4 ms·

You saying that Twitter’s SEC filings over the last several years included knowingly falsified information?

georgia_peach 4y ago
> The social media company, Twitter, has admitted to overstating the figure of the platform’s users by 1.9 million in the last three years. The company disclosed this in its Q1 2022 financial report released today. The revelation comes days after the board of the company accepted a $44 billion offer by Elon Musk to take over Twitter. > Twitter says an “error” introduced in Q1 2019, resulted in the overstatement of its monetizable daily active usage or users (mDAU). According to the company, this went on undiscovered for three years. Three years, and they figured this out mere days after being strong-armed into accepting the Musk offer they wanted to evade? I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes Twitter didn't already know.
- thombat 4y ago
  From https://www.statista.com/statistics/970920/monetizable-daily-active-twitter-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/970920/monetizable-daily... that figure of 1.9M is rather less than 2% of their MDAU figure, and less than the MDAU growth in almost any quarter. So more of a correction than a revolution.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    2% of a key revenue figure for a company with a $28B market cap is one hell of a correction. I don't think Levine actually believes Twitter has a snowball's chance in hell of getting specific performance. Can you point to a section in this opinion piece where he states no financial interest in this drama? I think that is conspicuous by its absence.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      It's likely this was disclosed to Musk before he entered into the definitive agreement, so it is mooted. (If this was a reason, you'd think they'd have argued it in the termination letter). And even if so, I don't think 2% of a user count is a "material adverse change" by the merger agreement.
      - georgia_peach 4y ago
        Those are all sound legalisms, which would be big wins for Twitter if they were serious about taking this into a courtroom, but they aren't. That would air out several closets they'd rather keep shut.
        mlyle 4y ago
        There's a $19B difference between Twitter's market cap and the agreed deal proceeds. Twitter has to pursue receiving that-- either in consummation of the deal or adequate recompense. If their board doesn't, they'll be sued into oblivion by their own shareholders. It's do-or-die. That doesn't mean, though, if they were offered a couple billion less for Twitter and were sure that Musk would then close... that they might not blink, rather than wobble $19B+ on a court case. The problem is, a $2B discount on Twitter doesn't improve Musk's financial condition much or make the deal materially less stupid for him.
        georgia_peach 4y ago
        There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing." Per Levine: But it’s messy, and you can sort of see a path to “Musk says the deal is off, so his banks walk away, so his financing isn’t available, so he doesn’t have to close the deal and can get away with just paying $1 billion.” And the "Musk says the deal is off" part doesn't even have to enter into it. The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute change of opinion on his collateral--whatever that was for this deal. When it comes to "sued into oblivion by their own shareholders", who exactly are they? ETFs & mutual funds, of which Twitter is only a fraction of a sliver of their portfolio? CIA/DOD "dark money", stirring up foreigners (& domestics!) against "rogue" regimes (i.e. "arab spring")? Large shareholders (like Saudi, or hedgies), who were the ones giving the board up-to-the-minute instruction on how to (mis)handle the Musk offer in the first place? Twitter has been a propaganda asset for a long time. The large stake-holders surely understand that they have far more to lose in discovery & cross-examination than Elon's offer. I am talking Snowden-tier revelations here.

> The social media company, Twitter, has admitted to overstating the figure of the platform’s users by 1.9 million in the last three years. The company disclosed this in its Q1 2022 financial report released today. The revelation comes days after the board of the company accepted a $44 billion offer by Elon Musk to take over Twitter. > Twitter says an “error” introduced in Q1 2019, resulted in the overstatement of its monetizable daily active usage or users (mDAU). According to the company, this went on undiscovered for three years. Three years, and they figured this out mere days after being strong-armed into accepting the Musk offer they wanted to evade? I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes Twitter didn't already know.

thombat 4y ago
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/970920/monetizable-daily-active-twitter-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/970920/monetizable-daily... that figure of 1.9M is rather less than 2% of their MDAU figure, and less than the MDAU growth in almost any quarter. So more of a correction than a revolution.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  2% of a key revenue figure for a company with a $28B market cap is one hell of a correction. I don't think Levine actually believes Twitter has a snowball's chance in hell of getting specific performance. Can you point to a section in this opinion piece where he states no financial interest in this drama? I think that is conspicuous by its absence.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    It's likely this was disclosed to Musk before he entered into the definitive agreement, so it is mooted. (If this was a reason, you'd think they'd have argued it in the termination letter). And even if so, I don't think 2% of a user count is a "material adverse change" by the merger agreement.
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      Those are all sound legalisms, which would be big wins for Twitter if they were serious about taking this into a courtroom, but they aren't. That would air out several closets they'd rather keep shut.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        There's a $19B difference between Twitter's market cap and the agreed deal proceeds. Twitter has to pursue receiving that-- either in consummation of the deal or adequate recompense. If their board doesn't, they'll be sued into oblivion by their own shareholders. It's do-or-die. That doesn't mean, though, if they were offered a couple billion less for Twitter and were sure that Musk would then close... that they might not blink, rather than wobble $19B+ on a court case. The problem is, a $2B discount on Twitter doesn't improve Musk's financial condition much or make the deal materially less stupid for him.
        georgia_peach 4y ago
        There has been enough uncertainty--on both the Musk and Twitter ends--for the banks to have several legitimate reasons to "blow up his financing." Per Levine: But it’s messy, and you can sort of see a path to “Musk says the deal is off, so his banks walk away, so his financing isn’t available, so he doesn’t have to close the deal and can get away with just paying $1 billion.” And the "Musk says the deal is off" part doesn't even have to enter into it. The banks could come, independently, to a last-minute change of opinion on his collateral--whatever that was for this deal. When it comes to "sued into oblivion by their own shareholders", who exactly are they? ETFs & mutual funds, of which Twitter is only a fraction of a sliver of their portfolio? CIA/DOD "dark money", stirring up foreigners (& domestics!) against "rogue" regimes (i.e. "arab spring")? Large shareholders (like Saudi, or hedgies), who were the ones giving the board up-to-the-minute instruction on how to (mis)handle the Musk offer in the first place? Twitter has been a propaganda asset for a long time. The large stake-holders surely understand that they have far more to lose in discovery & cross-examination than Elon's offer. I am talking Snowden-tier revelations here.