3 ms·

Mismanaged according to who, him? He bought it because he forced the stock price down with the announcement and was forced into buying it.

wyclif 4y ago
"Forced into buying it" is really not an accurate way to think about it. It makes it sound like he never wanted to buy Twitter, when in fact he did want to buy it for less money because he knew the valuation was too high (because of bot farms, managerial bloat, &c.)
- saghm 4y ago
  > he knew the valuation was too high (because of bot farms, managerial bloat, &c.) "He knew the valuation was too high" is really not an accurate way to think about it. It makes it sound like he successfully proved those claims, when in fact he failed to present compelling enough evidence in court when he tried to use legal action to back out.
  - wyclif 4y ago
    Oops! Turns out Wachtell & Turner and the previous Twitter board hid evidence of fraudulent metrics. This could easily turn into legal popcorn time: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824
- riffraff 4y ago
  He set the price, than backpedaled not because he discovered new information, which he did not, but because the market slumped. We know this because he decided not to go to court to prove that Twitter had hidden information.
- pjc50 4y ago
  He said he'd buy it at $54.20 and they held him to that. If he didn't mean it he shouldn't have said it (a constant Elon problem)
petre 4y ago
44bn is a lot for a social media company. Westinghouse was sold off for 7.9bn. They make nuclear reactors as opposed to distributing short text messages over the Internet.
blagie 4y ago
It was mismanaged according to *me*. I posted my opinion. It may be incorrect. That's true of most posts on the internet. Twitter has 7,500 employees. It doesn't take that many to run a Twitter. Most Twitter employees I know use their positions to work on things weakly aligned with the success of Twitter, such as random political or nerdy projects. That's a small sample set, but the things I hear raise my eyebrows. If Twitter were private, and management aligned to shareholder value, the value could increase by a lot. I'm not sure if Musk can do that, or if it isn't overvalued in the first place, but that's my opinion on Twitter management from where I sit. It's not uncommon for public companies, especially older ones, by the way. In many cases, almost every employee, right up through the CEO, is there to maximize their income, to maximize their future career prospects, and to have fun. That doesn't always align well with shareholder value.

wyclif 4y ago

"Forced into buying it" is really not an accurate way to think about it. It makes it sound like he never wanted to buy Twitter, when in fact he did want to buy it for less money because he knew the valuation was too high (because of bot farms, managerial bloat, &c.)

saghm 4y ago
> he knew the valuation was too high (because of bot farms, managerial bloat, &c.) "He knew the valuation was too high" is really not an accurate way to think about it. It makes it sound like he successfully proved those claims, when in fact he failed to present compelling enough evidence in court when he tried to use legal action to back out.
- wyclif 4y ago
  Oops! Turns out Wachtell & Turner and the previous Twitter board hid evidence of fraudulent metrics. This could easily turn into legal popcorn time: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824
riffraff 4y ago
He set the price, than backpedaled not because he discovered new information, which he did not, but because the market slumped. We know this because he decided not to go to court to prove that Twitter had hidden information.
pjc50 4y ago
He said he'd buy it at $54.20 and they held him to that. If he didn't mean it he shouldn't have said it (a constant Elon problem)

petre 4y ago

44bn is a lot for a social media company. Westinghouse was sold off for 7.9bn. They make nuclear reactors as opposed to distributing short text messages over the Internet.

blagie 4y ago

It was mismanaged according to *me*. I posted my opinion. It may be incorrect. That's true of most posts on the internet. Twitter has 7,500 employees. It doesn't take that many to run a Twitter. Most Twitter employees I know use their positions to work on things weakly aligned with the success of Twitter, such as random political or nerdy projects. That's a small sample set, but the things I hear raise my eyebrows. If Twitter were private, and management aligned to shareholder value, the value could increase by a lot. I'm not sure if Musk can do that, or if it isn't overvalued in the first place, but that's my opinion on Twitter management from where I sit. It's not uncommon for public companies, especially older ones, by the way. In many cases, almost every employee, right up through the CEO, is there to maximize their income, to maximize their future career prospects, and to have fun. That doesn't always align well with shareholder value.