> That's not how business valuations work (it's how speculation works). If Twitter was fairly valued by Elon Musk before the crash then it would be fairly value

> That's not how business valuations work (it's how speculation works). If Twitter was fairly valued by Elon Musk before the crash then it would be fairly valued now - the fundamentals of the business haven't changed. Some "fundamentals" of a business like twitter's value are: 1. Product/market fit, finances, etc. What you mean by "fundamentals" I think. 2. How easy it is for them to raise money (i.e. the "public sentiment" of VC towards their company and the industry) 3. How likely it is for regulation to stifle their growth, which is a derivative of public sentiment. 4. How much shares can be sold for, i.e. the public sentiment about how much it's worth. 5. Predicted future sentiment of their users and of advertisers, both of which impact expected future revenue. 2-5 all change with public sentiment, and a market crash changes public sentiment of many companies at once. It's self-evident that elon musk is overpaying more now than before unless you insist that twitter's value is not actually related to 2-5 above, or 2-5 above should have been trivially predictable 100% accurately already as part of its "fundamentals", both of which seem obviously silly.