Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

[Vegas64 713]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Anyone want to actually bet whether Elon actually buys Twitter? 

I don't think he actually buys Twitter. I've read it might be difficult anyways, despite his wealth, because it's tied up in Tesla stock and he'd have to sell which seems like a bad divestment and investment, respectfully. Also Twitter has poison pill options to potentially block a takeover, but the question remains if investors even want the board to block this due to the aforementioned fiduciary (positive) reasons for Elon buying them out and taking them private.

There is no business question that Twitter sucks as a business of making money and providing shareholder value to the ratio of its massive and outsized influence and power as a technology.

[Vegas64 713]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

So honest question--what the fuck do you even care?

Exactly, this thread needs to censor BrisketTexan and Cajun because they are adding zero value. Take it outside, boys.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Vegas64

[wildcat09 29579]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

brisket is discussing price.

you're still trying to figure out what prostitution is.

I kinda feel bad for Cajun. He seems substantially diminished these past couple of years.

[Vegas64 713]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Elon gave the board legal cover to refuse his offer by threatening to dump his stock. His SEC filings indicate that he hasn't tried to obtain any financing, and he almost certainly can't borrow anywhere near enough to buy Twitter against his Tesla stock. He's got zero interest in buying Twitter. This is just a pump and dump,  a plea for attention, and some petty revenge against the board. There's a slight possibility that he wants to force the board to find a white knight, but I don't think that's a real concern of his.

My personal opinion is your take is a pessimistic one (though entirely possible and true), and if any pettiness or spite it’s because he hates Jack Dorsey. The optimistic view is that as discussed, Twitter sucks as an actual business and needs a transformation and Musk has a business plan to do that. You can’t rule that out with this guy.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Elon has every right to buy Twitter and transform the company in any way he sees fit. Is anyone arguing differently?

None of which has to do with free speech. 

[BabaYaga 15624]

2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

it’s because he hates Jack Dorsey

????

He's been friends with Jack for years.  Jack isn't even running the company any more.  He stepped down a while back?

[Vegas64 713]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Elon has every right to buy Twitter and transform the company in any way he sees fit. Is anyone arguing differently?

None of which has to do with free speech. 

Nobody is arguing it as much as varying degrees of celebrating the potential or not being happy about it.

[Vegas64 713]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

????

He's been friends with Jack for years.  Jack isn't even running the company any more.  He stepped down a while back?

You are right; I was thinking Of the a16z guy who made news last week Twitter fighting. I’m wrong my fault.

[wildcat09 29579]

5 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

My personal opinion is your take is a pessimistic one (though entirely possible and true), and if any pettiness or spite it’s because he hates Jack Dorsey. The optimistic view is that as discussed, Twitter sucks as an actual business and needs a transformation and Musk has a business plan to do that. You can’t rule that out with this guy.

I doubt any potential lenders would approve of his proposal to remove ads from twitter. The entire business of social media is advertising.

[52-80 19377]

6 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

My personal opinion is your take is a pessimistic one (though entirely possible and true), and if any pettiness or spite it’s because he hates Jack Dorsey. The optimistic view is that as discussed, Twitter sucks as an actual business and needs a transformation and Musk has a business plan to do that. You can’t rule that out with this guy.

What does Jack have anything to do with it?  He has a tiny stake in Twitter, is no longer involved in operations, and is pretty lasseiz-faire about things anyway

[BabaYaga 15624]

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

You are right; I was thinking Of the a16z guy who made news last week Twitter fighting. I’m wrong my fault.

Jack and Elon are also both on the crypto train - full steam ahead

[Vegas64 713]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jack and Elon are also both on the crypto train - full steam ahead

WAAGMI

[Vegas64 713]

13 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

A hostile takeover of Twitter would actually be quite difficult, as Twitter’s bylaws are already chock-full of standard poison pill provisions. From the risk factors of Twitter’s most recent 10-K:

“Anti-takeover provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could impair a takeover attempt.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions which could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying, or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include provisions:

providing for a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms;

authorizing “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock;

limiting the liability of, and providing indemnification to, our directors and officers;

limiting the ability of our stockholders to call and bring business before special meetings;

requiring advance notice of stockholder proposals for business to be conducted at meetings of our stockholders and for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors; and

controlling the procedures for the conduct and scheduling of stockholder meetings.”

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management, and amendment of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to change or modify certain of these provisions requires approval of a super-majority of our stockholders, which we may not be able to obtain.

The first takeaway is that a hostile takeover is extremely unlikely; the second takeaway is that the Board of Directors still does have a fiduciary duty to consider any offer presented to it; the third takeaway is that the entire reason this section exists in the 10-K is for the express purpose of covering the Board of Directors rear ends if they say no anyways.

[wildcat09 29579]

13 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

Yeah, that's wrong:

Quote

Governance Risks and Risks related to Ownership of our Capital Stock

Anti-takeover provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could impair a takeover attempt.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions which could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying, or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include provisions: • providing for a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms; • authorizing “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock; • limiting the liability of, and providing indemnification to, our directors and officers; • limiting the ability of our stockholders to call and bring business before special meetings; • requiring advance notice of stockholder proposals for business to be conducted at meetings of our stockholders and for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors; and • controlling the procedures for the conduct and scheduling of stockholder meetings.

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management, and amendment of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to change or modify certain of these provisions requires approval of a super-majority of our stockholders, which we may not be able to obtain.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Delaware law, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation law, which prevents certain stockholders holding more than 15% of our outstanding common stock from engaging in certain business combinations without approval of the holders of at least two-thirds of our outstanding common stock not held by such 15% or greater stockholder.

Any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

 

[Vegas64 713]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I doubt any potential lenders would approve of his proposal to remove ads from twitter. The entire business of social media is advertising.

Probably, and from NYTimes on potential headwind in a frictionless takeover (obviously he’s richest man in the world and could find the money if he really wants to do this but the question is the juice worth the squeeze):

“So is this for real? It may seem strange to ask about a person with a net worth of $270 billion, but it’s noteworthy that there are no details about the financing of Musk’s proposal. His offer values Twitter at more than $40 billion, but his wealth is mostly in Tesla shares, and that company puts limits on what he can borrow against the stock. If he needs debt financing, Musk has burned bridges with major lenders, like JPMorgan Chase, so his choice of Morgan Stanley, which has a smaller balance sheet, is notable. (Silver Lake’s Egon Durban, a Twitter director, has experience taking technology companies private, but his private equity firm has a standstill agreement with Twitter that seemingly limits it from participating in a takeover.)”

[Vegas64 713]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, that's wrong:

 

Are we the same person reading the same things?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

[elnimo 55]

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

I don't think he actually buys Twitter. I've read it might be difficult anyways, despite his wealth, because it's tied up in Tesla stock and he'd have to sell which seems like a bad divestment and investment, respectfully. Also Twitter has poison pill options to potentially block a takeover, but the question remains if investors even want the board to block this due to the aforementioned fiduciary (positive) reasons for Elon buying them out and taking them private.

There is no business question that Twitter sucks as a business of making money and providing shareholder value to the ratio of its massive and outsized influence and power as a technology.

Nah, he will just borrow against the stock with his Tesla shares and Twitter shares as collateral.

Big issue will be that he has to make Twitter profitable so he can repay the debt.

[clapclapclap 9000]

 

[blacklab 12064]

If you'd like to discuss twitter, how it's run, the election of 2020 and all the associated garbage please go to the CR

Off topic posts on this thread will get some time off. 

[Vegas64 713]

21 minutes ago, elnimo said:

Nah, he will just borrow against the stock with his Tesla shares and Twitter shares as collateral.

Big issue will be that he has to make Twitter profitable so he can repay the debt.

I don’t think he can; Tesla has well documented restrictions on borrowing against the stock (at that volume).

Edited April 14, 2022 by Vegas64

[Eastwood 4394]

I think Elon feels that they wasted his time with the board seat discussions, so he’s going to waste their with this. He’ll buy it if it falls into his lap after this, but he’ll drop it after Twitter has spilled enough blood in legal fees and share volatility. Would be surprised if it went any farther than that.

[elnimo 55]

What kind of fine is he looking at for the late securities filings disclosing his Twitter purchases?  I assume there will be lawsuits.

[Vegas64 713]

Just now, Eastwood said:

I think Elon feels that they wasted his time with the board seat discussions, so he’s going to waste their with this. He’ll buy it if it falls into his lap after this, but he’ll drop it after Twitter has spilled enough blood in legal fees and share volatility. Would be surprised if it went any farther than that.

It’s really hard to accurately speculate when you have the personality of an Elon Musk mixed with the financial capacity of an Elon Musk. Is this a fun toy or is it deeper than that? He’s a wildcard.

[Moby Ric 2058]

Just now, Vegas64 said:

It’s really hard to accurately speculate when you have the personality of an Elon Musk mixed with the financial capacity of an Elon Musk. Is this a fun toy or is it deeper than that? He’s a wildcard.

This is what I am pondering.  He has fuck everyone money, and don't know if he is just messing around or if he is really going to take it over.  I understand the rules of acquiring wealth, but he is so far beyond that his rules are his alone.

I am thinking he takes it over, re works the twitter rules and the stock goes to the moon.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

4 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

This is what I am pondering.  He has fuck everyone money, and don't know if he is just messing around or if he is really going to take it over.  I understand the rules of acquiring wealth, but he is so far beyond that his rules are his alone.

I am thinking he takes it over, re works the twitter rules and the stock goes to the moon.

Truth. I hope his does.

[wildcat09 29579]

14 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I don’t think he can; Tesla has well documented restrictions on borrowing against the stock (at that volume).

Some people need to read this a few more times. 

[52-80 19377]

musky musk is live @ TED

 

 

[elnimo 55]

14 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

This is what I am pondering.  He has fuck everyone money, and don't know if he is just messing around or if he is really going to take it over.  I understand the rules of acquiring wealth, but he is so far beyond that his rules are his alone.

I am thinking he takes it over, re works the twitter rules and the stock goes to the moon.

Listening to the TED talk now.  He stated he gives 0 fucks about the economics.  He thinks opening it up will make society better.  I don't know if that's the truth or not, just what he said.

[52-80 19377]

Just now, elnimo said:

Listening to the TED talk now.  He stated he gives 0 fucks about the economics.  He thinks opening it up will make society better.  I don't know if that's the truth or not, just what he said.

he is an instigateur extraordinaire

[elnimo 55]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Some people need to read this a few more times. 

In the TED talk he stated he'd like to partner with existing shareholders if he can.  I'm not a securities lawyer, so no idea if that is possible under the Act.  But from an M&A perspective, he can.  

He certainly believes he has the funds to pay it.  But he also thought he could take Tesla private too.  So who the fuck knows.

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

So if this deal goes through, Jack is going to start up Twatter and we're all supposed to move over there and fill Twitter with posts of turds correct?

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

8 minutes ago, elnimo said:

In the TED talk he stated he'd like to partner with existing shareholders if he can.  I'm not a securities lawyer, so no idea if that is possible under the Act.  But from an M&A perspective, he can.  

He certainly believes he has the funds to pay it.  But he also thought he could take Tesla private too.  So who the fuck knows.

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Especially when paying a fine doesn't dent into your annual toilet paper budget.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

Just now, Grade of D as in David said:

So if this deal goes through, Jack is going to start up Twatter and we're all supposed to move over there and fill Twitter with posts of turds correct?

The trend has been set. Sell Eskimo Hut, buy Scat. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

21 minutes ago, elnimo said:

Listening to the TED talk now.  He stated he gives 0 fucks about the economics.  He thinks opening it up will make society better.  I don't know if that's the truth or not, just what he said.

This is the same guy that released his EV/battery patents to the public that allowed the big auto companies to jump full force into the EV market without having to invest in a ton of R&D playing catch up.  I would say he has a history of putting his money where his mouth is.

[Hagbard Celine 11240]

2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I don't think he actually buys Twitter. I've read it might be difficult anyways, despite his wealth, because it's tied up in Tesla stock and he'd have to sell which seems like a bad divestment and investment, respectfully. Also Twitter has poison pill options to potentially block a takeover, but the question remains if investors even want the board to block this due to the aforementioned fiduciary (positive) reasons for Elon buying them out and taking them private.

There is no business question that Twitter sucks as a business of making money and providing shareholder value to the ratio of its massive and outsized influence and power as a technology.

Impression-driven ad revenue is giving way to subs and twitter will eventually have to exploit the content supplier who get all of the benefit today for free; would aria grande pay $1m a year to make sure she's liked, subscribed and shared on all of the other social platforms?   she doesn't have an alternative but to pay up.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Impression-driven ad revenue is giving way to subs and twitter will eventually have to exploit the content supplier who get all of the benefit today for free; would aria grande pay $1m a year to make sure she's liked, subscribed and shared on all of the other social platforms?   she doesn't have an alternative but to pay up.

There's always Onlyfans

[Hagbard Celine 11240]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I doubt any potential lenders would approve of his proposal to remove ads from twitter. The entire business of social media is advertising.

was advertising

or

will soon no longer be advertising

again to unlock the value of the platform you have to go where the money is

today, tens of thousands of companies use twitter as a free help desk intake platform

derp

[Neonmoon 38130]

38 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

So if this deal goes through, Jack is going to start up Twatter and we're all supposed to move over there and fill Twitter with posts of turds correct?

I believe the correct nomenclature is scat porn

[Trey3216 15452]

1 hour ago, elnimo said:

What kind of fine is he looking at for the late securities filings disclosing his Twitter purchases?  I assume there will be lawsuits.

Puppynuts level  

[We’reTexas 1477]

1 hour ago, elnimo said:

In the TED talk he stated he'd like to partner with existing shareholders if he can.  I'm not a securities lawyer, so no idea if that is possible under the Act.  But from an M&A perspective, he can.  

He certainly believes he has the funds to pay it.  But he also thought he could take Tesla private too.  So who the fuck knows.

I doubt Silver Lake would want that deal. What a terrible idea - Twitter would be dead without the ability to offer broad based equity comp to its employees. 

['stache 22132]

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

So if this deal goes through, Jack is going to start up Twatter and we're all supposed to move over there and fill Twitter with posts of turds correct?

That seems to be the precedent. Someone needs to stay behind too and tweet to themselves.

[TexasEd 8266]

52 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Impression-driven ad revenue is giving way to subs and twitter will eventually have to exploit the content supplier who get all of the benefit today for free; would aria grande pay $1m a year to make sure she's liked, subscribed and shared on all of the other social platforms?   she doesn't have an alternative but to pay up.

 

49 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

was advertising

or

will soon no longer be advertising

again to unlock the value of the platform you have to go where the money is

today, tens of thousands of companies use twitter as a free help desk intake platform

derp

There are a lot of options.

When a company posts an article that redirects to a site with ad revenue take a cut of the payout for driving the traffic.

Want to link to your youtube channel? take a hit of that revenue.

Want to post more than 30 times a month?  Get a pro account with extra flair and perferred placement.

Want a business presence? Buy a partner account.

 

[F250 29200]

56 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

There's always Onlyfans

[52-80 19377]

1 hour ago, elnimo said:

In the TED talk he stated he'd like to partner with existing shareholders if he can.  I'm not a securities lawyer, so no idea if that is possible under the Act.  But from an M&A perspective, he can.  

He certainly believes he has the funds to pay it.  But he also thought he could take Tesla private too.  So who the fuck knows.

It's an equity roll.  Will ask some shareholders to stay invested.  And Silver Lake or some other PE firms will partner for the funding.

Kinda like the Dell buyout... it aint like Michael Dell wrote a $24B check all by himself.  The notion some people posited that literally the wealthiest man in the world can't lead a buyout of Twitter is a bit silly.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

[Wally Fairway 5674]

2 hours ago, blacklab said:

If you'd like to discuss twitter, how it's run, the election of 2020 and all the associated garbage please go to the CR

Off topic posts on this thread will get some time off. 

I don't like the way you run this board, errr I mean, we don't like it, no sir not at at all

I want to buy this board, and so I, sorry I mean we, can set up an Elon forum to openly and honestly discuss all things Musk

Tell the owner that we are willing to pay tree fiddy 

[52-80 19377]

2 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I don't like the way you run this board, errr I mean, we don't like it, no sir not at at all

I want to buy this board, and so I, sorry I mean we, can set up an Elon forum to openly and honestly discuss all things Musk

Tell the owner that we are willing to pay tree fiddy 

one person/entity/party publicly rebuking the buy offer is a Saudi prince.  it's like, "naw, we dont want this guy running our board, we prefer katy agnor as an owner"

[Ag with kids 581]

4 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

A hostile takeover of Twitter would actually be quite difficult, as Twitter’s bylaws are already chock-full of standard poison pill provisions. From the risk factors of Twitter’s most recent 10-K:

“Anti-takeover provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could impair a takeover attempt.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions which could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying, or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include provisions:

providing for a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms;

authorizing “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock;

limiting the liability of, and providing indemnification to, our directors and officers;

limiting the ability of our stockholders to call and bring business before special meetings;

requiring advance notice of stockholder proposals for business to be conducted at meetings of our stockholders and for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors; and

controlling the procedures for the conduct and scheduling of stockholder meetings.”

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management, and amendment of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to change or modify certain of these provisions requires approval of a super-majority of our stockholders, which we may not be able to obtain.

The first takeaway is that a hostile takeover is extremely unlikely; the second takeaway is that the Board of Directors still does have a fiduciary duty to consider any offer presented to it; the third takeaway is that the entire reason this section exists in the 10-K is for the express purpose of covering the Board of Directors rear ends if they say no anyways.

Could a lot of that be nullified if he actually took it private?  Sounds like a lot of those bylaws refer to a publicly traded company...

[52-80 19377]

1 minute ago, Ag with kids said:

Could a lot of that be nullified if he actually took it private?  Sounds like a lot of those bylaws refer to a publicly traded company...

it's not that the provisions cease to be valid after a takeover, it's that they allow the company to make itself unattractive to be taken over, particularly this bit:

>>authorizing “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock;<<

as emergency act they can effectively make the 'common' shares that elon buys less valuable