4 ms·

He HAS to be doing it on purpose, no-one is this retarded, especially when he just paid 44 BILLION for it. It's like the Emperors new clothes, we're all trying

He HAS to be doing it on purpose, no-one is this retarded, especially when he just paid 44 BILLION for it. It's like the Emperors new clothes, we're all trying to see some kind of genius that just isn't there.

m_ke 4y ago
I'm starting to believe he decided it made more sense to mark down the investment to 0 and use the losses against his income for the next few years instead to pay the fine for pulling out of the deal.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  There was no "fine for pulling out of the deal".
  - divided 4y ago
    Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this. Here's some details: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-breakup-fee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-b.... Later when Elon sought to pull out of the deal, Twitter threatened to go to court to enforce that $1B fee, which led to the buyout proceeding.
    - jsnell 4y ago
      As per your own link, the situations where that deal could be broken and the fee would be applicable were very limited (Musk not getting financing, Twitter finding a higher bidder). Musk changing his mind was not one of those situations, it was a binding deal. Twitter did not sue for the $1b, but for specific perfomance, i.e. closing the deal.
      - divided 4y ago
        Fair enough, I'm not versed on the legal in's and out's and it appears you're correct. I knew Twitter sought to close the deal, but most of the analysis I read claimed they could have chosen the $1B instead, as if both were viable legal paths. It appears that is incorrect.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      The $1b fine was not available to just use to back out of the deal. You are misinformed on this.
      - divided 4y ago
        I agree, I was misinformed. Too many articles state both acquisition or $1B fine were viable routes for Twitter, but other sources with more solid analysis look to contradict that.
    - jsjohnst 4y ago
      > Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this. I think you are victim to reading headlines and not understanding what Twitter went to court over. Elon paying the $1B wouldn’t have gotten him out of having to complete the deal. Here’s some details: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
      - divided 4y ago
        I was aware that Twitter went to court to complete the deal, but I admit to being misinformed as much of the analysis I read stated both avenues ($1B fee or force the acquisition) were viable. For example, Dan Ives, who is often quoted in articles about this deal, had this to tweet: https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=20&t=j756j79i0kvAdF9Bz3yYnQ https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=2... It appears that is incorrect.
        jsjohnst 4y ago
        > I admit to being misinformed Thank you for replying earnestly and humbly. I wish more did that!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- albinofrenchy 4y ago
  Why would this ever be a smart move? Afaik he couldnt realistically dodge more taxes than he lit on fire at Twitter.
  - m_ke 4y ago
    He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/musk-forms-x-holdings-after-hints-at-parent-for-tesla-spacex https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/musk-form...). So he'll be able to carry forward all of the losses against his income from other businesses.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X AFAICT, it was very nebulous at the time that it ever would be a common holding company for those (and Musk’s other companies), and very good reasons were cited for being skeptical that that would be workable. And, to my knowledge, none of the other companies has been put under X Holdings.
friedman23 4y ago
No he doesn't. He hasn't worked in software like this since paypal and back then how complicated did things really get?
netsharc 4y ago
But he paid that because a Delaware court was going to reveal a lot of shit. And many of those billions are from banks who had faith in him. Good luck trying to get funding next time, Mr. It's Just 8 Dollars. Watching a jackass fuck up this bad is entertaining...
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Another funny part of the saga. https://twitter.com/SixTwoPoo/status/1592202267977191425?s=20&t=ogA51P8pWqYKCfs8Qsh1RA https://twitter.com/SixTwoPoo/status/1592202267977191425?s=2...
rodgerd 4y ago
> no-one is this retarded He decided to buy Twitter after his girlfriend left him and one of his children sued to never have anything to do with him again. He has blamed both of these things on "wokeness" rather than his history of broken relationships and his child's assertion of him being a shitty parent. This was apparently enough for him to pledge $44 billion to "own the libs". He is absolutely this stupid.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> He HAS to be doing it on purpose, no-one is this retarded, especially when he just paid 44 BILLION for it. The idea that having lots of money on the line prevents bad decision making, when in fact it can just as easily be evidence of bad decision making, is silly.

m_ke 4y ago

I'm starting to believe he decided it made more sense to mark down the investment to 0 and use the losses against his income for the next few years instead to pay the fine for pulling out of the deal.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
There was no "fine for pulling out of the deal".
- divided 4y ago
  Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this. Here's some details: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-breakup-fee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-b.... Later when Elon sought to pull out of the deal, Twitter threatened to go to court to enforce that $1B fee, which led to the buyout proceeding.
  - jsnell 4y ago
    As per your own link, the situations where that deal could be broken and the fee would be applicable were very limited (Musk not getting financing, Twitter finding a higher bidder). Musk changing his mind was not one of those situations, it was a binding deal. Twitter did not sue for the $1b, but for specific perfomance, i.e. closing the deal.
    - divided 4y ago
      Fair enough, I'm not versed on the legal in's and out's and it appears you're correct. I knew Twitter sought to close the deal, but most of the analysis I read claimed they could have chosen the $1B instead, as if both were viable legal paths. It appears that is incorrect.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    The $1b fine was not available to just use to back out of the deal. You are misinformed on this.
    - divided 4y ago
      I agree, I was misinformed. Too many articles state both acquisition or $1B fine were viable routes for Twitter, but other sources with more solid analysis look to contradict that.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    > Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this. I think you are victim to reading headlines and not understanding what Twitter went to court over. Elon paying the $1B wouldn’t have gotten him out of having to complete the deal. Here’s some details: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
    - divided 4y ago
      I was aware that Twitter went to court to complete the deal, but I admit to being misinformed as much of the analysis I read stated both avenues ($1B fee or force the acquisition) were viable. For example, Dan Ives, who is often quoted in articles about this deal, had this to tweet: https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=20&t=j756j79i0kvAdF9Bz3yYnQ https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=2... It appears that is incorrect.
      - jsjohnst 4y ago
        > I admit to being misinformed Thank you for replying earnestly and humbly. I wish more did that!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
albinofrenchy 4y ago
Why would this ever be a smart move? Afaik he couldnt realistically dodge more taxes than he lit on fire at Twitter.
- m_ke 4y ago
  He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/musk-forms-x-holdings-after-hints-at-parent-for-tesla-spacex https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/musk-form...). So he'll be able to carry forward all of the losses against his income from other businesses.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X AFAICT, it was very nebulous at the time that it ever would be a common holding company for those (and Musk’s other companies), and very good reasons were cited for being skeptical that that would be workable. And, to my knowledge, none of the other companies has been put under X Holdings.

friedman23 4y ago

No he doesn't. He hasn't worked in software like this since paypal and back then how complicated did things really get?

netsharc 4y ago

But he paid that because a Delaware court was going to reveal a lot of shit. And many of those billions are from banks who had faith in him. Good luck trying to get funding next time, Mr. It's Just 8 Dollars. Watching a jackass fuck up this bad is entertaining...

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Another funny part of the saga. https://twitter.com/SixTwoPoo/status/1592202267977191425?s=20&t=ogA51P8pWqYKCfs8Qsh1RA https://twitter.com/SixTwoPoo/status/1592202267977191425?s=2...

rodgerd 4y ago

> no-one is this retarded He decided to buy Twitter after his girlfriend left him and one of his children sued to never have anything to do with him again. He has blamed both of these things on "wokeness" rather than his history of broken relationships and his child's assertion of him being a shitty parent. This was apparently enough for him to pledge $44 billion to "own the libs". He is absolutely this stupid.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> He HAS to be doing it on purpose, no-one is this retarded, especially when he just paid 44 BILLION for it. The idea that having lots of money on the line prevents bad decision making, when in fact it can just as easily be evidence of bad decision making, is silly.