3 ms·

I think many (including myself) find this Twitter purchase symbolic of his general demeanour — rather than a careful and calculated decision it appears to be an

I think many (including myself) find this Twitter purchase symbolic of his general demeanour — rather than a careful and calculated decision it appears to be an impulse purchase. The value of Twitter may have decreased since he made his offer, and he may want to back out, but he (impulsively) made an agreement to purchase it, so backing out comes with the responsibility of $1 billion.

boringg 4y ago
Maybe it is indicative of his demeanor or maybe it isn't - that is your own perspective. Maybe it is impulsive - he certainly is impulsive - though to be fair his impulses (if that is the case) have been pretty accurate though maybe his lucky streak has come to the end. Honestly I think it's comical that people are complaining that he's not paying up for twitter when valuations went off a cliff and twitter hasn't divulged bot data (when CLEARLY that's what he was doing all along (see my comments eons ago saying that he was pointing to this as an exit strategy). Twitter could have put that information forward and kept the $1B but they knew either (1) don't know or (2) they didn't want to for fear of damaging their company. It's like all of a sudden Twitter is the good guy and Elon is the bad guy when at the end of the day this is two business entities interacting and positioning themselves.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >Honestly I think it's comical that people are complaining that he's not paying up for twitter when valuations went off a cliff and twitter hasn't divulged bot data We aren't complaining, we're mostly confused how the world's smartest man would make a bid on a product not based on actual valuation, but instead on the inflated current public market price. He's free to back out of the deal, but some people aren't falling for the victimization. His bid was a mistake, and he should own it. >twitter hasn't divulged bot data Once again, this should have been part of a due diligence process that the Musk team deemed unnecessary.
  - boringg 4y ago
    He is not the worlds smartest person - maybe the worlds most ambitious person. And I'm not necessarily saying HN complaining - I'm referring to the general public narrative
  - espadrine 4y ago
    > this should have been part of a due diligence process that the Musk team deemed unnecessary Separately from intent (where I agree with you), legally, Twitter was required to provide “properties, books and records [and] information concerning the business, properties and personnel” per section 6.4[0], which is cited in today’s letter[1]. (The fact that it is not a due diligence, IIUC, means that this information should not change the decision to make the purchase; but if Twitter was found to violate the merger agreement, Musk could walk out on it anyway.) It will all hinge in litigation on whether Twitter can argue that Musk’ demands were not “reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transactions” or would “cause significant competitive harm to the Company”. In my mind, it is easy to argue that Musk did violate section 6.4 by making his request public, impacting the stock, which is not a “reasonable best effort to minimize any disruption to the respective business”. [0]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522... [1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922068347/tm2217761d1_ex99-o.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

boringg 4y ago

Maybe it is indicative of his demeanor or maybe it isn't - that is your own perspective. Maybe it is impulsive - he certainly is impulsive - though to be fair his impulses (if that is the case) have been pretty accurate though maybe his lucky streak has come to the end. Honestly I think it's comical that people are complaining that he's not paying up for twitter when valuations went off a cliff and twitter hasn't divulged bot data (when CLEARLY that's what he was doing all along (see my comments eons ago saying that he was pointing to this as an exit strategy). Twitter could have put that information forward and kept the $1B but they knew either (1) don't know or (2) they didn't want to for fear of damaging their company. It's like all of a sudden Twitter is the good guy and Elon is the bad guy when at the end of the day this is two business entities interacting and positioning themselves.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Honestly I think it's comical that people are complaining that he's not paying up for twitter when valuations went off a cliff and twitter hasn't divulged bot data We aren't complaining, we're mostly confused how the world's smartest man would make a bid on a product not based on actual valuation, but instead on the inflated current public market price. He's free to back out of the deal, but some people aren't falling for the victimization. His bid was a mistake, and he should own it. >twitter hasn't divulged bot data Once again, this should have been part of a due diligence process that the Musk team deemed unnecessary.
- boringg 4y ago
  He is not the worlds smartest person - maybe the worlds most ambitious person. And I'm not necessarily saying HN complaining - I'm referring to the general public narrative
- espadrine 4y ago
  > this should have been part of a due diligence process that the Musk team deemed unnecessary Separately from intent (where I agree with you), legally, Twitter was required to provide “properties, books and records [and] information concerning the business, properties and personnel” per section 6.4[0], which is cited in today’s letter[1]. (The fact that it is not a due diligence, IIUC, means that this information should not change the decision to make the purchase; but if Twitter was found to violate the merger agreement, Musk could walk out on it anyway.) It will all hinge in litigation on whether Twitter can argue that Musk’ demands were not “reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transactions” or would “cause significant competitive harm to the Company”. In my mind, it is easy to argue that Musk did violate section 6.4 by making his request public, impacting the stock, which is not a “reasonable best effort to minimize any disruption to the respective business”. [0]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522... [1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922068347/tm2217761d1_ex99-o.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...