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

731–740 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#731

Post by tsol »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #603
tsol wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There isn't a physical problem with taking wealth away from people, that part is very easy to execute. The problem is the 2nd order effects where it will turn into an unfair confiscation and do substantial damage to the ability of the host country to invest and prosper, bringing general ruin to us all. But this does not apply to us when we seize Russian assets? By your very logic if seizing wealth is so problematic,…

No, because the goal with sanctions is explicitly to cause this kind of economic damage by denying capital to the country under sanctions. It would be bad if we did this to ourselves. We do it to our enemies to hurt them.

We want to damage ourselves by sanctioning others? You said that taking others wealth makes people lose trust in you and therefore hurts yourself. So I don't see why we would do that on purpose.

Re: Elon’s Out

#733

Post by baskethead »

BbzzbB wrote: post #558
baskethead wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla didn't buy Twitter, Elon did.

Main chunk of his assets is Tesla stock, the Delaware incorporated company.

Who cares, why would Tesla be beholden for the actions of its largest shareholder? Musk is acting in a capacity completely outside of Tesla. To think that Tesla is somehow connected is disinformation.

Re: Elon’s Out

#734

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

sircastor wrote: post #581
google234123 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jail for parking multiple times in disabled places or for buying a car every 6 months? Hard no from me. Both of those things are not the same as beating people.

I think its clear that there is a set of people well are willing to violate certain laws because the consequences of such are trivial. That scales up with wealth because most misdemeanors result in a fixed monetary fine - which is less impactful for someone with wealth. When the consequences of a law violation are trivial, it’s no longer serving as a deterrent. So I think we need to find a way to deter everyone, kind…

Strict liability for executives would be a good start. Corporate death penalty is also a good thing.

Re: Elon’s Out

#735

Post by throwaway09223 »

tsol wrote: post #731
throwaway09223 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the goal with sanctions is explicitly to cause this kind of economic damage by denying capital to the country under sanctions. It would be bad if we did this to ourselves. We do it to our enemies to hurt them.

We want to damage ourselves by sanctioning others? You said that taking others wealth makes people lose trust in you and therefore hurts yourself. So I don't see why we would do that on purpose.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I didn't say anything about trust.

But, I suspect the other guy was referring to trusting in economic stability. I don't think there's any reason why sanctions against bad actors like Russia might undermine trust in American investments.

Re: Elon’s Out

#736

Post by nocoiner »

extheat wrote: post #579
nocoiner wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Almost everything in this comment is wrong or misleading. Feel free to point out specific inaccuracies. I think it's pretty clear. > Just because EM wants an escape hatch, doesn’t make it so Yes, never suggested it's legally permissible. > affirmative obligation This is armchair speculation. Even if the text might seem to be clear in outsider interpretation, this is a matter solely for the courts to determine and b…

One thing I omitted that I thought wasn’t particularly relevant to your analysis of the merger agreement and my criticisms thereof, was the way you elided EM’s initial accumulation of shares, the multiple violations of securities laws he quite probably committed in connection with those purchases, the several hundred million dollars he ripped off from other shareholders through those violations of securities laws, and his (belated) realization that by joining the Twitter board, he would have owed a fiduciary duties to the other shareholder (and not just his own interests). So that part of your post was at best overly credulous and in any event dismissive of bad faith right from the outset.

The rest of my post speaks for itself in response to most of your assertions.

Re: Elon’s Out

#737

Post by nocoiner »

IgorPartola wrote: post #586
nocoiner wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Technically Musk and Grimes’ second kid was born through a surrogate. But otherwise your characterization of waking up with that feeling is spot on.

This is absolutely the best correction I’ve ever received. With complete sincerity, thank you.

Re: Elon’s Out

#738

Post by nocoiner »

KVFinn wrote: post #515
saurik wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>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. How do I bet on no outcome one way or another for many many years? If there's one thing I know about the US legal system it is giant corporations battling each other takes years and years to resolve.

Delaware may actually be relatively quick to rule on this. It’s a pretty straightforward breach of contract case, and one side has a much, much stronger position than the other.

Where it’ll get really interesting is if the court orders specific performance (as I expect them to do, if the case makes it to a verdict). Sure, EM has a legal obligation to comply and buy the company, but what if he just….. declines? He obviously doesn’t feel like rules or the legal system apply to him (sometimes for better, but increasingly consistently for worse) but I’m not sure that I see the Delaware chancery court sending men with guns to his front door to seize $44 billion.

Re: Elon’s Out

#740

Post by georgia_peach »

mlyle wrote: post #593
georgia_peach wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2% of a key revenue figure for a company with a $28B market cap is one hell of a correction. I don't think Levine actually believes Twitter has a snowball's chance in hell of getting specific performance. Can you point to a section in this opinion piece where he states no financial interest in this drama? I think that is conspicuous by its absence.

It's likely this was disclosed to Musk before he entered into the definitive agreement, so it is mooted. (If this was a reason, you'd think they'd have argued it in the termination letter). And even if so, I don't think 2% of a user count is a "material adverse change" by the merger agreement.

Those are all sound legalisms, which would be big wins for Twitter if they were serious about taking this into a courtroom, but they aren't. That would air out several closets they'd rather keep shut.
Post reply on HN