5 ms·

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching thei

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty).

cloutchaser 5y ago
That would be a fairly rational thing to do, but based on past behaviour I don’t think musk is one who backs down easily. It really depends how much he wants it, which only he knows.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  Musk has made announcements before and backed off. I suppose the Muskboys will call that 4D chess, but at the end of the day, it has happened.
bdcravens 5y ago
Doesn't that make this a smart move then? If they rejected his offer, they'd be hit with the same lawsuits. In this case, they have a defense to say they were acting in the best interests of the shareholders if that causes Musk to back off.
- gordon_freeman 5y ago
  If one thing you need to know about Musk is that he does not back off that easily. (He already mentioned in TED interview that he has a "Plan B" if this offer is rejected.)
  - bdcravens 5y ago
    Like when he was going to take Tesla private?
- polski-g 5y ago
  The best interest of the shareholders at this point is to accept the offer. Its a 25% premium, quite typical for buyout offers.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    It's nowhere near that clear; the offered price is lower than the stock's 52 week average.
- sudden_dystopia 5y ago
  Why is it in the best interest of the shareholders for Musk to back off? He is offering almost double the target price of $30 set by the largest shareholder, Goldman. Goldman thinks company is worth $30 but rejected $55. That’s the opposite of shareholder interest. This only protects them from the actual take over, it’s a desperation move.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Target prices are short-ish term; 12 months. Goldman could hold the position that the company's current performance justifies $30, but that $55 doesn't fairly reflect the longer-term potential in the business. (It's also different sections of Goldman, with firewalls and different goals between them.)
infamouscow 5y ago
And that includes Musk himself because he's not on the board.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nemothekid 5y ago
>Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty) It's hard to say that Twitter breached their fiduciary duty when both their representing bank (Goldman) and the second largest shareholder (Kingdom Holding Company) both rejected the offer. The lawsuit will likely go nowhere; the sentiment is that the offer is way too low.
- nodesocket 5y ago
  You realize that Goldman has a price target of Twitter in the 30’s right. An offer then of $54.20 is nearly double that target.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    There’s a firewall between the GS analyst setting the $30/share price target and the GS investment bankers advising Twitter…I suggest you look into how investment banks are regulated and structured.
- filoleg 5y ago
  > their representing bank (Goldman) [...] rejected the offer. GS deserves some fire under them for this for sure. Not solely for rejecting it, but due to their stated reasoning for "why". Their reasoning for rejecting the $54/share acquisition offer was "it is too low of a price target". In the meantime, Goldman's own last reported price target for Twitter is at $30/share. Unless I misunderstand something about how such things work, which is entirely plausible, this isn't a good look for GS at all. EDIT: as one of the replies pointed out, I was indeed misunderstanding the situation, and there is no actual discrepancy here. The entity saying "$54 is too low" was GS Bank, while "$30 is the target" statement was from GS Investments. They are separate entities and often disagree with each other.
  - huslage 5y ago
    This is the bank vs the investment side. Goldman Sachs Bank is their representing Bank, Goldman Sachs Investments (or whatever it's called today) is the part that writes the public short-term price targets. They aren't connected and often disagree. It is the responsibility of the Bank to get maximum return on investment for the company. It is the responsibility of the Investments side to get as many customers in the door as possible and to provide them with timely information.
sudden_dystopia 5y ago
Easier to start a new platform if you kill the old one first. The proverbial plan b, I presume.
matwood 5y ago
Lawyers are definitely going to make out. Musk is already targeted with shareholder lawsuits for failing to disclose his original purchase. > fiduciary duty As mentioned here all the time. Fiduciary duty gives the board and company officers a very wide berth. Telling Musk his offer is too low, and enacting shareholder rights is just fine.

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty).

cloutchaser 5y ago

That would be a fairly rational thing to do, but based on past behaviour I don’t think musk is one who backs down easily. It really depends how much he wants it, which only he knows.

bdcravens 5y ago
Musk has made announcements before and backed off. I suppose the Muskboys will call that 4D chess, but at the end of the day, it has happened.

bdcravens 5y ago

Doesn't that make this a smart move then? If they rejected his offer, they'd be hit with the same lawsuits. In this case, they have a defense to say they were acting in the best interests of the shareholders if that causes Musk to back off.

gordon_freeman 5y ago
If one thing you need to know about Musk is that he does not back off that easily. (He already mentioned in TED interview that he has a "Plan B" if this offer is rejected.)
- bdcravens 5y ago
  Like when he was going to take Tesla private?
polski-g 5y ago
The best interest of the shareholders at this point is to accept the offer. Its a 25% premium, quite typical for buyout offers.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  It's nowhere near that clear; the offered price is lower than the stock's 52 week average.
sudden_dystopia 5y ago
Why is it in the best interest of the shareholders for Musk to back off? He is offering almost double the target price of $30 set by the largest shareholder, Goldman. Goldman thinks company is worth $30 but rejected $55. That’s the opposite of shareholder interest. This only protects them from the actual take over, it’s a desperation move.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Target prices are short-ish term; 12 months. Goldman could hold the position that the company's current performance justifies $30, but that $55 doesn't fairly reflect the longer-term potential in the business. (It's also different sections of Goldman, with firewalls and different goals between them.)

infamouscow 5y ago

And that includes Musk himself because he's not on the board.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nemothekid 5y ago

>Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty) It's hard to say that Twitter breached their fiduciary duty when both their representing bank (Goldman) and the second largest shareholder (Kingdom Holding Company) both rejected the offer. The lawsuit will likely go nowhere; the sentiment is that the offer is way too low.

nodesocket 5y ago
You realize that Goldman has a price target of Twitter in the 30’s right. An offer then of $54.20 is nearly double that target.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  There’s a firewall between the GS analyst setting the $30/share price target and the GS investment bankers advising Twitter…I suggest you look into how investment banks are regulated and structured.
filoleg 5y ago
> their representing bank (Goldman) [...] rejected the offer. GS deserves some fire under them for this for sure. Not solely for rejecting it, but due to their stated reasoning for "why". Their reasoning for rejecting the $54/share acquisition offer was "it is too low of a price target". In the meantime, Goldman's own last reported price target for Twitter is at $30/share. Unless I misunderstand something about how such things work, which is entirely plausible, this isn't a good look for GS at all. EDIT: as one of the replies pointed out, I was indeed misunderstanding the situation, and there is no actual discrepancy here. The entity saying "$54 is too low" was GS Bank, while "$30 is the target" statement was from GS Investments. They are separate entities and often disagree with each other.
- huslage 5y ago
  This is the bank vs the investment side. Goldman Sachs Bank is their representing Bank, Goldman Sachs Investments (or whatever it's called today) is the part that writes the public short-term price targets. They aren't connected and often disagree. It is the responsibility of the Bank to get maximum return on investment for the company. It is the responsibility of the Investments side to get as many customers in the door as possible and to provide them with timely information.

sudden_dystopia 5y ago

Easier to start a new platform if you kill the old one first. The proverbial plan b, I presume.

matwood 5y ago

Lawyers are definitely going to make out. Musk is already targeted with shareholder lawsuits for failing to disclose his original purchase. > fiduciary duty As mentioned here all the time. Fiduciary duty gives the board and company officers a very wide berth. Telling Musk his offer is too low, and enacting shareholder rights is just fine.