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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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

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?

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…

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

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...