4 ms·
My comment was not talking about Musk specifically, it was talking generally about the idea of trusting the seller, whether it be of a house or a company, that
by jijji 4y ago
My comment was not talking about Musk specifically, it was talking generally about the idea of trusting the seller, whether it be of a house or a company, that their numbers are indeed truth. It's one thing to buy a house for $100K and let the seller tell you that there is no problems, its another thing to buy a company for billions of dollars and let the seller tell you there are no problems. And as my comment explains, its fairly simple for the seller of a company to make up a bunch of fake traffic to bump up the sales price. It's nice to be able to do the research yourself, although a lot of companies don't like/want you doing this kind of investigation. The kind of investigation I am talking about is a deep dive via shell access to servers/routers in a thorough, true manner and can be performed by an independent auditing company like one of the big five accounting firms.
- tsimionescu 4y agoI think the disagreement is over whether this type of auditing could have been done before signing the contract to acquire Twitter - and in general, my understanding is that yes, Musk (or any other buyer) could have asked for such an audit before agreeing to buy the company for billions of dollars; and that often, that does happen, even if it is not always publicly discussed.