981–990 of 1001 posts
Also the idea of having potentially millions of activist investors in the same company is kind of unsettling but interesting at the same time.
So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He will still make half a billion These paper profits are hard for him to realise, since he has to sell 9.2% of Twitter's stock without the price falling. Given the current price depends on his claimed intent to takeover, the market will react swiftly to any evidence that he is in fact reducing his stake.
> Given the current price depends on his claimed intent to takeover Does it? Others have argued there has been no effective "pricing in" of this "intent", due to...nobody thinking it'll happen.
Even before the poison pill was adopted, the evidence is the market wasn't taking Musk's offer seriously. That's because he was offering $54.20 per share (ha ha, 420), but the stock price never closed higher than $48.36. So almost $6/share was left on the table. Part of it is that Musk doesn't have $43B in cash, he'd have to raise it or borrow it. He's worth more than that but it isn't liquid; as an officer of Tesla…
>So almost $6/share was left on the table. This is only true if the there is no uncertainty. If you think the value without the takeover is $30, and it is trading at 48, and buyout is $54, that means the market thinks it 75% likely. downside -$18, upside +$6 = 75% likely
If a buyout is certain, then the demand for free money is 100%, and demand for a sure loser is 0% of potential buyers. Hence the share price would quickly converge to a buyout price in that situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Twitter profits matter to shareholders after they divest?
The real question is why would shareholders that care about profits own Twitter stock? In its entire history there have been 2 years it didn’t lose money and actually recorded a profit.
Essentially, the holders believe that past performance is not reflective of possible future performance. The shorts and sellers and non buyers believe that us the case or that there are more efficient allocations of their money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s important to also note that one of Musks strengths is marketing. He makes bold claims that makes headlines. We should be all used to his charade by now. A lot of the stuff he claims that actually works has teams of people supporting him. Those weren’t one man efforts like this.
I see Tesla cars all over the place. I saw rockets take off from SpaceX. What charade? Also he often publicly thanks, congratulates and credits the Tesla and SpaceX teams. Here's a sample: https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40elonmusk%20%22team%22... As you can see yourself, he's saying "great job team!" not "great job me!". I just don't get all these olympic level contortions around denying the achievements of an…
What a sensationalist claim! What is the carbon offset of one rocket launch? If Elon stopped focusing on Mars, and instead bought every coal plant to then shutter and replace them (could be done for under 40b), then maybe. Until then, the few percentage of market share for EVs does not justify this claim. You also have to assume that every purchaser of a Tesla would have bought a gas car instead, which is seemingly not a safe assumption. So, citation needed! Maybe if elon purchased a train system and made public transit exceptional and widely used could a person start to make this claim. I thunk the sad reality is that elon is bored and us focused in sci fi that is more possible 500 to 100p years in the future (ie mars), at the expense of actually solving present day problems. Any regulation reducing coal emissions has an out-sized impact compared to a few percentage of emissions from non-commercial transport, the claim "more than anyone else" seems hyperbolic and just flat out wrong
So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).
The sad truth is that this is an intense political battle. I would personally favor Elon Musk taking over and shaking things up, any other position is untenable. And, I am saying this as a progressive. I think an open and transparent social platform would be great for the society. The issue is that managerial class of America, both in private and public sector, are in bed with each other. The government cannot suppre…
The same happens with the other team.
It's disappointing but predictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not always legal, but it would help the interests of shareholders. Except the guy at 19.9% trying to move up. Considering he has already invested quite a lot of money on the company, shouldn't the board also work for him ? Why should he be treated differently and his share give him different "rights" than others people share ?
You are digging in the wrong sandbox if your goal is to find ethical behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely he'll withdraw offer and sell his stake, causing share price to drop and all shareholders losing real and potential gain.
The poison pill was mostly developed at a time when the alternative was him selling all the company assets and leveraging the company to load it with as much debt as possible then give out as large a dividend as he could before selling off the stock leaving the company insolvent and everyone out of work. So imagine a company taking $100 million in debt, giving all that out as a dividend then the stock price tanking t…
Every company I know of that did a poison pill to prevent a takeover wound up tanking within a year or two and the shareholders wound up with sand. As a Twitter shareholder myself, the board is making a big mistake. As a legal matter, I don't understand how a board could sell shares to other shareholders at a lower price than to the entity wanting to buy shares to gain control.
90% of Twitter stock is held by institutional investors. Feel free to sell your shares. No one will notice.
This is the toxicity that has younger people rightfully angry at how the system works, and how it is "rigged". People just haven't had the info bandwidth previously to even contemplate these problems.
So no. WalterBright should absolutely do with his shares as he wilt, as should everyone else. Frankly, I wish institutional investment was deconstructed to at least get people coordinating with each other from the ground up to accept what it is their institution's manager was actually perpetuating.