Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Well, then I agree, he didn't do his pre-offer due diligence.

Twitter is making up their numbers. Outside reviewers estimate the number of bots at around 20%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PR has a history of corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk is trying to drive down Twitter stock imo, trying to play with markets. I hope the SEC kicks him again

Musk is SUCCEEDING in driving down the stock price. It's 100% manipulation and he should be prosecuted.

Yes, this seems like a Musk ploy to drive twitter value down. twitter should sue him and SEC should prosecute Musk.

Why though? He owns 10% of the company. If he didn't want to acquire it (and therefore force the price down for a cheaper buy) - to what purpose?

so he an buy it cheaper, of course

Isn’t he obliged to pay the price he agreed on earlier?

there are likely contingencies in the contract if three stock price falls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PR has a history of corruption.

Not the PP who posted the Tweets, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at. PR's governance problems has no bearing on the maintenance issues associated with energy storage technology.

Musk has an excellent knack for developing and scaling cutting-edge technologies, often in ways that completely reshape entire industries. That doesn't mean he knows how to solve societal problems well. Time and again, he has demonstrated that he lacks the understanding of the nuances of social structures and practical limitations on the ground to deploy technology in targeted ways to solve concrete problems. That's NBD, frankly, because his record is a tech entrepreneur speaks for itself. The problem is that he tries to get involved in societal problems, and everyone else blindly follows him. I don't trust him to "fix free speech" or whatever the heck he thinks he's going to do with Twitter. If his goal was building a better social media platform, I think he could do it. But if his goal is to fix public discourse, well...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Well, then I agree, he didn't do his pre-offer due diligence.

Twitter is making up their numbers. Outside reviewers estimate the number of bots at around 20%

Source to substantiate this claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Well, then I agree, he didn't do his pre-offer due diligence.

Twitter is making up their numbers. Outside reviewers estimate the number of bots at around 20%

So your position is that Twitter has been committing securities fraud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Well, then I agree, he didn't do his pre-offer due diligence.

Twitter is making up their numbers. Outside reviewers estimate the number of bots at around 20%

So your position is that Twitter has been committing securities fraud?

Also it doesn’t matter since Musk waived due diligence.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-44-billion-twitter-deal-hold-2022-05-13/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk is trying to drive down Twitter stock imo, trying to play with markets. I hope the SEC kicks him again

Musk is SUCCEEDING in driving down the stock price. It's 100% manipulation and he should be prosecuted.

Yes, this seems like a Musk ploy to drive twitter value down. twitter should sue him and SEC should prosecute Musk.

Why though? He owns 10% of the company. If he didn't want to acquire it (and therefore force the price down for a cheaper buy) - to what purpose?

so he an buy it cheaper, of course

Voila

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Well, then I agree, he didn't do his pre-offer due diligence.

Twitter is making up their numbers. Outside reviewers estimate the number of bots at around 20%

He waived any due diligence as a condition of the agreement. If he breaks up for almost any reason he owes Twitter $1 billion cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk is trying to drive down Twitter stock imo, trying to play with markets. I hope the SEC kicks him again

Musk is SUCCEEDING in driving down the stock price. It's 100% manipulation and he should be prosecuted.

Yes, this seems like a Musk ploy to drive twitter value down. twitter should sue him and SEC should prosecute Musk.

Why though? He owns 10% of the company. If he didn't want to acquire it (and therefore force the price down for a cheaper buy) - to what purpose?

so he an buy it cheaper, of course

Voila

Twitter will slow play this. Give him what he asks for. Not agree to a lower price but negotiate like they may. Deadlines will come and he will back out and twitter will have what it needs to reject the deal and collect $1 billion cash. While that sounds like a windfall, They likely will have spent 500 million on this deal by that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk is trying to drive down Twitter stock imo, trying to play with markets. I hope the SEC kicks him again

Musk is SUCCEEDING in driving down the stock price. It's 100% manipulation and he should be prosecuted.

Yes, this seems like a Musk ploy to drive twitter value down. twitter should sue him and SEC should prosecute Musk.

Why though? He owns 10% of the company. If he didn't want to acquire it (and therefore force the price down for a cheaper buy) - to what purpose?

so he an buy it cheaper, of course

Isn’t he obliged to pay the price he agreed on earlier?

Yes unless renegotiated or if there is an out in the deal. He can not do deal but there really should be no way to get out without paying the breakup fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk is trying to drive down Twitter stock imo, trying to play with markets. I hope the SEC kicks him again

Musk is SUCCEEDING in driving down the stock price. It's 100% manipulation and he should be prosecuted.

Yes, this seems like a Musk ploy to drive twitter value down. twitter should sue him and SEC should prosecute Musk.

Why though? He owns 10% of the company. If he didn't want to acquire it (and therefore force the price down for a cheaper buy) - to what purpose?

so he an buy it cheaper, of course

Isn’t he obliged to pay the price he agreed on earlier?

Yes unless renegotiated or if there is an out in the deal. He can not do deal but there really should be no way to get out without paying the breakup fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Temporarily on hold” as Elon discovers Twitter might have spam accounts

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold

More like as Musk finds out he might have been wrong about Twitter being flooded with spam bot accounts. Part of his grand plan for revolutionizing Twitter was premised on the notion of getting rid of all of the bot accounts, so finding out that less than 5% of accounts are bot account threw a wrench in that.

Didn’t he do basic due diligence?

Is the % of spam bot accounts listed in financial or other compliance reporting? If not, how was this information available for review? In M&A, due diligence happens right about now, after an offer is made and there is a good likelihood of agreement.

Twitter had disclosed this <5% estimate is prior public filings. Reviewing a potential target’s public filings is pretty basic pre-offer due diligence.

Yeah, this number is not at all new.

+1 To paraphrase a PP, he already saw the cracked window during the showing and is using the report about it after the home inspection contingency to get out of the deal anyway.

Stretching this metaphor a bit further, he also can’t drive a car into the house and then declare that it’s not worth what he was already contracted to pay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/08/musk-bots-on-twitter/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PR has a history of corruption.

Not the PP who posted the Tweets, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at. PR's governance problems has no bearing on the maintenance issues associated with energy storage technology.

Musk has an excellent knack for developing and scaling cutting-edge technologies, often in ways that completely reshape entire industries. That doesn't mean he knows how to solve societal problems well. Time and again, he has demonstrated that he lacks the understanding of the nuances of social structures and practical limitations on the ground to deploy technology in targeted ways to solve concrete problems. That's NBD, frankly, because his record is a tech entrepreneur speaks for itself. The problem is that he tries to get involved in societal problems, and everyone else blindly follows him. I don't trust him to "fix free speech" or whatever the heck he thinks he's going to do with Twitter. If his goal was building a better social media platform, I think he could do it. But if his goal is to fix public discourse, well...

Google the warehouse full of water and other relief supplies in Puerto Rico that the government there just "forgot" about. There is no money in things that function well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PR has a history of corruption.

Not the PP who posted the Tweets, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at. PR's governance problems has no bearing on the maintenance issues associated with energy storage technology.

Musk has an excellent knack for developing and scaling cutting-edge technologies, often in ways that completely reshape entire industries. That doesn't mean he knows how to solve societal problems well. Time and again, he has demonstrated that he lacks the understanding of the nuances of social structures and practical limitations on the ground to deploy technology in targeted ways to solve concrete problems. That's NBD, frankly, because his record is a tech entrepreneur speaks for itself. The problem is that he tries to get involved in societal problems, and everyone else blindly follows him. I don't trust him to "fix free speech" or whatever the heck he thinks he's going to do with Twitter. If his goal was building a better social media platform, I think he could do it. But if his goal is to fix public discourse, well...

Google the warehouse full of water and other relief supplies in Puerto Rico that the government there just "forgot" about. There is no money in things that function well.

You’re making PP’s point, which was that Musk thinks and says he can solve big societal problems but he can’t.