21 ms·
But owning 100 % was Musk's offer all along.
by vimy 4y ago
But owning 100 % was Musk's offer all along.
- taubek 4y agoYes, this has also confused me. What is so different now than 10 days ago?
- lumost 4y agoMusk could have screwed the other shareholders by buying 51% and leaving it at that. Hostile takeovers haven’t been common for a while, and so twitter was unprepared when one started.
- johnobrien1010 4y agoGood analysis from Matt Levine for those who are interested:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...
- nwsm 4y agoNothing is different. This is not a hostile takeover
- stouset 4y ago… any more.
- barelysapient 4y agoMusk's offer 10 days ago didn't have financing secured. Today's offer does.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- paxys 4y agoThere was nothing stopping him from increasing his share while the board was deliberating. He could have used that tactic to increase pressure. The poison pill clause meant that the board was free to take whatever decision they wanted in the timeframe they deemed fit.
- KingMachiavelli 4y agoLeaving the option of gaining control via 51% hostile takeover would essentially be a ~50% discount for Elon. If your goal is to sell at the highest price you don't want to count on someones word or intentions. Plus even if Elon really wants all 100% for reasons, the bank providing funding would certainly want him to consider any cheaper options since it's (nearly) the same gain for them but less risk to finance buying 51% vs 100%.