Twitter takeover battle: Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey turn up pressure on board(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Twitter takeover battle: Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey turn up pressure on board
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2022/04/17/twitter-takeover-musk-dorsey-board-tweets/
398 comments
The entire board ex-Jack owns a little more than 1% of Twitter. It sure sounds like their interests are not well-aligned with those of the company owners.
> But even an unintended or informal campaign by two of the most important players in this battle—who reach a combined 90 million people on Twitter
That's some lazy journalism. They just added the two follower accounts and then rounded up by 1M. My guess is there is a big overlap between the two groups followers (and it should be noted that Musk has 82.4M of those ~90)
That's some lazy journalism. They just added the two follower accounts and then rounded up by 1M. My guess is there is a big overlap between the two groups followers (and it should be noted that Musk has 82.4M of those ~90)
Dumb legal question:
Why can a poison pill dilute away a single shareholder’s stake, but doing some scheme where 51% of the shareholders dilute away the stake of the remaining 49% is illegal?
Why can a poison pill dilute away a single shareholder’s stake, but doing some scheme where 51% of the shareholders dilute away the stake of the remaining 49% is illegal?
>(In Musk’s mind, if they were large shareholders, they wouldn’t be able to mistake the great offer he’s made for the business.)
Apparently Forbes now deals in parapsychology. Interesting field for them to branch out into.
Apparently Forbes now deals in parapsychology. Interesting field for them to branch out into.
[deleted]
Taking into account Elon Musk is limited in the amount of stock he can sell from Tesla, the first conclusion is he does not have the money to buy Twitter.
The offer:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...
mentions all cash. 43 billion in cash is a lot of dow, but the offer does not specify where the money is coming from.
Are frivolous purchase offers also subject to possible lawsuits, or should I get my buddies together, and also make an offer for Twitter?
"Twitter board gets an 'F' for dealing with Elon Musk: former SEC chairman"
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-board-gets-an-f-for-d...
The offer:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...
mentions all cash. 43 billion in cash is a lot of dow, but the offer does not specify where the money is coming from.
Are frivolous purchase offers also subject to possible lawsuits, or should I get my buddies together, and also make an offer for Twitter?
"Twitter board gets an 'F' for dealing with Elon Musk: former SEC chairman"
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-board-gets-an-f-for-d...
What does Musk have in mind for Twitter? All speculation I have seen has been about free speech issues and similar. But can it be that he sees some kind of cross-pollination opportunities with his other companies? It has been his trademark, to use SpaceX to launch Starlink satellites, or put a Tesla on top of a rocket like a marketing stunt, etc. What can he do with Twitter once he controls it, in relationship to his other companies.
I'm guessing the board will have spoken to most large shareholders and they've indicated that they don't want to accept Musks Bid.
I don't think any large share holder has come out publicly in favour. It's below the price Twitter was most of last year and if they agree that Twitter has economic potential selling isn't in their interest.
https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/151461595698675712...
Ironically, a way that Musk could get support is by offering to let some large share holders retain their ownership (and screw the retail investors). But he's said he "doesn't care about the economics at all" - which isn't going to impress many investment funds.
I don't think any large share holder has come out publicly in favour. It's below the price Twitter was most of last year and if they agree that Twitter has economic potential selling isn't in their interest.
https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/151461595698675712...
Ironically, a way that Musk could get support is by offering to let some large share holders retain their ownership (and screw the retail investors). But he's said he "doesn't care about the economics at all" - which isn't going to impress many investment funds.
I find it hilarious that Dorsey acts like this hands were tied the entire time.
I guess you would say that about the board that forced you out.
Yup. Twitter's board kept a (nominally) 1/2 time CEO at the helm while Twitter floundered. Sadly, @jack's parting dig is equally true and useless. Tell us something we didn't know.
Which current board members were there during the earlier drama that Dorsey is referencing? There are probably just a few that he’s really talking about, the rest are just a rotating cast.
[deleted]
Jack will be most dominant opinion setter in this episode. This is sounding more like he is siding with Musk.
Musk will buy Twitter, destroy it, and lose a lot of money.
And we'll all be better off for it.
And we'll all be better off for it.
Another way out of this mess is to sell to a chinese buyer. They may censor anyone who is critical of china, but at least they ll treat left and right equally bad.
Just realized Fei Fei Li is on the twitter board. What in the world could this person contribute? Is she some 0.1% socialite? How useless.
Wow, I find Jack Dorsey's conduct in this highly questionable. He left (or was he asked to leave?) as the CEO and is now trying to topple the current management.
If he was so much in favor of this, why did he not do this while he was the CEO, which was till a few weeks ago.
If he was so much in favor of this, why did he not do this while he was the CEO, which was till a few weeks ago.
This is such a bullshit argument unless Dorsey thinks he himself was the reason Twitter sucked, because the Twitter board had him running the company for most of the last few years where Twitter went from becoming the center of conversation to a universally agreed blot on humanity.
It seems to me like share-holder ownership is pretty incapable of dealing with the complexities of being such a global and influential platform. The plutocratic model of 1 share 1 vote and financialization of what is pretty much seen and used as a public service really gets in the way of turning the platform into something that could be truly useful for humanity.
I think we are very much due on a change of paradigm when it comes to these sort of services. What is it that twitter users want, what do governments want (many politicians use twitter as an official means of communication), what do workers of the platform want? All of these stakeholders should have a say in what is done with twitter.
To me, saying "the board is at fault" and thinking it could be better as a privately owned corporation is also missing the target. Of course, I think these tech billionaires think they can make better decisions for everyone and so to them it is obvious that a truly public form of ownership would be a mistake. It's the benevolent dictator story.
To finalise, it would be interesting to see an exploration on technologies that could help stake-ownership management so that we can have firms that are capable of making decisions that make people happier and societies a better place.