1121
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1121 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
1593 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
it's just that he could take big risks (not even a smart one) in investment because he didn't care about the money, he has so much that he can never lose it all, so of course if you can invest blindly you'll for sure win at some point
yes, that is definitely part of his success. and since this strategy got him to position of richest person in the world, it is pretty clear that "genius at losing money" is not really accurate description of situation.
as for twitter, he clearly is not in it for the money, otherwise he wouldn't be there to begin with. he originally hoped to buy position of cheered and admired hero and when he failed, he settled for a position of hated douchebag. infamous still means people know you, i guess 🤷♂️
It would appear that he didn't want to buy Twitter and was literally forced to do so. I think for him Twitter is a temper tantrum. He didn't get what he wanted so he's destroying everything around him as a result.
More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn't just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal (with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash).
I don't know that he's not in it for the money. I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn't have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).
that's how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash
that doesn't make sense, destroying twitter doesn't absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.
This is just conjecture though. I do think he originally did not intend to buy Twitter. I do think he was essentially forced to buy it. I know from news articles around the time of the sale that he gave significant pushback when relevant parties forced the issue. Things may very well have changed after he became the owner (and what deals he made to be able to afford it may never be known).
he was, but it doesn't contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn't generate profit.
Yeah, but he didn't pay $44Bn out of his own pocket.
he did. the fact he had to borrow the cash is irrelevant, he now owes someone 44B.
If I take out a loan to buy a home, I don't own the home outright. The creditor owns the home until I pay off the debt. I'm likening the situations because I want to make it clear that he didn't put in his own money to buy it.
yeah, guess what, this is not your average home mortgage :D it is more complicated, but short story is yes, musk paid with his own money and money backed by his other property.
and no matter what, it still doesn't explain this nonsense you said:
not sure where this absurd idea of yours comes from, but it is still nonsense. no matter where he borrowed the money from, he has to return them, even if he drowns the twitter in gasoline and then set it on fire.
On April 20, Musk disclosed that he had secured financing provided by a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Société Générale, Mizuho Bank, and BNP Paribas, for a potential tender offer to acquire the company.[27][28] The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.[29][30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk
Okay, this is a lot in a very small window, but we know a couple of things. The first is that Musk's wealth is mostly tied to Tesla stock which is tied directly to the vastly over-inflated valuation of Tesla at 800Bn.
We also know that to get access to liquidity of funds he had to borrow money or sell Tesla stock. We know that when he sells Tesla stock, he ends up causing that stock price to fall significantly and that it's only a matter of time before investors actually pull the plug on that because it costs them money/devalues their stake.
We also know that most of his outside lenders for the buy-up of twitter are from countries that want to deliberately stop the flow of new ideas and information. There's no reason to assume that degrading Twitter the way he has been doesn't give them what they want. Therefore I based my assumption simply on the idea that if they are receiving something quid pro for their help, they may not call in the debt, nor care about the overall health of the platform on a business or user level. In fact, that's one of the only ways that the deal even makes sense given what we have seen.
Musk does care though because he took on the company's debt when he bought the company. Meaning if it crashes and burns and is considered insolvent he won't be responsible for the debt he took on when he bought it (not debt owed to outside lenders, but the debt he was required to take on through banks/finace brokers).
"The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk's controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.
The main reason Twitter has a revenue gap is that Musk saddled it with $13bn of debt with his leveraged buyout. The business isn't just failing because of Musk's management since then, it's failing because that was the purpose derived from the purchase."
The thing is as the company and CEO continue to make bad decisions that cost revenue, it will be better to not have to pay back lenders where he can. And you'll note that while he's been dodging payments to almost everyone else, he's been paying back that 13Bn like clockwork. The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts. (This is similar to the plot of The Producers here. Make a product so bad that it doesn't make any money and the investors don't get the dividends because no money was made).
When you consider how little of the money is borrowed from outside interests (7Bn approximately) verses from his own other companies you realize that this is literally a house of cards he's built. One of the few ways to get out from under a house of cards kind of scenario is to file for bankruptcy.
One of the few downfalls of filing for bankruptcy is that he'd lose control of Twitter, and that it would be a very public dent in the armor of his supposed high profile businessman persona.
But if he wanted to devalue it to make it not worth what he paid for it, it's a double win of making it useless in the event that it's no longer in his control, and not having to pay back a lot of the debts.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-will-elon-musk-pay-twitter-2022-10-07/
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-twitter-files-for-bankruptcy-elon-musk-2022-12
why would you think that? most of the money were his loans, not some 3rd party investors. why tf would he not have to pay back?
If he files for bankruptcy. Did you read the articles?
twitter filing for bankruptcy doesn't absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk's, not twitter's.
https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/154769/musk-bought-twitter-with-13b-loans-why-is-twitter-liable-for-this-debt-rath
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money
Twitter is responsible for that debt. Not Musk. That's because of the way the agreement for the loan was structured. That's why he would lose control of the company if they file for bankruptcy.
ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.
but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.
Insider trading is illegal. Tax fraud is illegal. There's lots of things in the business world that have been deemed illegal including the theft of ideas that are trademarked, copyrighted or patented and businessmen steal those all the time and spend a lot of time looking for loopholes. The bottom line is that I can't say with 100% certainty that this is exactly what's going on but I can point to articles with analysis of the entire thing and see some distinct possibilities, and you can't say for certain that that's not what's going on, unless you happen to work in the field and have information that I don't.
The other parts of the acquisition are covered by his own companies and the sale of his own stock. With the right insurance (the right contracts) he'd get a golden parachute that would make him whole without having to pay those back either. Golden parachutes are not only legal but also quite normal for CEOs. If Twitter were to end up bankrupt, he may not have to pay back the money he borrowed from Tesla or his other companies, and that leaves him having to pay back just the private parties. Depending on their agreement, that may be in stock options for all we know. Further allowing him to dump Tesla stock without selling it (which won't effect Teslas valuation in a negative way).
A house of cards is a house of cards. Things being illegal have never stopped this man before.
Thank you