So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079423#Comment_119079423

If that's his intention he is into market manipulation. That has huge risks for him. The US is one place where if the catch you at that you go to jail for a long time.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079423#Comment_119079423

The downside for him is that the SEC punish him for Market manipulation which is what he is doing by sharing all this information publicly.

Now , the SEC are fair toothless in terms of being able to actually hurt someone of Musks wealth , but they could absolutely refuse to approve the deal , which may actually be what Musk really wants to happen - Because the SEC fines will be less than a billion that's for sure..

Bottom line - Musk isn't going to be buying Twitter for $43B as it currently stands , he's trying to manipulate the market to negotiate a lower price , but he's likely not going to get away with it , so he'll probably just back out and take the $1B hit (he's probably already got that covered on his original Twitter investment anyway)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079456#Comment_119079456

Inaccurate SEC filings affecting stock price and thus sale price could also be deemed as market manipulation, no? None of it is clear cut.

This is the very highest end of corporate finance and all I'm trying to do here is show that anyone thinking "hurr durr Musk is so stupid he just walked into the biggest personal deal in history without thinking or referring to his advisors" might not be fully clued into how this works.

I've only operated a business on the tiniest scale and even then it took weeks of back and forth to hammer out the clauses that allowed either business to walk away. I really have to just roll my eyes at people who think none of that has taken place.

Twitter is the one in peril here. Musk would be fine if lost one billion. Twitter would be sued etc. for losing a deal 44x times that. They're the ones who have to be careful of what court room they walk into.

An obvious assumption would be that the price agreed was based on a share price on a particular date and any public information available at that point. That just seems like an obvious clause to include.

So if Musk thinks he can fight that initial stock price which led to his offer price, then there is leverage to renegotiate.

etc. etc.

Dyr

I've DM'ed Musky a link to this thread just to give him a heads up on where he's going wrong. Can't believe he didn't check in with the lads on here before sticking a bid in on Twitter.

Cordell

:|

I have this feeling we're about to be hit with the idea of fake users and bots on Twitter being a conspiracy theory. Like 5% maybe but if you think it's more than that, you're an idiot.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079629#Comment_119079629

Nope, I'd say it's pretty likely that there's a high amount of bots. However I do think this is more likely to be Musk finding an excuse to get out of the deal....

Cordell

Why would he need an excuse to get out of a deal in which he entered willingly?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079656#Comment_119079656

If it turns out to be a valid excuse and he walks away, that's his prerogative. Everyone said he was stupid for doing the deal and now everyone is mocking him for walking away from the same deal except worse.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079718#Comment_119079718

People are not mocking him for walking away. Rather they are pointing out that it was unlikely he can finance the deal. He is therefore now looking at excuses to exit it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079753#Comment_119079753

My understanding is that he proved he had the financing which is why Twitter had to look at it seriously?

And honestly, we don't know what he wants. Maybe he actually hates Twitter and wanted to expose this stuff under the guise of a takeover. Maybe he got bored. Maybe he is genuinely surprised at the data and either wants out because of it or wants it cheaper. Maybe he still wants it and is simply doing this to get it cheaper.

Whatever it is, it's a bit reductive to just do what everyone is doing. The media is playing to it because anti-Musk stuff is the new hot way of getting clicks. He'll be branded an idiot for losing a billion in a failed business deal after making 200bn+ over the last few decades. People will buy into this because it makes them feel warm inside.

Or he won't lose a billion. Who knows. I still think a court case hinges on Twitter's willingness to open itself up in court. If it comes out for example that they've known their bots and fake user numbers have been higher for years, they basically can't take Musk to court.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079629#Comment_119079629

I think 5% was always likely to be far too low.

The company that did the analysis for the Biden account reckon that the actual number is somewhere around 20% overall , but obviously high profile accounts are going to attract significantly more bots etc. than regular people.

It should also be pointed out that not all bots are inherently bad - Lots of companies have bots that track people talking about their company so they can pick up on complaints etc. and the initial response might be a bot saying "Sorry you had a bad experience , send us a DM and we can help" or whatever.

I'd say the vast majority of "bad" bots are following or replying to the very large high profile accounts as that's where the opportunities to generate Ad revenue from clicks etc. are at their highest.

If you have 500 followers they are probably all real , if you have 5M followers then a decent chunk of them are bots.

It might not be 20% overall but I'd certainly think that it's a lot closer to 20% than it is to 5%

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079800#Comment_119079800

He has the finances to buy Twitter, however a lot of that relates to selling or leveraging existing stock in Tesla and his other companies, and that alone affected the share prices of same. I think I also read that it could trigger existing loans and would mean having to pay some of those off earlier.

I think he's been pulling in as many other investors into the Twitter deal as he can to reduce the amount it would cost him or reduce the impact on his existing stock/loans, while also trying to lower the value of Twitter shares in order to renegotiate the price, however trying to find a way to get out of the Twitter deal and even sacrificing 1bn to do so might end up being the lesser of two evils. I'm sure he'd still try to claim some sort of moral victory in "exposing" Twitter or some such.

It will be interesting to see what happens here. If the Twitter board goes with this idea that he has given away due diligence to get the deal done, but by then not sharing the data, theoretically scuppers the deal, are they open to being sued by the shareholders? Is keeping that data private in the best interests of the shareholders? Is Musk intentionally putting them into this spot because he knows he can force their hand, regardless of the due diligence thing?

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079832#Comment_119079832

Would be very interesting to know the average amount of tweets each bots is responsible for - are they just accounts set up to mine data or do they post themselves?

Last year a study came out showing that 25% of users produce 97% of all tweets, so its not like twitter opinions were ever representative of the population anywhere. But if any of that 25% of users are actually bots it means that bots could be responsible for a sizeable amount of twitter trends. Not good news for advertisers anyways

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/new-study-shows-that-25-of-twitter-users-produce-97-of-all-tweets/610146/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080035#Comment_119080035

Indeed. Some of the most prolific Brexit posters on Twitter sound like bots. It's not just about how many there are.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080023#Comment_119080023

Again, just from what I've read the number of bots they report is based on small samples done internally, but they note in their filings that it's just a sample and the results may not be accurate. Unless it could be proven that they're wilfully misleading or changing the results (which is something Musk would have to prove), it's not going to be enough to change the deal. He also didn't request any non-public data on it while negotiating the deal which means he also can't use it to now pull out of the deal.

For its part, Twitter has said in its regulatory filings that it applied "significant judgment" in coming up with the estimate and has cautioned that its disclosure may not accurately represent the actual number of spam accounts.

It is these disclaimers that give Twitter protection against potential lawsuits, be they from Musk over the deal or shareholders over the accuracy of the company's regulatory statements, four securities law experts interviewed by Reuters said.

Even if Twitter's estimate is off, a plaintiff would have to show that the San Francisco-based company was seeking to willfully mislead investors -- a tall order to prove in court. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. regulator which oversees the disclosures of publicly listed companies, would have a hard time doing so for the same reasons, the experts said.

"It would be difficult to establish the basis for either an SEC enforcement case or a shareholders action, unless it could be shown that Twitter deliberately or recklessly disregarded information that would show that its spam estimates were misleading," said law firm Moses & Singer partner Howard Fischer.

Musk can't force their hand on any of it. He's already agreed to the deal. They may renegotiate the price to avoid prolonging the deal, but Twitter could also sue him to force the deal through and seek a settlement from him. The fact that Musk badmouthing the company publicly which is affecting the share price (which Musk would use to renegotiate the deal) likely breaches non-disparagement clauses in the deal too, which could leave him liable to SEC fines/judgements as well as being sued by Twitter shareholders.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080117#Comment_119080117

Right, but holding Musk accoutable won't particularly help the Twitter shareholders if the deal falls through.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080191#Comment_119080191

This deal is dead in the water I think. It's immaterial to Twitter shareholders. I think he would need a bargain basement price to buy Twitter. He would probably need a mid thirties billion price which is 20%+ off present bid

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080191#Comment_119080191

Won't exactly help them to tank the share price right before they are sold either.

They accepted the price at the point Elon offered it. I have seen nothing to suggest they would have accepted a lower price which Elon seems to be trying to get. If Elon is only interested in twitter at a lower price and the 44 billion was smoke then stockholders might be happy to have the deal fall through rather then settle for a lower amount.

As for twitter getting sued for the deal falling through, they will have a mountain of evidence that they didn't let anything fall through and that the deal was never going through on Musk's side.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119080191#Comment_119080191

Share prices will likely stabilise or go back approximately to where they were, and the shareholders would get part of the 1bn Musk would have to payout from the deal as well as whatever else they could potentially sue him for.

Overall after some time they'd most likely break even at the least and be back to where they were before Musk started buying shares.

riclad

He's saying now he wants to find out how many bots are on twitter , share s on tesla and twitter are down, if he doesn't buy it he ll have to pay 1 billion dollars fee. Either he does not want to buy it or else he wants to pay less than the agreed price. Twitter has to follow laws in the EU about not hosting harmful content. I think he, ll just allow more Conservative trolls on twitter, there's no social media app that allows all content as that would just mean it's full of spam bots and Qanon weird fake news. Every website has to have some level of content moderation. It ll cost him more to finance the deal as the value of tesla shares has fallen he's intelligent but he, s also anti Union and he likes to post tweets that are trolling or ridiculous. Some of his comments about moderation are not logical we, ll get rid of spam and bad content promote good content

the laws in regard to content moderation vary depending on what country you are in and what is acceptable to various society's

Amadan Dubh

I don't understand the point about him allowing Trump back on the platform. The Twitter as we know it platformed Trump for years, fostering the rise in more acceptable extreme views. Are people that devoid of memory to think that twitter as it is now is any better than it will be with Musk taking it private? The whole platform is utterly toxic and I can't get over the amount of people that use it who should know better than to use it. Politicians, journalists, academics etc taking it seriously as if it is a genuine town square for serious discussion on real world issues.

Tony EH

What do you mean "taking it private". It's always been private. It's been a privately owned platform since its inception.

On your other point, yes it's a thoroughly "toxic" arena and a completely dreadful place. One where people just shout things into the void.

Why it is so important to some folk remains the real mystery.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083505#Comment_119083505

It's been publicly owned for nearly a decade.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083548#Comment_119083548

Shareholders.

It's still a private company though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083566#Comment_119083566

Musk couldn't take over a private company. Tesla and Twitter are public while SpaceX is private.

Are you genuinely ignorant of this topic and think public means state-owned?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083569#Comment_119083569

I have shares in in several companies. Doesn't mean I get a say in how they are run.

"public" "private" in company terms doesn't really mean much.

Twitter being "publicly owned" doesn't mean that the actual public have any real say.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083570#Comment_119083570

Most people at least find a hill to die on. You've chosen to stand in a puddle here.

We've just a whole conversation here about the board's obligations to shareholders and we were able to do that because of your absence. You don't even understand what it means so how could you even talk about it.

So we're back now to the lowest common denominator of conversation which is this imported proud ignorance of the topic at hand as long as you care enough and display enough anger. Twitter is not a private company and reducing the conversation to that debate is frankly disrespectful to everyone's time.

Tony EH

I'm not looking for a hill to "die" on or a puddle to "stand" in.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083575#Comment_119083575

Twitter is a publicly limited company, its uses the letters Inc after it name in the US. This means it's incorporated. It has to file published accounts.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plc.asp

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083570#Comment_119083570

A public company is one who's stock is traded on a stock exchange, and therefore has responsibilities to its stockholders as well as specific regulatory duties and requirements - that's a legal definition that's used throughout the world, it's not just a colloquialism. It doesn't mean that the general public have a say in how it's run. Public and private mean a great deal in terms of company ownership. I think you're maybe confusing a public company with a state or nationalised company (owned by the state, and therefore ultimately the people)? Or maybe not.

If you do own shares in several companies, then you will have been invited to AGMs and EGMs, where your shares will count as so many votes on matters to do with the company's governance. This is your say in how they're run. Of course, you have so few shares, your voice is completely insignificant. At least I hope you have so few shares - a significant shareholder that doesn't know what a public company is would be somewhat worrying.

Tony EH

Sure.

There seems, however, to be some people who think that if or when Musk pulls the trigger on this that Twitter is going to be radically transformed or something. I don't think that this is going to be the case.

In fact, I don't see any real differences happening to the platform no matter who is in control of it. Whether it's publicly floated or whether it's not. And reading Amadan Dubh's post again, neither does he.

And no, while I have shares in several companies I don't own enough to have any real say in how any of them are actually run. It would be very small time.

AndrewJRenko

The limitations on Musk's enthusiasm for free speech are starting to emerge.

https://twitter.com/LakotaMan1/status/1527445379381243905?t=1IDvggD0egN8O9de7_wymA&s=19

Looks like Tesla shares are down about 30% since he started all this. Has he tipped himself over the edge?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088096#Comment_119088096

Have a look and the Ford and GM share price over the same time period

newhouse87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088096#Comment_119088096

You believe every accusation made against a person?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088096#Comment_119088096

Oh no...anyway, he can show his mick and give me a quarter million anytime. I won't come out years later to ask for more.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1375033483148451842?s=20&t=4OnGD-925GwawP23ZcUYvQ

RobbieTheRobber

The simping for elon musk in this thread is gas altogether.

Now a poster is talking up being sexually harassed by musk as a positive.

Really classy.

Cordell

What has the world come to, right? Well, I suppose in a country that has a president that can't control his hair sniffing fetish in public, even when it's around little girls, Elon is quite alright.

RobbieTheRobber

African immigrant accused of sexual harassment and Cordell thinks its a joke.

Oh right he is not a black african immigrant. Now i understand why he is ok with it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088142#Comment_119088142

The level of your worship of him is getting a little bit weird at this stage... It sounds a bit like he a blackballed her in SpaceX when she refused. But I'm sure you'll praise that too.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088144#Comment_119088144

Theres more love for him here than he got from Grimes.

Also more interesting is his timing to declare himself a Republican.... The story was clearly in the works for a while but now he's trying to claim it was politically motivated. So now he just makes this into another performance on social media.

AndrewJRenko

What could possibly go wrong?

https://twitter.com/duty2warn/status/1527341365142573064?s=21&t=DswmwCRZdgm7rmxje8b0WA

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088837#Comment_119088837

He was asked for a response to the story yesterday, and he asked for more time to respond.

Five hours later he made that tweet, and no doubt a load of his sycophants think he's some kind of megabrain who can nearly see the future.

He's seeking refuge in the kind of people who have no real problem with any kind of sexual misconduct or assault because he knows his reputation with regular decent people is now in the toilet.

Very clearly the allegation is 100% true or he wouldn't be off doing a Trump on it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088915#Comment_119088915

Also I'm guessing he knew about that story for a while.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088921#Comment_119088921

Probably since 2016 😄

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119058126#Comment_119058126

Try breaching this forum charter, as an experiment in free speech?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/20/elon-musk-denies-he-sexually-harassed-attendant-on-private-jet-in-2016?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

…wouldn’t have anything to do with this?