5 ms·
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
by 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 ago3rd 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.