791–800 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These xAI investors are not regular paycheck people. If they aren’t happy, this deal would not have happened. If they lose money, who cares.
can you cite your source? What leverage did Elon give the investors when he sold them shares?
So the real story here is that he was in danger of getting margin called on the loan he took to buy Twitter which he financed with TSLA shares as collateral, and this is him moving money around so he doesn't have to face the reality of actually getting margin called amid a sinking TSLA, right?
He sold a bunch of Tesla stock, used other stock as collateral for a $6B loan and the rest was outside money.
He did all this for a $6B loan he could repay no problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely a theoretically disgruntled xAI shareholder is going to have a harder time here since they're both private companies and given Elon's proximity to any potential regulators.
Do regulators still have teeth in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP mentions the lawsuits did not succeed Its not like the courts are investment banks with an evaluation arm. They are just judging if anything reaches the point where shareholders were legally harmed, which still gives a lot of gray area to the acquiring company.
Lawsuits can fail for lots of reasons without a decision on the merits. It seems relevant that the reason the lawsuit failed is because the court looked at the fairness of the transaction and determined that Tesla paid a fair price.
(As you know, but others may not - this is not always the standard vs the business judgment rule, but is the standard here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The outside investors in X made a profit on paper; Twitter was bought for $44B but the deal was financed with like $31B in equity and $13B in debt. It’s not a big profit (in fact it’s worse than you would have done in T-bills), and of course they’re swapping one illiquid and hard-to-value asset for another, but Elon isn’t giving them a 25% haircut at all.
Even if he made the Twitter investors whole, I wonder how the investors in xAI feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re burying the lede here, which is that the Delaware Chancery Court rules that Tesla had paid a fair price for Solar City: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wins-solarcity-tes...
How's Solar City doing now? Not sure the court was capable of that judgement.
They issued a 127 page supporting decision on why they found it was a fair process that generated a fair price.
Want to say which part you take issue with that shows it was not capable of the judgement?
FWIW - I actually hate tesla, i just also hate the sort of drive by shitting on other fields that HN seems to do sometimes. If there are concrete reasons to believe they aren't capable, let's have that discussion. Otherwise, there's no need to denigrate others capabilities without evidence based on our feelings :)
So he just sold himself a company he already owns for a valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it, and he paid entirely using “money” that has a made up value and which he issues himself? Wild.
This also lets all of his co-investors in X, who were likely pissed that their shares tanked, exchange their shares at an inflated value (but one that still sees them losing 25% of their original investment) for shares in a trendy yet likely overvalued AI company that they consider to have more upside. The other part of this is that if TSLA stock drops to $100-ish he'll be at risk of being margin called on the loans…
This is probably a play to make X more invest-able, probably combined with some training data rule he foresees in the future. Musk's companies have raison d'être, and the mergers (SCTY & TSLA) generally have one too. X has been bleeding money, but has no access to cash. AI on the other hand he can peddle to sovereign wealth funds, apply for government grants, etc. X then becomes a write off against a larger company.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As best I can tell the deal includes paying off $12 billion of Twitter debt. So that's real money, though that seems like it's basically all of the cash that xAI has raised, so if that's the case that's pretty wild. Edit: I misread, Musk said it's an all-stock deal, so you're right, it's all funny money. I think that means the combined entity is taking on that debt. It's still great for Twitter and bad for xAI invest…
Definitely great for the Twitter investors to be able to convert. I think they took a haircut relative to the 42B that they came in on, as the 45B includes the 12B debt. (42 gets reduced to 33, so 21-22% haircut) xAI also raised 6B in December last year at a 45B valuation, and then in February, reporting was that xAI was trying to raise 10B more at the 75B valuation... so this is where the frothiness of AI helps to m…
What is the play here? Using money invested in xAI and its inflated valuation to bail out the X investors?
It bails out Elon and means his Tesla shares (borrowed against to purchase Twitter) won’t be liquidated as Tesla’s share price continues to decline, using xAI investor funds. He uses hype and sentiment (inflating valuations) in the capital markets to always stay slightly ahead of consequences.