4 ms·
Twitter wasn’t great, but it wasn’t a dumpster fire. I think the evidence is clear that the previous shareholders sold because Musk was (initially) prepared to
by zztop44 3y ago
Twitter wasn’t great, but it wasn’t a dumpster fire. I think the evidence is clear that the previous shareholders sold because Musk was (initially) prepared to massively overpay, not because they didn’t like the business. If they didn’t like the business they could have just sold their shares.
- lapcat 3y agoIt seems that many people have already forgotten the history of the aquisition. Twitter's board initially took a poison pill defense to stop Musk, but then Musk threatened a tender offer to bypass the board. Of course this was all before he tried to back out of the deal. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/technology/twitter-board-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/technology/twitter-board-...
- add-sub-mul-div 3y agoMaybe the shit show and specter of Musk's ownership dragged down the stock price such that at the beginning they didn't find his offer attractive, but later they couldn't say no?
- shkkmo 3y agoMaybe when you engage is random speculation you should at least try to check your facts? The stock price was 45.08 when Musk made his offer for twitter and 51.70 when the twitter board accepted it.
- lapcat 3y agoTwitter was at 77.63 in March 2021. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/stock-price-history https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/sto...
- shkkmo 3y agoHow is that relevant? that's a year before Musk made his offer.
- lapcat 3y agoIt's relevant because long-term investors may not have believed that $54 is the max value of the stock. If it was at $77 before, then why not again in the future?
- shkkmo 3y agoSo completely irrelevant to the claim that Musk's ownership bid "dragged down the price" which is clearly false. Of course some investors believed it was possible to hit $77 again, but the probability and timeframe of doing that apparently seemed worse than other available investments given the economic conditions that lead to that price in the first place. This is why the general consensus is that Musk overpaid for Twitter given the market conditions when he bought it.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y agoBut that would defeat the purpose of random speculation?
- shkkmo 3y agoWhich defeats the purpose of constructive discussion. Please source your claims rather than being lazy.
- zztop44 3y agoYes. The board of Twitter did not appear to want to be bought by Musk and refused his initial advances. But when it became clear he was serious and willing to commit legally to paying a premium for the company they could hardly say no. At first it seemed like maybe he was trolling.