5 ms·

I really thought that the most logical explanation for his behavior was that his plan was always to destroy Twitter due to it being a haven for journalists and

by vba616 3y ago

I really thought that the most logical explanation for his behavior was that his plan was always to destroy Twitter due to it being a haven for journalists and activists that pester the rich and powerful. This seemed especially plausible considering his Saudi government co-investors, and thinking back to the destruction of Gawker as a precedent. The alternative that he really is trying to make it succeed and is hopelessly incompetent seemed untenable, but I also couldn't believe that his actions would make it succeed. $44 billion was an unreasonable amount to spend on the face of it, but ever since he capitulated in his court fight, I've been thinking what if it was a charade to manipulate the stock, and he or his associates defrayed a lot of the sticker price by trading on the knowledge that he would go through with the purchase? But now I admit I am starting to wonder if my theory was incorrect - maybe he really did want to do something with it that isn't working out. Or maybe he's just committed to the bit.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Not sure you can call an explanation logical if you haven't done quick math on how many billions were already sunk on Twitter (50+ at the lowest and 200+ if you consider opportunity costs) only for it to keep failing, and the unspoken incalculable hundreds of billions of damage to Saudis themselves as investors and Musk as CEO and co-owner of his companies.
- vba616 3y ago
  3rd para specifically addresses that. I agree that $44B is an unlikely amount to spend on simply destroying it. But (a) he didn't put up nearly that much cash himself, and (b) what if the net cost was much less? The whole farce of trying to get out of the contract depressed the stock, because everyone was thinking "he doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on, but does he know something we don't". It was intimidating to people who should've known better. And then he just folded and onlookers were confused. If he had bought stock options on TWTR, it's allegedly not insider trading to trade on your own intentions, so people say. Or, buddies of his who are outside SEC jurisdiction could've done it. How many times has he said he hates and disrespects the SEC? It all seems eminently in character to me. But as I wrote in my first comment, I'm feeling now more like it's a 50-50 coin flip between having a master plan to destroy Twitter and really being the feckless, manic owner he appears to be.

by vba616 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

Not sure you can call an explanation logical if you haven't done quick math on how many billions were already sunk on Twitter (50+ at the lowest and 200+ if you consider opportunity costs) only for it to keep failing, and the unspoken incalculable hundreds of billions of damage to Saudis themselves as investors and Musk as CEO and co-owner of his companies.

vba616 3y ago
3rd para specifically addresses that. I agree that $44B is an unlikely amount to spend on simply destroying it. But (a) he didn't put up nearly that much cash himself, and (b) what if the net cost was much less? The whole farce of trying to get out of the contract depressed the stock, because everyone was thinking "he doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on, but does he know something we don't". It was intimidating to people who should've known better. And then he just folded and onlookers were confused. If he had bought stock options on TWTR, it's allegedly not insider trading to trade on your own intentions, so people say. Or, buddies of his who are outside SEC jurisdiction could've done it. How many times has he said he hates and disrespects the SEC? It all seems eminently in character to me. But as I wrote in my first comment, I'm feeling now more like it's a 50-50 coin flip between having a master plan to destroy Twitter and really being the feckless, manic owner he appears to be.