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

[Anonymous]

Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

[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...

Having worked in PR directly after recovery, what Musk did in PR was criminal. He installed a bunch of solar without consulting those who understand resilience. The panels were not able to withstand future weather events and the infrastructure, including trained techs, was not in place to maintain continued use. This promise of clean energy delayed actual energy sources from getting on the ground as his cronies ran around the island playing God. He isn't the only one but he is the one that sticks out...oh and Bloomberg should also join him in disaster management hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

You’re implying that this a break from normal for him. Not only is this normal for him, using a poop emoji to reply the CEO of the company you’re trying to buy during an ongoing negotiation, on a platform you’re negotiating for, is hilarious. I know it’s DC and everyone is uptight around here, but still…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

You’re implying that this a break from normal for him. Not only is this normal for him, using a poop emoji to reply the CEO of the company you’re trying to buy during an ongoing negotiation, on a platform you’re negotiating for, is hilarious. I know it’s DC and everyone is uptight around here, but still…

It's not hilarious. It's unhinged.

[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%

Source to substantiate this claim?

Here are sources that show the bot issue at Twitter. The articles show the problem is long-standing and probably by design.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

https://adage.com/article/digital/brands-worry-twitter-underestimates-impact-bots-ads/309665

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Source to substantiate this claim?

Here are sources that show the bot issue at Twitter. The articles show the problem is long-standing and probably by design.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

https://adage.com/article/digital/brands-worry-twitter-underestimates-impact-bots-ads/309665

This isn’t an out because Musk waived due diligence to make his hostile takeover offer more attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Source to substantiate this claim?

Here are sources that show the bot issue at Twitter. The articles show the problem is long-standing and probably by design.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

https://adage.com/article/digital/brands-worry-twitter-underestimates-impact-bots-ads/309665

This isn’t an out because Musk waived due diligence to make his hostile takeover offer more attractive.

NP. This is obviously an answer to the question about whether 20%+ of Twitters accounts are bots.

[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?

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

This should be illegal behavior. Driving down the value so he can get it for cheaper.

Does he have the funds to buy at the original price? Or he just wants a better deal? If Twitter just doesn’t give him the data and the price stays high, will he walk?

[Anonymous]

Twitter can really put the screws to Musk, if they try to force him to buy at the price he promised. If markets continue to decline, Twitter could force him to liquidate his collateral to finance and complete the transaction. Banks would issue margin calls on his other pledged shares if prices continue marching down. Some members of the bank syndicate in the Twitter deal could pull out and Musk would forced to arrange other financial partners or liquidate more TSLA shares to complete the Twitter transaction.

He has really backed himself into a corner, especially if Twitter goes to court to attempt to force him to complete the transaction.

A $1B break up fee will be cheap compared to the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

You’re implying that this a break from normal for him. Not only is this normal for him, using a poop emoji to reply the CEO of the company you’re trying to buy during an ongoing negotiation, on a platform you’re negotiating for, is hilarious. I know it’s DC and everyone is uptight around here, but still…

True, it could just be that Musk is back to tweeting on Ambien. Not sure that’s any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twitter can really put the screws to Musk, if they try to force him to buy at the price he promised. If markets continue to decline, Twitter could force him to liquidate his collateral to finance and complete the transaction. Banks would issue margin calls on his other pledged shares if prices continue marching down. Some members of the bank syndicate in the Twitter deal could pull out and Musk would forced to arrange other financial partners or liquidate more TSLA shares to complete the Twitter transaction.

He has really backed himself into a corner, especially if Twitter goes to court to attempt to force him to complete the transaction.

A $1B break up fee will be cheap compared to the alternative.

It probably ends up being a significantly higher cost to Musk if he backs out for something not covered by the break fee provision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

You’re implying that this a break from normal for him. Not only is this normal for him, using a poop emoji to reply the CEO of the company you’re trying to buy during an ongoing negotiation, on a platform you’re negotiating for, is hilarious. I know it’s DC and everyone is uptight around here, but still…

True, it could just be that Musk is back to tweeting on Ambien. Not sure that’s any better.

This is not a credible person. I really dont know what the board was thinking…whatever happened to that poison pill. If Musk backs out and the stock doesnt recover from this…they should get sued. This was a clown show as any business dealings w/ musk inevitability will be.

[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%

Source to substantiate this claim?

More like, what's their underlying data. It's all an estimate based on conjecture and assunptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Source to substantiate this claim?

Here are sources that show the bot issue at Twitter. The articles show the problem is long-standing and probably by design.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

https://adage.com/article/digital/brands-worry-twitter-underestimates-impact-bots-ads/309665

This isn’t an out because Musk waived due diligence to make his hostile takeover offer more attractive.

Not saying it’s an out or not. I’m saying Twitter lied that it’s under 5%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Musk is having some kind of psychological break.

You’re implying that this a break from normal for him. Not only is this normal for him, using a poop emoji to reply the CEO of the company you’re trying to buy during an ongoing negotiation, on a platform you’re negotiating for, is hilarious. I know it’s DC and everyone is uptight around here, but still…

It's not hilarious. It's unhinged.

+1
I think watching Trump and the GOP goons get rewarded for being like this convinced many that everyone should release their ids.