3 ms·

I think this is not a fair title for the company in the ongoing mudfight. If Musk successfully backs out and/or legally wins over Twitter, these would torpedo

I think this is not a fair title for the company in the ongoing mudfight. If Musk successfully backs out and/or legally wins over Twitter, these would torpedo the company's stock valuation & public trust, mostly over spam & bots. Twitter revenues aren't spectacular even though they are decently okay in social media ops. Any future buyer will keep this on record as a bargaining clause to drive down the price. With the deal falling apart, stocks most likely will nosedive significantly, if history shows us anything. This isn't about only money - but survival & reputation.

nomel 4y ago
Could this be viewed as a correction to something more realistic?
- srvmshr 4y ago
  This could be more likely viewed as a über-rich person who toyed with a company, its investors & stockholders in bad faith. From the 62-page lawsuit document, Twitter seems to have complied with his ever-increasing demands for auditing the bot/spam problem although he acted so confident to waive off the due diligence. They gave him access to the firehose, but his demands for Twitter to give exact numbers instead of the more accepted statistical MAU metrics is purely insane. Twitter would have to audit each non-verified user to comply with most of Musk's unreasonable requests. When $TSLA went south, he seems to have realized Twitter purchase was bad idea & he would lose both ways - by reduced Tesla marketcap & buying Twitter at $54.20 per share (in an infantile attempt to put 420 meme Easter egg) for $44B. And he would have to commit more of his shares given the falling stock situation. If he manages to buy Twitter, the growth isn't going to recover his costs for a very long time (that economics merits a separate HN thread). He announced something on a whim, then the 'correction' happened as a reality check, and he is throwing every fuss as a teenager high on sugar rush to not go ahead although he is legally obliged to.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > then the 'correction' happened as a reality check Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that everyone realized twitter was not worth that much? Or, is it that Musk caused the stock to fall, somewhat artificially, because his disinterest at $44B is being (incorrectly?) perceived as "he's not interested because the company is not worth $44B" rather than "he's not interested because <other>"?
    - srvmshr 4y ago
      This part is an informed speculation: He does not seem interested because of several factors. If Whatsapp was valued $19B few years ago, Twitter has a much higher internet footprint. Plus it serves ads unlike Whatsapp. I would bet Twitter valuation in $45±5B is a decent number in 2022. Problem is Musk doesn't want to cough up that money even though he's talked big - and/or borrow against $TSLA which would make him give up more shares than he imagined. The correction is his self-corrective step. The realization has come tad late, after his public song & dance about how he wants to "buy & unlock the potential of Twitter". You don't drum up investor expectations, then publicly trash & diss them questioning their credibility. That's the role of due diligence. Companies negotiate, go over finances & relevant details in diligence check - and then talk to media (or not if you aren't happy to go ahead). Musk basically has broken all norms: He promised loftily he'd buy, even went on a TED-styled talk show event where he unequivocally told how interested he is. $TSLA dips over concerns, market trends downwards - that gets our infantile free-speech champion to make increasingly harder requests to Aggrawal & co., before he wants to proceed further. When Twitter cannot reasonably fulfill his near-impossible requests, he claims in lay speak "Material Adverse effect", which implies he is being forced to buy from Twitter when the latter knows it is false/lossmaking bargain & shifting the onus of this drama to Twitter board. If you're to pick the details of the story, it makes you wonder whether its pure luck that a fickle man like Musk is owning two superb engineering companies or has he hoodwinked everyone to think like that. But I feel he tries too hard to be something between Steve Jobs & Tony Stark

nomel 4y ago

Could this be viewed as a correction to something more realistic?

srvmshr 4y ago
This could be more likely viewed as a über-rich person who toyed with a company, its investors & stockholders in bad faith. From the 62-page lawsuit document, Twitter seems to have complied with his ever-increasing demands for auditing the bot/spam problem although he acted so confident to waive off the due diligence. They gave him access to the firehose, but his demands for Twitter to give exact numbers instead of the more accepted statistical MAU metrics is purely insane. Twitter would have to audit each non-verified user to comply with most of Musk's unreasonable requests. When $TSLA went south, he seems to have realized Twitter purchase was bad idea & he would lose both ways - by reduced Tesla marketcap & buying Twitter at $54.20 per share (in an infantile attempt to put 420 meme Easter egg) for $44B. And he would have to commit more of his shares given the falling stock situation. If he manages to buy Twitter, the growth isn't going to recover his costs for a very long time (that economics merits a separate HN thread). He announced something on a whim, then the 'correction' happened as a reality check, and he is throwing every fuss as a teenager high on sugar rush to not go ahead although he is legally obliged to.
- nomel 4y ago
  > then the 'correction' happened as a reality check Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that everyone realized twitter was not worth that much? Or, is it that Musk caused the stock to fall, somewhat artificially, because his disinterest at $44B is being (incorrectly?) perceived as "he's not interested because the company is not worth $44B" rather than "he's not interested because <other>"?
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    This part is an informed speculation: He does not seem interested because of several factors. If Whatsapp was valued $19B few years ago, Twitter has a much higher internet footprint. Plus it serves ads unlike Whatsapp. I would bet Twitter valuation in $45±5B is a decent number in 2022. Problem is Musk doesn't want to cough up that money even though he's talked big - and/or borrow against $TSLA which would make him give up more shares than he imagined. The correction is his self-corrective step. The realization has come tad late, after his public song & dance about how he wants to "buy & unlock the potential of Twitter". You don't drum up investor expectations, then publicly trash & diss them questioning their credibility. That's the role of due diligence. Companies negotiate, go over finances & relevant details in diligence check - and then talk to media (or not if you aren't happy to go ahead). Musk basically has broken all norms: He promised loftily he'd buy, even went on a TED-styled talk show event where he unequivocally told how interested he is. $TSLA dips over concerns, market trends downwards - that gets our infantile free-speech champion to make increasingly harder requests to Aggrawal & co., before he wants to proceed further. When Twitter cannot reasonably fulfill his near-impossible requests, he claims in lay speak "Material Adverse effect", which implies he is being forced to buy from Twitter when the latter knows it is false/lossmaking bargain & shifting the onus of this drama to Twitter board. If you're to pick the details of the story, it makes you wonder whether its pure luck that a fickle man like Musk is owning two superb engineering companies or has he hoodwinked everyone to think like that. But I feel he tries too hard to be something between Steve Jobs & Tony Stark