Elon & Twitter

[bkp_duke]

That’s true. I was an early adopter and a shareholder. However, that’s just those investors who made money from the early days or mid to late mid period.

Going forward, the outlook for TSLA or Tesla as a company is uncertain. First mover advantage is not the only thing you can hang on to. Many first movers were not the ultimate winners.

Following things can go against Tesla:

1. If Electrify America and others get their stuff together and make a reliable, ubiquitous charging network
2. Make better ADAS than Tesla, even though this is not super important, as long as the system works well for freeways and interchanges
3. Offer better customer service

Rest of the stuff is likely better than Tesla in their current offerings.

1) have you used EA chargers? I have in areas where I could not supercharge (usually high desert). They are WOEFULLY inferior, and they haven't been improving either. Many are broken, sometimes they have "handshake" problems with the car, and placement is marginal.
2) FAR easier said than done
3) Dealership model? 86% of Americans in a recent survey ranked going to a dealership (even for service) as one of the most stressful events of their lives. Tesla's model clobbers this (although it could be improved).

Have you ever toured a car factory? Even Tesla's factories are light-years ahead of traditional auto. Case in point is how well Tesla makes use of 3-dimensional space.

 

[JRP3]

There ARE regulations that limit when a CEO can sell shares, but there NOT regulations that require CEOs to get shareholder approval to sell their shares.

It's pretty pompous of you to think you should have a say when someone else sells their personal property (and his shares are, by definition, personal property).

The CEO has a responsibility to the company and shareholders to do what's best for both. I have this crazy notion that dumping shares to buy a different company is not in the best interest of the company or the shareholders. Yes I'm allowed to have that opinion and express it, "pompous" as it may seem.

 

[bkp_duke]

The CEO has a responsibility to the company and shareholders to do what's best for both. I have this crazy notion that dumping shares to buy a different company is not in the best interest of the company or the shareholders. Yes I'm allowed to have that opinion and express it, "pompous" as it may seem.

It's just that, your view point, but NOT one that is aligned with the LAW.

 

[JRP3]

It's just that, your view point, but NOT one that is aligned with the LAW.

I don't think I mentioned the law anywhere. A CEO having the best interests of the company and shareholders doesn't need to be written into law anymore than breathing oxygen to survive, it's a reasonable assumption.

 

[ohmman]

Pompous, eh?

 

[bkp_duke]

I don't think I mentioned the law anywhere. A CEO having the best interests of the company and shareholders doesn't need to be written into law anymore than breathing oxygen to survive, it's a reasonable assumption.

By extrapolation, you could make the same argument about SpaceX - that it is a distraction for Elon against Tesla. And I'm sure SpaceX sucks down far more time than Twitter does (Elon himself said so). Fortunately, Elon has shown he's adept at multitasking and both these companies are freaking rock-stars because of it.

If you are so against the Twitter purchase, you can vote with your pocketbook. I will, by staying invested in TSLA. I just wish I had enough clout and $$$ to buy into the private Twitter.

 

[loquitur]

In my home town (and headquarters for Twitter), there's an intriguing article
in the local San Francisco Examiner about why there is much second-guessing
about the proposed acquisition by Musk and his buddies. It has to do with an
open-source side project spearheaded by Jack Dorsey called "Bluesky", and
how Musk's bid for Twitter does not necessarily gain control of that effort.

Bluesky is a "Twitter innovation lab" that proposes a solution to Twitter moderation
by using open source editing similar to that of Wikipedia. It is meant to be
scalable, but the project was declared to be an independent "public benefit"
company months ago before the recent flurry of activity.

Author Jeff Elder's take is that because Bluesky may not be included in Musk's (initial)
terms, Musk is trying to either back out or renegotiate. See, from May 20:

Did Elon Musk get played in the Twitter deal? - The San Francisco Examiner

The company’s innovations lab escaped his grasp

www.sfexaminer.com

 

[father_of_6]

I don't think I mentioned the law anywhere. A CEO having the best interests of the company and shareholders doesn't need to be written into law anymore than breathing oxygen to survive, it's a reasonable assumption.

I believe most CEOs have the the best interest of the shareholdER (singular) in mind. That shareholder being themselves.

 

[JRP3]

By extrapolation, you could make the same argument about SpaceX - that it is a distraction for Elon against Tesla. And I'm sure SpaceX sucks down far more time than Twitter does (Elon himself said so). Fortunately, Elon has shown he's adept at multitasking and both these companies are freaking rock-stars because of it.

Two differences, 1. I invested in Tesla knowing full well his interest in SpaceX and saw potential beneficial cross pollination
2. He didn't sell shares to buy SpaceX.

Similarly though after the fact his starting Boring Co and Neurallink seemed synergistic.

 

[CLK350]

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation - Revolver News

The Disinformation Industry is an influence operation against the American people. This career-girl from Stanford is the tip of the iceberg.

www.revolver.news

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation

" ..
It is not yet clear whether Elon Musk’s increasingly precarious play for Twitter will result in the restoration of free speech in the “global public square.” Successful or not, Elon’s brave move has clarified beyond any doubt the Regime’s fundamental hostility to free speech and dissent. Judging from the critical reactions from journalists, NGOs and Democrat politicians, you’d think the man were attempting to invade Poland rather than remove censorship on a social media platform.

Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in the Atlantic stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author. ../c'ed

 

[Crutonius]

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation - Revolver News

The Disinformation Industry is an influence operation against the American people. This career-girl from Stanford is the tip of the iceberg.

www.revolver.news

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation

View attachment 807904
" ..
It is not yet clear whether Elon Musk’s increasingly precarious play for Twitter will result in the restoration of free speech in the “global public square.” Successful or not, Elon’s brave move has clarified beyond any doubt the Regime’s fundamental hostility to free speech and dissent. Judging from the critical reactions from journalists, NGOs and Democrat politicians, you’d think the man were attempting to invade Poland rather than remove censorship on a social media platform.

Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in the Atlantic stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author. ../c'ed

Yeah... when you have the full backing of QAnon I think it's not unreasonable to raise some concerns over this man's behavior.

 

[Dave EV]

Yeah... when you have the full backing of QAnon I think it's not unreasonable to raise some concerns over this man's behavior.

LOL, good thing they squeezed Soros into the URL and article. Not a true right-wing conspiracy article without him.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation - Revolver News

The Disinformation Industry is an influence operation against the American people. This career-girl from Stanford is the tip of the iceberg.

www.revolver.news

Busted: Disinformation Operative Who Attacked Elon Musk’s Push for “Free Speech” Caught Red-Handed in Secret Influence Operation

View attachment 807904
" ..
It is not yet clear whether Elon Musk’s increasingly precarious play for Twitter will result in the restoration of free speech in the “global public square.” Successful or not, Elon’s brave move has clarified beyond any doubt the Regime’s fundamental hostility to free speech and dissent. Judging from the critical reactions from journalists, NGOs and Democrat politicians, you’d think the man were attempting to invade Poland rather than remove censorship on a social media platform.

Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in the Atlantic stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author. ../c'ed

Wow that's a lot of QAnon fun, with an interestingly open tactic to focus on personal attack against the author of an article vs it's content.

Speaking of content, The first tangible item in there is a broadside against the DHS's Disinformation Governance Board... which was created by Trump. Oops.

Stating that Twitter became a home for ISIS, QAnon and Covid Conspiracies is not disinformation... it's a simple fact.

I'm still trying to find where Soros will fit in with this. Is he secretly a Nazi officer, despite being jewish and having been like 11 at the time of WWII?

 

[mspohr]

Opinion | The Perils of Plutocratic Pettiness

Technology titans are missing that old adulation.

www.nytimes.com

The timing of this hard right turn by some tech aristocrats is remarkable given what’s happening in U.S. politics. It’s hard, for example, to imagine what kind of bubble Musk lives in that he could declare Democrats “the party of division and hate” at a time when Tucker Carlson, not a politician but still one of the most influential figures in the modern G.O.P., is devoting show after show to “replacement theory,” the claim that liberal elites are deliberately bringing immigrants to America to displace white voters. (Polls show that nearly half of Republicans agree with this theory.)

Now the glitter is gone. Social media, once hailed as a force for freedom, are now denounced as vectors of misinformation. Tesla boosterism has been dented by tales of spontaneous combustion and autopilot accidents. Technology moguls still possess vast wealth, but the public — and the administration — isn’t offering the old level of adulation.

Unfortunately, plutocratic pettiness matters. Money can’t buy admiration, but it can buy political power; it’s disheartening that some of this power will be deployed on behalf of a Republican Party that is descending ever deeper into authoritarianism.

 

[rjack1282]

Wow, posting NY Times Opinion pieces as some sort of evidence of anything factual is pretty bold. You Sir have some cojones.

 

[Daniel in SD]

One thing I'm confused about is why Twitter would accept a lower price when $54.20 is what's in the merger agreement.

The merger agreement also provides that Twitter, on one hand, or Parent and Acquisition Sub, on the other hand, may specifically enforce the obligations under the merger agreement in accordance with its terms. In addition, Twitter is entitled to obtain specific performance or other equitable relief to enforce Parent’s and Acquisition Sub’s obligations to cause Mr. Musk to fund the equity financing, or to enforce Mr. Musk’s obligation to fund the equity financing directly, and to consummate the closing of the merger, if certain conditions are satisfied, including the funding or availability of the debt financing.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522152250/d283119dprem14a.htm#toc283119_20

 

[bkp_duke]

One thing I'm confused about is why Twitter would accept a lower price when $54.20 is what's in the merger agreement.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522152250/d283119dprem14a.htm#toc283119_20

Because they probably have been found out to have falsely "cooked the books" on the 5% bots number. Their reported methodology is suspect, and that in a court of law would probably be judged as fraudulent.

I've done a few corporate buy-outs of competitors. In every case my company was buying the CUSTOMER BASE, nothing else. If 25% of Twitter is bots, then 25% of isn't a real customer base. In two companies I bought it was noted that the customer base was substantially different than what we were told, in both cases we pro-rated our offer down to the % of real customers and it was accepted, without hesistation.

Twitter would probably agree to present to their shareholders a lower buy-out price to avoid the legal (and SEC) problems due to the above.

Twitter opens themselves up to many lawsuits, aside from Musk, for false reporting and accounting if their bot calculation is "materially incorrect".


EDIT - you can bet Twitter's board is:
1) quadruple-checking that bot calculation, and if it isn't based upon sound methodology then they:
2) are trying to find a way to craft an explanation of why accepting a lower buy out price is a good idea

If they reject Musk's revised lower offer and the deal falls through, this company will drop 60% when that happens. SNAP dropped > 40% today just on downward revised revenue, far less of an "offense" than what is suspected with Twitter and their bots calculation.

 

[mspohr]

Wow, posting NY Times Opinion pieces as some sort of evidence of anything factual is pretty bold. You Sir have some cojones.

This entire discussion has been opinion.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Because they probably have been found out to have falsely "cooked the books" on the 5% bots number. Their reported methodology is suspect, and that in a court of law would probably be judged as fraudulent.

I've done a few corporate buy-outs of competitors. In every case my company was buying the CUSTOMER BASE, nothing else. If 25% of Twitter is bots, then 25% of isn't a real customer base. In two companies I bought it was noted that the customer base was substantially different than what we were told, in both cases we pro-rated our offer down to the % of real customers and it was accepted, without hesistation.

Twitter would probably agree to present to their shareholders a lower buy-out price to avoid the legal (and SEC) problems due to the above.

Twitter opens themselves up to many lawsuits, aside from Musk, for false reporting and accounting if their bot calculation is "materially incorrect".


EDIT - you can bet Twitter's board is:
1) quadruple-checking that bot calculation, and if it isn't based upon sound methodology then they:
2) are trying to find a way to craft an explanation of why accepting a lower buy out price is a good idea

If they reject Musk's revised lower offer and the deal falls through, this company will drop 60% when that happens. SNAP dropped > 40% today just on downward revised revenue, far less of an "offense" than what is suspected with Twitter and their bots calculation.

Hmmm... hopefully Musk hired a better PI than the one he hired to investigate "pedo guy". haha.
Have they given any indication that they'd accept a lower offer? Isn't their reported methodology just taking a random sample of "active users" and trying to figure out if they're bots or not? Seems pretty sound to me. Does the methodology even matter as long as the accurately describe it?

 

[TSLA Siempre]

Because they probably have been found out to have falsely "cooked the books" on the 5% bots number. Their reported methodology is suspect, and that in a court of law would probably be judged as fraudulent.

Off the mark. Flawed methodology doesn't mean fraud. If you read Twitter's filings, there are enough disclaimers that their estimates are just estimates and may differ from reality. There isn't a reasonable chance that will be found as fraudulent. Moreover, as Agarwal pointed out, you can't calculate what percentage of DAU's are bots, when you don't know the denominator (what they count as DAU). There are many other points that he made which basically indicate that calculating this is inherently fuzzy.

The posturing in public by Elon may win over the diehards here on TMC, but it won't stand up in court IMO. Perhaps if Elon shows that the actual percentage is 50% or something on that order, he could get relief from the court. But he would have to show some robust methodology proving that. That would be hard when underlying data is hard to decipher. It's quite possible that Twitter's lawyers could poke holes in that analysis.

To answer @Daniel in SD, legally, Twitter doesn't have to settle for anything less than $54.20. That is why they are proceeding as if it is happening. They could make the calculation that they don't want to have a protracted legal fight with Elon and try to come up with a settlement with Elon. However, that too has downsides in that they will likely get a bunch of shareholder lawsuits from the opposite side saying they should have not settled and completed the sale at the agreed upon $54.20. So they are going to face legal headaches either way. Seems like probably the safest way from the is to try to complete the sale and use the leverage they have. No good options for them.

I'm curious to know if the other equity partners that Elon has recruited are still in or whether they too have cold feet. If they back out and elon has to complete the sale, i'd imagine that would mean more TSLA share sales by Elon. That would not be good.