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

71–80 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#71

Post by petilon »

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 billions of dollars' worth of TSLA.

Look at this story: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dol... The headline is: "Elon Musk Sells $8.5 Billion of Tesla Shares After Deal to Buy Twitter"

Why does he need a cover? Because TSLA is way too overvalued. He has to know that it is overvalued. Tesla's market cap is double of Toyota, VW, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Honda, Ferrari and Volvo all combined! [1]. If you sell stock while knowing your company's stock is way too overvalued, you're fleecing unsophisticated investors. Pretending to buy Twitter provides a convenient cover.

Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA.

In reality, both Musk and Gates sold TSLA, the only difference is that Musk sold stocks he owned, but Gates sold borrowed stocks. But Musk used buying Twitter as a cover, so he gets to pretend to be morally superior. Even though both men sold TSLA, according to Musk, Gates' sales means that he isn't serious about climate change [3].

[1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers...

[2] https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates...

[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-shorting-tesla-wo...

Re: Elon’s Out

#72

Post by v21 »

edgyquant wrote: post #57
arcanus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a cyberpunk future. I'm overall a fan of Musk, but this is too far. There simply must be rule of law for the United States to remain a dynamic society.

Literally there’s not even a hint that Musk is above the law yet you’re calling it a cyberpunk future

There was that whole thing where a court said a lawyer has to check all of his tweets, Musk shrugged it off, and the court did nothing about it.

Re: Elon’s Out

#73

Post by bambax »

xiphias2 wrote: post #11

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

> It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point

But that's not how it works. That's why we have contracts, and covenants, etc.: it's so that, if conditions change, one party cannot say "oops, sorry, changed my mind" and walk.

(Also, the offer "Elon got stuck with" is his own, and even bears his childish signature of a weed joke.)

Re: Elon’s Out

#74

Post by t_mann »

Can we also take a moment to appreciate the tongue-in-cheek writing style of this (fairly thorough, by my impression) analysis of rather dry things like SEC filings, merger covenants,...?

Re: Elon’s Out

#75

Post by bambax »

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…

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 the lives of Twitter’s executives and employees pretty miserable; as a fellow Twitter addict I can kind of see the appeal of that? I always assume that “everyone who works at Twitter hates the product and its users,” and I suppose this is a case of the richest and weirdest user getting some revenge on the employees. He also gave himself an excuse to sell a bunch of Tesla stock near the highs. He maybe got an edit button too? Maybe that’s worth a billion dollars to him?

But for that to be the sole reason of the whole circus is conspiracy theory.

> Musk has buying Twitter as a cover

It's a very, very annoying/distracting cover, not to mention an expensive one.

Re: Elon’s Out

#76

Post by [deleted] »

bmitc wrote: post #70
nightski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price. I also question whether cor…

I don't think we should avoid something just because there are more problems. We should fix those other problems as well. The primary issue is that there is a single extremist party, not unlike those found in the Middle East, that is hell bent on undermining America for want of power. By systematically undermining education, public health and services, infrastructure, treating government projects as jobs programs, et…

[deleted]

Re: Elon’s Out

#77

Post by dan-robertson »

t_mann wrote: post #74

Can we also take a moment to appreciate the tongue-in-cheek writing style of this (fairly thorough, by my impression) analysis of rather dry things like SEC filings, merger covenants,...?

(Note that he writes a newsletter like this roughly daily, though not ordinarily on weekends. It’s is free to subscribe to)

Re: Elon’s Out

#78

Post by JaimeThompson »

edgyquant wrote: post #57
arcanus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a cyberpunk future. I'm overall a fan of Musk, but this is too far. There simply must be rule of law for the United States to remain a dynamic society.

Literally there’s not even a hint that Musk is above the law yet you’re calling it a cyberpunk future

Smoking weed makes you lose your security clearance, Musk did it on camera and still has his because of "reasons". That is one example of the rules that apply to most others not applying to him.

Re: Elon’s Out

#79

Post by KerrAvon »

moomin wrote: post #27
alphabetting wrote: post #4

I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…

This is one of those things that could genuinely cause problem for the entire US (corporate) legal system. There’s a genuine danger that the result of this case will be “some people are too powerful to be regulated by the US system, and this is now obvious”.

If this court doesn't have real power against clever C-suite types, maybe it's better that we find that out. In terms of compensation and personal money management, Musk isn't doing anything that other wealthy execs haven't done. (For example, Steve Jobs famously took a $1.00 per year salary for a long time.) Either there's an enforcement mechanism that works or there isn't.

Re: Elon’s Out

#80

Post by QuarterReptile »

bmitc wrote: post #51
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.

I continue to be super concerned about this. I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc. Makes one realize just how bought out Congress is. Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

>Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.

>I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc

Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.

Post reply on HN