35 ms·

It's funny when Elon companies are successful people say it was never him it was the engineers, and then when his companies are having trouble then it's not the

It's funny when Elon companies are successful people say it was never him it was the engineers, and then when his companies are having trouble then it's not the engineers, it's him. The fact is it's a team. Twitter has more than enough runway to get through this transition and turn things around. It's up to the team to execute effectively.

paxys 4y ago
Nowhere in this thread am I assigning any blame to anyone, so that's just a strawman diversion from the conversation on your part. As for runway – that's public information as well. Twitter had $6B in cash and securities as of the last financial statement release. That has likely gone down a fair amount due to acquisition-related costs as well as severance payments. Keeping up with the ~$2B/yr burn rate, unless Twitter can turn things around fast (or get another cash infusion), it has about 2-3 years left in the tank.
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  Did you forget the $5B/yr they make from advertisers?
  - paxys 4y ago
    Did you forget that they have expenses? The company is currently running at a net loss of over $3M/day.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Did you forget the $5B/yr they make from advertisers? They…don’t. Their last quarterly numbers had a hair over $1B in advertising revenue, and that was both a quarterly and year-over-year increase, so they weren’t making more than $4B/year from advertising before Musk took over. Their advance sales were bad for next year because of the potential of the Musk takeover, and big accounts have backed out, and big agencies publicly advised clients to back out of the platform, based on what has gone on since the takeover.
esoterica 4y ago
I mean he was the one that saddled Twitter with a billion dollars in LBO debt. Most successes and failures have many contributors but this particular spot of trouble Twitter is literally just 100% his own doing.
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. Success or failure are yet to be seen. Their current revenue is more than enough to service the debt, but really all this restructuring is about making the company leaner and more competitive. If the valuation goes up then the debt quickly becomes a non-issue.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. It wasn't. He structured the acquisition such that Twitter took on substantial new debt rather than providing the funds himself. Was it a good move? Honestly I'm not savvy's enough about this kind of thing to say, but it definitely wasn't the only move. A substantial part of Twitter's net loss is because he chose to saddle it with new debt.

paxys 4y ago

Nowhere in this thread am I assigning any blame to anyone, so that's just a strawman diversion from the conversation on your part. As for runway – that's public information as well. Twitter had $6B in cash and securities as of the last financial statement release. That has likely gone down a fair amount due to acquisition-related costs as well as severance payments. Keeping up with the ~$2B/yr burn rate, unless Twitter can turn things around fast (or get another cash infusion), it has about 2-3 years left in the tank.

bottlepalm 4y ago
Did you forget the $5B/yr they make from advertisers?
- paxys 4y ago
  Did you forget that they have expenses? The company is currently running at a net loss of over $3M/day.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Did you forget the $5B/yr they make from advertisers? They…don’t. Their last quarterly numbers had a hair over $1B in advertising revenue, and that was both a quarterly and year-over-year increase, so they weren’t making more than $4B/year from advertising before Musk took over. Their advance sales were bad for next year because of the potential of the Musk takeover, and big accounts have backed out, and big agencies publicly advised clients to back out of the platform, based on what has gone on since the takeover.

esoterica 4y ago

I mean he was the one that saddled Twitter with a billion dollars in LBO debt. Most successes and failures have many contributors but this particular spot of trouble Twitter is literally just 100% his own doing.

bottlepalm 4y ago
I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. Success or failure are yet to be seen. Their current revenue is more than enough to service the debt, but really all this restructuring is about making the company leaner and more competitive. If the valuation goes up then the debt quickly becomes a non-issue.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. It wasn't. He structured the acquisition such that Twitter took on substantial new debt rather than providing the funds himself. Was it a good move? Honestly I'm not savvy's enough about this kind of thing to say, but it definitely wasn't the only move. A substantial part of Twitter's net loss is because he chose to saddle it with new debt.