91–100 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, 500m a year to whisper sweet nothings into the minds of a significant % of the world population. Or brainwashing them, whatever you like. I think it's not a bad price, someone surely feels theyre getting their moneys worth.
$1bn is revenue, not income. Income is much less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't been paying attention. This guy famously called a diver a pedophile because he insulted his half-baked submarine idea. That was 7 years ago. Also, if you were really an investor ready to commit large amounts of money, you could do a basic amount of research and talk to people that have worked with Elon. I've known people that have worked for him going back over a decade and they have all had horrible thin…
Right, he did call a diver a pedophile. But overall he seemed sane back then. As far as people who worked with Musk saying horrible things about him, isn't that true for just about every CEO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it feels like an all-round bad decision. Eh, he bought the White House for $40bn. I say that's a very good purchase, given how he can now leverage it to get better deals for his business. E.g. Greenland for resources to make batteries.
I had read* that his interest in Ukraine and putin was to gain a share of Ukrainian mineral wealth. If that rumour was true, then yeah I could see him advocating for an invasion of Greenland. Although, didn't the Greenland SNAFU start with trump? * And don't have a link to whatever it was, so take with a cyber truck full of salt!
Trump's 2025 playbook seems entirely identical. The thing is, America has wanted Greenland for at least a century[1]. I would not be surprised if there's some long-timer in the Executive Branch that just happens to have a chip on their shoulder about how much America should have a Greenland. There's a lot of reasons why America would be safer and wealthier with the island, but Denmark isn't going to sell it. Hell, Greenland itself doesn't even want to be Danish, much less American[2].
[0] They're stupid because any hope of America remaining economically prosperous without China to sell us cheap shit (or Saudi Arabia to sell us cheap oil) relies on having a large free-trade area. Y'know, the sort of thing TPP was supposed to give us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_State...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most powerful country on the planet has been taken over by oligarchs and your concern is for the investors? As someone who regularly invests in high risk stocks, you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot not to see this coming. The investors backed Elon Musk, a man with a long history of picking fights with the SEC, breaking labor laws, and being a manchild - why would they expect something different?
It is only after he bought Twitter that he revealed his true self. Up until that time he seemed like a sane person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, he did call a diver a pedophile. But overall he seemed sane back then. As far as people who worked with Musk saying horrible things about him, isn't that true for just about every CEO?
Well, "pedo guy". Which a court decided was along the lines of calling someone a wanker etc rather than a literal accusation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50695593
Elon Musk email to X staff: 'we're barely breaking even'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has made many times his money back in the value rise in Tesla and SpaceX.
but the value of tesla and spacex didn't rise because of him having control of twitter, it would have risen regardless.
And you could argue his government access is due to controlling twitter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1bn is revenue, not income. Income is much less.
The value of a TV network, newspaper or social media platform is not just its revenue, it’s the ability to influence and control narratives.
Bonds selling below par is common, so this article with very few details doesn't say much. IIRC Twitter LBO bonds were getting an average of 9.6% YTM when raised, and had maturities from 2027 to 2030. Selling at 90-95 means an increase in the yield of about 2% (napkin math says 1%-5%).
Original debt of twitter buyout lost x%, with this latest sales it down overall to y%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would he toss even more money onto the Twitter bonfire when there’s no need?
Playing devils advocate here: 1) Buy $44B asset with investor money 2) Tank value of asset by 90% 3) Buy debt at 90% discount 4) ??? 5) Profit