losing out on a billion. Musk will walk away.

Re: Elon’s Out

#700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m a little confounded that you suggest Elon believes shorting to be “morally wrong”. Why conflate his ego and financial stake with “morality”? Because in the over ten years I have of watching what he says and what he does I've found him to be a forthright person who says what he thinks. He's not the type to intentionally deceive others. He's often wrong, but he's upfront with what he thinks. Also he's shown many…

In 2016 a Tesla on autopilot mode decapitated a man because of deficiencies in its sensor stack. Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake. Then, predictably, a second person got decapitated in the same exact manner. The issue still has not been fixed to this day. Are these the decisions of a good engineer and a moral person? Or someone who would rather be rig…

> Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake.

Except they did fix the deficiency and he never "doubled down" on the events that happened. He did remind people to pay attention while driving reminding people that it was beta software. Your recollection of events seems to be mistaken. Additionally, "Recalls" are a legacy regulatory requirement based around the era that required you to take a vehicle into a service station to have something replaced or serviced. They're not required for a software update to fix some problem.

> Then, predictably, a second person got decapitated in the same exact manner.

You're going to have to source that as I'm not aware of any second instance of the exact same thing happening.

> Are these the decisions of a good engineer and a moral person? Or someone who would rather be right than prevent deaths?

They're the decisions of a person who's working toward the long term and thinks that saving lives in aggregate is a good thing to do even if in the process very few deaths of a different type are caused. Yes they're moral. By some accounts he's saved several thousand lives already in prevented car accidents based on the lower accident rate of vehicles running on autopilot.

Post reply on HN