3 ms·

That's almost certainly not what happened. What happened was the broader market crashed after the deal was signed. TWTR's intrinsic valuation is largely driven

That's almost certainly not what happened. What happened was the broader market crashed after the deal was signed. TWTR's intrinsic valuation is largely driven by other listed tech stocks. So when those crashed, TWTR's intrinsic valuation also crashed, which meant the deal price became unattractive. Merger arbitraguers, in light of the crash, started shorting in anticipation of the deal being reneged on. Musk was initially happy to pay some premium above market price, which is normal in acquisitions, but it no longer made financial sense for him to continue with the deal following the sell-off in the broader market. There almost certainly was no prior plan to sneak out of the acquisition agreement irrespective of developments in the broader market. If the broader market had rallied instead of crashed, Musk would be licking his lips at the opportunity to scoop up a relatively cheap TWTR. > Hanlon's razor provides a simpler explanation. It's not Hanlon's razor, which presumes incompetence. It's Occam's razor. There's no incompetence to making a deal that is good given the available information at the time that the deal was signed. New information presented itself (in the form of an unexpected broader market crash) after the deal, which altered the optimal decision.

Maursault 4y ago
If Musk made an offer when the market was up, and didn't get a response, then walked the offer back when the market fell, that is perfectly ok. But once an offer is made and then it is accepted, I call that a contract. Markets can't be predicted accurately very far in the future, that is their nature. As you say, had the market stayed strong, Musk wouldn't have waffled... then it should be equally fine if instead Twitter reneged on their acceptance, but I don't think that is the case. Musk would have sued, which is exactly what Twitter is doing. But I think Musk must have expected the share price to climb past what he was offering, and whether his stating his plans to monkey with Twitter had any effect on the share price, it seems obvious that was his intention, to effect the price of Twitter shares. Clearly it either backfired, or it had no effect, or it had the intended effect.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > But once an offer is made and then it is accepted, I call that a contract I also call that a contract. Musk should be held to it, or he should pay a multi-billion dollar exit penalty. But this isn't relevant to what we were discussing. > But I think Musk must have expected the share price to climb past what he was offering, and whether his stating his plans to monkey with Twitter had any effect on the share price, it seems obvious that was his intention, to effect the price of Twitter shares. Clearly it either backfired, or it had no effect, or it had the intended effect. This is the same conspiratorial misunderstanding of what happened that we've already gone through. There was no sneaky plan to pump TWTR shares by making a disingenuous acquisition offer. Such a scheme makes no logical sense. He didn't own enough of the TWTR float for the risk of such a grandstand to be anywhere near positive expectancy. But there is a perfectly logical and simple explanation that you keep disregarding, which I've outlined twice. I will outline it a third time now. He wanted to buy TWTR. Then the market crashed by surprise. Then he changed his mind, because doing so is logical after the market crashes. It's so simple, and it fits so well, it lines up with all the available circumstantial evidence, and it makes so much sense.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    I see that is possible, reasonable, and a valid explanation. It is undeniable, however, that Musk knew he would have effect on Twitter's share price because he delayed 11 days in revealing his stake, saving him ~$140M on Twitter shares while everyone was in the dark. Now, maybe the market subsequently declined everywhere, but it is reasonable to assume that Musk's public statements after Twitter accepted his offer were intended to affect the share price to increase above his offer, sweetening the deal for him. It is also possible that, even though or if the market declined everywhere, that Musk did have an effect opposite to his intention: it would be incompetent to publicly announce intentions to fix something that was already profitable, which if unpopular enough, may have affected share prices negatively.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      You need to learn about capital markets. This is barely coherent.

Maursault 4y ago

If Musk made an offer when the market was up, and didn't get a response, then walked the offer back when the market fell, that is perfectly ok. But once an offer is made and then it is accepted, I call that a contract. Markets can't be predicted accurately very far in the future, that is their nature. As you say, had the market stayed strong, Musk wouldn't have waffled... then it should be equally fine if instead Twitter reneged on their acceptance, but I don't think that is the case. Musk would have sued, which is exactly what Twitter is doing. But I think Musk must have expected the share price to climb past what he was offering, and whether his stating his plans to monkey with Twitter had any effect on the share price, it seems obvious that was his intention, to effect the price of Twitter shares. Clearly it either backfired, or it had no effect, or it had the intended effect.

hackerlight 4y ago
> But once an offer is made and then it is accepted, I call that a contract I also call that a contract. Musk should be held to it, or he should pay a multi-billion dollar exit penalty. But this isn't relevant to what we were discussing. > But I think Musk must have expected the share price to climb past what he was offering, and whether his stating his plans to monkey with Twitter had any effect on the share price, it seems obvious that was his intention, to effect the price of Twitter shares. Clearly it either backfired, or it had no effect, or it had the intended effect. This is the same conspiratorial misunderstanding of what happened that we've already gone through. There was no sneaky plan to pump TWTR shares by making a disingenuous acquisition offer. Such a scheme makes no logical sense. He didn't own enough of the TWTR float for the risk of such a grandstand to be anywhere near positive expectancy. But there is a perfectly logical and simple explanation that you keep disregarding, which I've outlined twice. I will outline it a third time now. He wanted to buy TWTR. Then the market crashed by surprise. Then he changed his mind, because doing so is logical after the market crashes. It's so simple, and it fits so well, it lines up with all the available circumstantial evidence, and it makes so much sense.
- Maursault 4y ago
  I see that is possible, reasonable, and a valid explanation. It is undeniable, however, that Musk knew he would have effect on Twitter's share price because he delayed 11 days in revealing his stake, saving him ~$140M on Twitter shares while everyone was in the dark. Now, maybe the market subsequently declined everywhere, but it is reasonable to assume that Musk's public statements after Twitter accepted his offer were intended to affect the share price to increase above his offer, sweetening the deal for him. It is also possible that, even though or if the market declined everywhere, that Musk did have an effect opposite to his intention: it would be incompetent to publicly announce intentions to fix something that was already profitable, which if unpopular enough, may have affected share prices negatively.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    You need to learn about capital markets. This is barely coherent.