Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen an ad on Youtube for years now, because I literally run an ad blocker. I don't understand how Elon sits there and watches ads instead of running an ad blocker, I thought he was supposed to be good with technology?
He wants to check it out ?

BTW, you can be on premium and still see a ton on ads / clickbait. I don’t see the difference - actually, ads are better. Clickbaits don’t even “warn” they are clickbaits unlike ads.
 
I don't believe this is accurate, based on my knowledge of previous M&A lawsuits. If the Board acquiesces to a lower Musk et al deal, but didn't need to do so, they can be sued for fiduciary irresponsibility.

The only case in which they would be without risk is if there is indeed some misreporting ahead of the deal, or if there is some sign that Musk et al's reduced offer (assuming there is one) is once more vetted against the public market and other suitors. But I am pretty sure they can and will be sued if they allow Musk and company to strong-arm them when they're in a beneficial position contractually.

Exactly this. The board also needs to report to their shareholders and may be liable- even if the merger is approved.

Plus now the board has to think about all the damages that may be the result of Elon’s comments.

There are really better ways to have negotiated a lower price
 
I don't believe this is accurate, based on my knowledge of previous M&A lawsuits. If the Board acquiesces to a lower Musk et al deal, but didn't need to do so, they can be sued for fiduciary irresponsibility.

The only case in which they would be without risk is if there is indeed some misreporting ahead of the deal, or if there is some sign that Musk et al's reduced offer (assuming there is one) is once more vetted against the public market and other suitors. But I am pretty sure they can and will be sued if they allow Musk and company to strong-arm them when they're in a beneficial position contractually.
The board can't sell the company unilaterally though, they need a shareholder vote to do so. If the board changed the price after the vote, they would be in a much worse position than if the terms changed before the vote (in which case the shareholders would have accepted the new terms).
 
The board can't sell the company unilaterally though, they need a shareholder vote to do so. If the board changed the price after the vote, they would be in a much worse position than if the terms changed before the vote (in which case the shareholders would have accepted the new terms).

A re-negotiated sale price would trigger a new shareholder vote. The BoD would never try to unilaterally change the sales price without shareholder approval, I'm sure that's against the Twitter corporate bylaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30seconds and mongo
A re-negotiated sale price would trigger a new shareholder vote. The BoD would never try to unilaterally change the sales price without shareholder approval, I'm sure that's against the Twitter corporate bylaws.

uh...what?

Did I miss a shareholder vote on the existing price that would mean they'd need a "new" one if the price ends up being different?

AFAIK no such vote happened at the May 25 annual shareholder meeting.
 
uh...what?

Did I miss a shareholder vote on the existing price that would mean they'd need a "new" one if the price ends up being different?

AFAIK no such vote happened at the May 25 annual shareholder meeting.
I assumed, based on the posts on the previous page, that was speaking of a situation where a vote had already happened. Which it hasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke
uh...what?

Did I miss a shareholder vote on the existing price that would mean they'd need a "new" one if the price ends up being different?

AFAIK no such vote happened at the May 25 annual shareholder meeting.

You are correct, but my point was that IF the vote had already occurred, then a new one would have to happen. That's all. I'm well aware that a vote has not happened yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mongo
As all know, I have nothing positive to say about Twitter, but this statement -

…In total the BoD owns something STUPID low like 77 shares (not a typo) of Twitter. When the board owns that few shares, they don't have a strong conviction in the company they are steering...

is such a staggering condemnation of a Board, of a company and, to someone who has spent a very large amount of time learning about corporate boards, their role and their history that it is so strongly suggestive of gross dereliction of fiduciary responsibilities that I have to wonder: are you SURE of that number?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brn2Run and mspohr
is such a staggering condemnation of a Board, of a company and, to someone who has spent a very large amount of time learning about corporate boards, their role and their history that it is so strongly suggestive of gross dereliction of fiduciary responsibilities that I have to wonder: are you SURE of that number?



It's accurate now that Dorsey is no longer on the board

 
  • Funny
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr and bkp_duke
As all know, I have nothing positive to say about Twitter, but this statement -



is such a staggering condemnation of a Board, of a company and, to someone who has spent a very large amount of time learning about corporate boards, their role and their history that it is so strongly suggestive of gross dereliction of fiduciary responsibilities that I have to wonder: are you SURE of that number?

It made the news rounds after Elon tweeted early on in the negotiations how little stock they owned:


This tweet, which Elon replied to, was the original source:

This, of course, excludes Dorsey, who isn't on the board any longer.
 
Well, you all prompted me to find the answer.
With 764.18MM shares outstanding, the (non-Dorsey) total shareholdings by the BoD, which from the charts above sum to 0.12%, mean a total of 917,000 shares.

Take out other corporate officers - just a minute…..

Agrawal and, arguably, Kordestani, and we’re down to 0.034%. Pretty pathetic, but still 260,000 shares.

A bit different from “77”.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: mspohr and ohmman
Well, you all prompted me to find the answer.
With 764.18MM shares outstanding, the (non-Dorsey) total shareholdings by the BoD, which from the charts above sum to 0.12%, mean a total of 917,000 shares.

Take out other corporate officers - just a minute…..

Agrawal and, arguably, Kordestani, and we’re down to 0.034%. Pretty pathetic, but still 260,000 shares.

A bit different from “77”.

Admittedly, I didn't first-hand verify the information, but it's pathetic regardless.

Opposite end of the spectrum from Tesla, a company whos' BoD believes in the company and the product enough to put their money where their mouth is.


Also, just curious, where your 260k shares that you found recently granted? Per Twitter's filings I believe the BoD is granted shares annually as part of their compensation, and they just had a shareholder meeting. Would be entire plausible that both numbers are accurate, for their respective time periods, because the BoD is granted shares and then sells them off as soon as they vest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
Admittedly, I didn't first-hand verify the information, but it's pathetic regardless.

Opposite end of the spectrum from Tesla, a company whos' BoD believes in the company and the product enough to put their money where their mouth is.


Also, just curious, where your 260k shares that you found recently granted? Per Twitter's filings I believe the BoD is granted shares annually as part of their compensation, and they just had a shareholder meeting. Would be entire plausible that both numbers are accurate, for their respective time periods, because the BoD is granted shares and then sells them off as soon as they vest?
Well, the percentages and 77 came from the same Tweet, so time locked...
I did check the recent F4s, and they do hold shares, but unsure what the original source was, as in, did they ever buy Twitter?
 
The BoD (Board of Directors) wants this to close, so that they can all go away. In total the BoD owns something STUPID low like 77 shares (not a typo) of Twitter. When the board owns that few shares, they don't have a strong conviction in the company they are steering.
BOD chairman is co-CEO of Salesforce and probably the future (sole) CEO. I've not researched others ... but my guess is they are all there because of "status" and they want to preserve their reputation in SV. They will act accordingly.
 
I haven't seen an ad on Youtube for years now, because I literally run an ad blocker. I don't understand how Elon sits there and watches ads instead of running an ad blocker, I thought he was supposed to be good with technology?
Friend : Have you seen how bad Youtube is ?
Elon : how ....
Friend : Just see the scam ads they show all the time
Elon : Let me check ...

ps : People have this weird idea that Elon is an isolated person, sitting alone in his office/home and thinking up all this. He is a very popular and connected person in the tech world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
Reportedly , board has decided to give Elon access to the firehose...
LOL. So much for all the people saying here saying he waived due diligence, so he has no choice but to just pay up $44B. They are desperate to sell twitter. They will not find a buyer who will pay more money.

Anyway - this will be fun. I hope he finds enough problems to walk out.
 
Do you mean you're hopeful that Twitter was misreporting or that his misunderstanding of mDAU is clarified to the point he decides to walk?
Either way .... I just hope he walks off the deal. IMO, it is a major distraction and Elon simply doesn't have the social intelligence needed to deal with problems of free speech and moderation.

ps : If he does take over Twitter I expect a similar tweet to this soon ...

 
Either way .... I just hope he walks off the deal. IMO, it is a major distraction and Elon simply doesn't have the social intelligence needed to deal with problems of free speech and moderation.

ps : If he does take over Twitter I expect a similar tweet to this soon ...

Nothing has more degrees of freedom than Elon attempting to buy Twitter. It is simply unreal.

The week just got a tad more interesting yet again. Too bad the NDA's are supposedly strong and if anything will just be lawyer assertions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3 and mspohr
Status
Not open for further replies.