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

741–750 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#741

Post by jen20 »

retcon wrote: post #675
tsimionescu wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the case if they had disrupted some market, but Tesla has only succeeded in creating a new niche vehicle, and cornering that market to some extent. They are still bit players in the overall car market (and they are losing market dominance even in BEVs, mostly to Chinese companies).

Erm, it's VW due to overtake Tesla for EV sales by the end of this year. Edit: ouch that statement might have been correct if VW hadn't sold out annual production by May and supply chain problems hamper ramp up. So it's predicted for 2024 VW BEV sales will exceed those of Tesla.

Further I have no doubt that now BMW are making electric cars that look like normal cars inside, are screwed together properly and support CarPlay, they too will overtake Tesla in this segment.

Re: Elon’s Out

#742

Post by mlyle »

georgia_peach wrote: post #740
mlyle wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a $19B difference between Twitter's market cap and the agreed deal proceeds.

Twitter has to pursue receiving that-- either in consummation of the deal or adequate recompense. If their board doesn't, they'll be sued into oblivion by their own shareholders. It's do-or-die.

That doesn't mean, though, if they were offered a couple billion less for Twitter and were sure that Musk would then close... that they might not blink, rather than wobble $19B+ on a court case.

The problem is, a $2B discount on Twitter doesn't improve Musk's financial condition much or make the deal materially less stupid for him.

Re: Elon’s Out

#743

Post by rmk »

shswkna wrote: post #709
rmk wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk has probably taken a big haircut on his current stake in Twitter and is also risking being forced to buy Twitter anyway or losing 1 billion plus legal fees. That sounds like an awful lot of work to sell 8.5 billion worth of Tesla shares.

> That sounds like an awful lot of work to sell 8.5 billion worth of Tesla shares. IDK. Most people work their entire life not even getting to 1 million.

Well, Musk is not "most people", and 8.5 billion is a small percentage of Elon Musk's net worth. I'd not be surprised if 8.5 billion is perhaps the daily fluctuation in his net worth!

Re: Elon’s Out

#744

Post by georgia_peach »

mlyle wrote: post #742
georgia_peach wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a $19B difference between Twitter's market cap and the agreed deal proceeds. Twitter has to pursue receiving that-- either in consummation of the deal or adequate recompense. If their board doesn't, they'll be sued into oblivion by their own shareholders. It's do-or-die. That doesn't mean, though, if they were offered a couple billion less for Twitter and were sure that Musk would then close... that they migh…

There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing."

Per Levine:

But it’s messy, and you can sort of see a path to “Musk says the deal is off, so his banks walk away, so his financing isn’t available, so he doesn’t have to close the deal and can get away with just paying $1 billion.”

And the "Musk says the deal is off" part doesn't even have to enter into it. The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute change of opinion on his collateral--whatever that was for this deal.

When it comes to "sued into oblivion by their own shareholders", who exactly are they? ETFs & mutual funds, of which Twitter is only a fraction of a sliver of their portfolio? CIA/DOD "dark money", stirring up foreigners (& domestics!) against "rogue" regimes (i.e. "arab spring")? Large shareholders (like Saudi, or hedgies), who were the ones giving the board up-to-the-minute instruction on how to (mis)handle the Musk offer in the first place?

Twitter has been a propaganda asset for a long time. The large stake-holders surely understand that they have far more to lose in discovery & cross-examination than Elon's offer. I am talking Snowden-tier revelations here.

Re: Elon’s Out

#745

Post by mlyle »

georgia_peach wrote: post #744
mlyle wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a $19B difference between Twitter's market cap and the agreed deal proceeds. Twitter has to pursue receiving that-- either in consummation of the deal or adequate recompense. If their board doesn't, they'll be sued into oblivion by their own shareholders. It's do-or-die. That doesn't mean, though, if they were offered a couple billion less for Twitter and were sure that Musk would then close... that they migh…

There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to " blow up his financing ." Per Levine: But it’s messy, and you can sort of see a path to “Musk says the deal is off, so his banks walk away, so his financing isn’t available, so he doesn’t have to close the deal and can get away with just paying $1 billion.” And the " Musk says the deal is off " p…

> There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing."

If Musk can't close because he's blown up his financing... you think this lets him get off clean? He's attempting to walk away before any such eventuality has occurred and Twitter shareholders are incurring costs.

> The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute change of opinion on his collateral--whatever that was for this deal.

If that happened, that's something he should have argued in his letter and something there would be evidence of before Musk tried to walk away.

> When it comes to "sued into oblivion by their own shareholders", who exactly are they?

High powered law firm representing a few chosen shareholders that gets a class designated of all Twitter holders that don't opt out.... just like substantially all shareholder lawsuits of public companies.

Asking this question this way makes me wonder if you have any background knowledge here at all.

Re: Elon’s Out

#746

Post by georgia_peach »

mlyle wrote: post #745
georgia_peach wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to " blow up his financing ." Per Levine: But it’s messy, and you can sort of see a path to “Musk says the deal is off, so his banks walk away, so his financing isn’t available, so he doesn’t have to close the deal and can get away with just paying $1 billion.” And the " Musk says the deal is off " p…

> There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing." If Musk can't close because he's blown up his financing... you think this lets him get off clean? He's attempting to walk away before any such eventuality has occurred and Twitter shareholders are incurring costs. > The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute c…

> you think this lets him get off clean?

My words were "slap on the wrist." I think only having to pay $1B instead of $46.5B meets the criteria.

> something he should have argued in his letter

That's Levine's analysis of, "if the banks don’t put up their $13 billion then he doesn’t have to put up his $33.5 billion".

Going by Levine's "Exhibit E", I find it hard to believe that the banks generated this much verbiage without a single escape hatch:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

> gets a class designated of all Twitter holders

Yes. I understand how class action works. If Twitter were a normal company, that's what one would (correctly) expect to happen. But it isn't. I think Twitter would take on a class action before airing its dirty laundry.

Re: Elon’s Out

#747

Post by mlyle »

georgia_peach wrote: post #746
mlyle wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing." If Musk can't close because he's blown up his financing... you think this lets him get off clean? He's attempting to walk away before any such eventuality has occurred and Twitter shareholders are incurring costs. > The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute c…

> you think this lets him get off clean? My words were " slap on the wrist ." I think only having to pay $1B instead of $46.5B meets the criteria. > something he should have argued in his letter That's Levine's analysis of, " if the banks don’t put up their $13 billion then he doesn’t have to put up his $33.5 billion ". Going by Levine's "Exhibit E", I find it hard to believe that the banks generated this much verbia…

> My words were "slap on the wrist." I think only having to pay $1B instead of $46.5B meets the criteria.

The real wobble is about $19B-- the difference between Twitter's market value and the acquisition offer. I think it is likely Elon pays well in excess of $1B, but maybe captures a little bit of that $19B for himself.

> That's Levine's analysis of, "if the banks don’t put up their $13 billion then he doesn’t have to put up his $33.5 billion".

Yah, and getting the banks to walk and then trying to walk from the deal would be a way to try and pay only $1B. The problem is, he's walked before the banks.

Re: Elon’s Out

#748

Post by cmurf »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #665
cmurf wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice in America isn't a right, it's a product you buy. Public versions should be non-existent or inferior. This is so that the best people get access to the best version of the product that money can buy. By definition in America, the best people are rich people. God rewarded them with money after all. Therefore they are closer to god and thus superior. Why be rich if you can't spend money buying things like justi…

The French have a good response to the contagious mental illness that creates this mindset.

Ooh! Is it a machine? Does it make it effecient to remove the head from many people? claps maniacally

Re: Elon’s Out

#749

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

cmurf wrote: post #748
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French have a good response to the contagious mental illness that creates this mindset.

Ooh! Is it a machine? Does it make it effecient to remove the head from many people? claps maniacally

There’s that, but their protests are what I was referring too.

Re: Elon’s Out

#750

Post by ByteJockey »

hotpotamus wrote: post #522
ByteJockey wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Washington thought it was fine https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/760148148/episode-956-the-car... Yes, I mostly see people saying that laws don't matter because billionaires are beyond law at this point. Who knows, perhaps that's astroturfing by troll teams employed by billionaires to try and discourage the masses. As you said, they've already got plenty of lawyers to work on it from the constitutional end - including 6…

> Yes, I mostly see people saying that laws don't matter because billionaires are beyond law at this point.

Huh. Weird. Well, I don't see it brought up on HN all that often (once a month tops?), so we must hang out in different circles outside of here.

Anyways, you have a good one.

Post reply on HN