5 ms·
It’s because they want him to pay the agreed price. It is an extremely good deal for the shareholders now, so they are behaving perfectly rationally. And they c
by cormacrelf 4y ago
It’s because they want him to pay the agreed price. It is an extremely good deal for the shareholders now, so they are behaving perfectly rationally. And they can possibly force him to.
- paxys 4y agoYes but it was clear (to all outside observers, not the board apparently) that Musk never intended to pay the agreed price. He was just collecting enough material from them to justify his breach, and fake users was a smokescreen. Their response to any questions/statements about fake users should have been the equivalent of "you signed the agreement, now stick to it" not "let's work together and resolve your issues".
- cormacrelf 4y agoSo? What does twitter care whether he intended to do it? He agreed to! And they can still force him to do it. So even if he drags out the litigation, they still have a strong position to negotiate a settlement for somewhere between 1 and 40 billion. Free money for his stupidity.
- philosopher1234 4y agoThat’s not how i remember the last HN discussion on this
- elliekelly 4y agoI’m not terribly familiar with the specifics of the deal but IIRC there’s a penalty clause that’s dependent on who, ultimately, backs out of the deal. It seems like Musk is angling to get Twitter to pull out and Twitter is doing everything they can to engage with Musk’s requests in “good faith” so he can’t claim Twitter has constructively backed out— a bit of M&A malicious compliance/a game of chicken, I believe.
- soneca 4y agoThey said “let’s work together “ precisely to be able to sue and increase their chances of win for acting in good faith.
- redeeman 4y agoare you saying it is 100% impossible that there really is way more than 5% of daily active users being bots? unless you have some information here, it seems like a fairly big claim to make? if elon musk thinks 20% is bots, that is a very different thing than <=5%, would you not agree?
- pclmulqdq 4y agoEveryone talking about this claim drops the important word. Less than 5% of _monetizable_ daily active users are bots. A non-monetizable user can exist and many do: people with ad blockers, people using third party Twitter clients, and people using APIs to interact with Twitter. Bot accounts are very likely to not be counted as monetizable daily active uers.
- redeeman 4y agowouldnt a bot user by definition not be monetizable? I dont think this is what it is about at all, it makes no sense? They public a count of daily active users, this includes bots. The amount of those daily active users is very important
- asah 4y agoIn fact they have a fiduciary responsibility to pursue this.
- ergocoder 4y agoPeople keep saying this... But twitter board accepts the very first offer from Musk. Who does that in a business negotiation?
- jaidhyani 4y agoSomeone who's being offered $10 for a $5 bill.
- ergocoder 4y agoYou would try to get $12 at least before accepting $10.
- diob 4y agoFrom what I've read, they're obligated to accept that sort of offer for their shareholders.
- astrange 4y agoThey're not obligated to; boards can pretty much do whatever they want. However, Twitter's board doesn't use Twitter and doesn't actually seem to care about it at all, so they're not exactly going to claim to shareholders they can run it better than an offer that much above its current value.
- anticensor 4y ago> Twitter's board doesn't use Twitter [citation needed]
- ergocoder 4y agoAren't they obligated to negotiate for a higher price? At least, they should try. Who the heck doesn't negotiate? How is no negotiation the best strategy?