4 ms·
Since Musk signed a very one sided contract with Twitter to buy the company, I have zero reason to assume the contracts with his financing partners are any diff
by hef19898 4y ago
Since Musk signed a very one sided contract with Twitter to buy the company, I have zero reason to assume the contracts with his financing partners are any different. So, a wild guess I know, as long as Musk's Tesla shares are enough to pay the 54.20 per share for Twitter, why would banks object to the deal? They will get enough collateral, one way or the other. For Musk so, it doesn't look too good.
- jbverschoor 4y agoBanks can give any reason why they won't finance, and MS will do so for EM as long as the risk-reward ratio of EM as a client is high enough. Reasons could be - TSLA is volatile. The stock would fall if EM doesn't own enough share anymore, because of the risk of him leaving as CEO. Market conditions. "For reasons of their own"
- hef19898 4y agoAnother way of looking at it: MS has to work with institunional investors in the future, Musks wealth is coming from one company as is mostly paper value and not cash. Letting the deal fall through, if that is legally possible and doesn't expose MS to legal risks, might paint MS in a bad light. And that impression, that MS is willing to play legal shenenigans to favor one party over others at the expense of the spirit of the agreements, might something they want to avoid. Especially if they could get a chunk of Tesla or even SpaceX. In the end, we will only know if, or when, Twitter and Musk struck a deal or, ultimately, the courts issue a ruling whatever that will be.
- jbverschoor 4y agoThe ice thing that’s cool, is that those fillings become public (or they get leaked, I don’t know). And it’s increasing to read them.
- jbverschoor 4y agoNice* Interesting*