4 ms·

My impression was that he bought Twitter for the reasons you say, but failed to predict the dip in the market that followed it. If Twitter stock hadn't sunken

My impression was that he bought Twitter for the reasons you say, but failed to predict the dip in the market that followed it. If Twitter stock hadn't sunken immediately like a stone, he probably would have pulled it off, too, even after the signing the agreement. If indeed the Twitter deal was manipulation to leave poorer investors holding the Tesla bag, it's hard to feel sorry for him.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 3y ago
It seems like loading Twitter up with debt servicing was always a bad idea, stock dip or not, considering what its revenues were like. It wasn't in great shape before but the amount of money it now has to spend servicing debt is a nightmare for anyone trying to make that company profitable. His strategy for buying it simply doesn't make sense.
- fundad 3y ago
  I think the influence is more important than revenue
- Beldin 3y ago
  Not if the endgoal is to arrive at a profitable version of Twitter, no. So maybe that's not the goal. Or maybe it is but the CEO is vastly more incompetent than those underwriting his bid anticipated.