I believe the poison pill just blocks Elon from buying twitter out right on the open market which may increase pressure for the board during negotiations. It's separate from the offer Elon made which can still go through.
Twitter Adopts Poison Pill Plan to Block Elon Musk From Increasing Stake
Twitter adopted a poison-pill takeover defense to make it difficult for Elon Musk to increase ownership beyond 15%. The move comes a day after the tech entrepreneur made a $43 billion unsolicited bid for the social-media company.www.wsj.com
It looks like Twitter has blocked Elon for at least a year. Shanghai is reopening and the stock is not moving? Stupid bunny
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I understand the rudimentary aspects of the 'poison pill', but how does that prevent Elon from buying more shares in the open market?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Elon seemed pretty clear there are no negotiations and his offer is take it or leave it.
And if they planned to take it why would they bother with the poison pill?
He can- but if he buys more than 15% then every shareholder except him gets to buy a ton of "new" shares at a significant discount. Meaning the ones he just bought magically become a much smaller % of the total shares.
It can make his buying up to 51% massively more expensive for him-- potentially impossible depending on the details I haven't seen (but will be in an 8K shortly).
That's without the board then going to another option-- issuing themselves preferred shares with outsized voting rights--- such that even if Elon went ahead and overspent to get 51% of common stock he'd still have only a minority of the total votes.
Essentially if the board wishes to stop him- they pretty much can.
They might open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits depending how they do it--- but when Elon said yesterday he might not be able to buy Twitter- he literally meant it might not be possible.
After 15% stake, he pretty much pays double for additional percentage(or others can buy at a 50% discount is what the document says)
I don't think Twitter wants this at all, and his poison pill is probably set to prevent his "plan B"...which may or may not be to buy out Twitter on the open market but just in case.
Twitter board should have just countered with a $69.420 offer. It's a nice premium. They avoid lawsuits from shareholders, and we know Elon can't say no to that number.
MartinAustin
Active Member
I've read a lot of opinions on social media that think TSLA will climb on Monday as a result of this... can anyone explain how this could be expected? I don't see the obvious connection. Perhaps... Elon not selling TSLA holdings to buy TWTR?
Pretty much what you said. Tho a lot of alleviation happened Thursday when the board of Twitter didn't seem too keen on the idea and Elon during Ted talk didn't exactly want to spend 43 billion on Twitter as he is welcoming people with shares to keep them as he takes the company private.
Yes and can’t he sell what he has already bought? I personally wouldn’t want to hold all those shares anymore, considering…
I wonder if he’s planning on doing that.
Motor Mouth
Member
You mean tank the stock the old fashioned way? Yeah, I think folks holding TWTR are pretty spooked about the unpredictability of all this. It occurred to me that he may have just been setting up the board. By going to these lengths without SH votes, they may be open to all kinds of claims and litigation. Stupid, yes. But I suspect he would relish seeing someone else the butt of such stupid lawsuits.
jhm
Well-Known Member
You summoned me.
Let's do the math. Let's assume more optimistically 2 cycles per year (charge in spring and fall, discharge summer and winter) for 50 years (100 life cycles), also $8/kWh capex financed at 6%. This amortizes to $0.253/kWh per cycle. The marginal cost would be charging (near $0/kWh), heating for discharge and maintenance, so hopefully all less than $0.05/kWh per cycle. So this system would need to targe discharge opportunities where power prices are above $0.30/kWh. This seems reasonable where you are targeting the most expensive hours of summer and winter, but you've got to have pretty good certainty that you can execute at those peak hours.
BTW if you can do 4 cycles per year overs 25 years, the capex per cycle drops to $0.155/kWh. So it's really advantageous to be able to increase the frequency of cycling, but you run into more challenges around being able to charge for free and finding peak prices to seize on. It depends critically on what other storage and generation assets you're competing against. If high solar and wind penetration assures lots of oversupply hours, then waiting for free power for charging is not a problem. If there is an abundance of storage capacity and backup generators, then finding prices over $0.20/kWh could become tough. For this reason, it tough to anticipate what kind of frequency you'll have 20 to 50 years out. This is true of any sort of battery. So a better approach may be to emphasis high frequency use in the first years to hasten payback and see what the long-term gravy is at potentially lower cycle frequency.
For example, 50 cycles a year (weekly cycling) would amortize at $0.085/kWh. So if a market had a near-term opportunity for weekly peak prices above $0.14/kWh, you could achieve payback within two years. You battery would have little chronological age on it, so you could really test out the cycle life. Managing the fleet might be the key. Each year you add more capacity to your fleet. You dispatch the new batteries more frequently at lower prices and the older ones less frequently at higher prices. Overtime your fleets grows to extract value from the tail distribution of prices.
And Gordon Johnson was soo upset that people ran with his fake news without giving him credit.
Looks like Tesla will be hoarding all leased cars after the term is over. No more buy outs allowed for S3XY.
driveteslacanada.ca
Tesla removes lease buyout option for all vehicles
Tesla has updated the terms of their leasing program by removing the ability to purchase your vehicle when your lease expires. According to the Lease-End Options support page, leases that began on or after April […]
driveteslacanada.ca
Important correction: $420.69 as they don't really want to sell, but if thats an acceptable price, go ahead.
An important thing to keep in mind though - if you are not paying for the service, then you are the service, and sold to the highest bidders. How else could they sustain their business. There is billions in $$$ waiting to sway product purchase decisions, voting outcomes and overthrow governments for fun and profit.
If there was a pay option for twitter that gets those interests off my back, I would definitely pay for it. Worst case however we do pay and still are being farmed like cattle
CLK350
Member
Excellent explanation of what the issue is with Twitter (and all social networks) and what Elon's going to have to deal with
engine ear
Member
Maybe grid storage needs a separate topic, as it can be a rabbit hole.
For Texas, they have a price cap on wholesale electricity of 900 c/kWh ($9/kWh) which they seem to hit every few years. If you truly had a system cost of $8 per kWh for grid storage, which is not the case for this technology, just one of these events during the lifetime of the battery would pay for it. If the battery is cheap enough, cycle life is not that important to find an economic use case. Taken to the extreme, there might even be a use case for single use batteries for those once per decade events if there is a sufficiently inexpensive battery chemistry.
To minimize system costs, you might want to combine an low cost / low cycle life battery with with an existing li ion grid battery that can provide inverters and grid connection to reduce system costs, so Tesla might have a role in bringing some of these newer chemistries to market.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Not sure if this was posted/noted today, but Bloomberg is now saying Tesla China "told some employees on Friday to enter a so-called “closed-loop” production system on April 17, whereby workers live on-site and are tested regularly".
That's great news if true, then we don't have to worry so much about a fresh lockdown. Likely employees would just stay at the factory and do what they could. It'll be interesting to see what can get done with all the external materials/parts disruptions. I still think Shanghai will be able to make up a lot of the lost time since chips are the main bottleneck and they should be on-site.
Think there's anything the TMC community can do for these folks temporarily stuck living in a factory? I'd send them some cheesesteaks, but they don't travel well.
That's great news if true, then we don't have to worry so much about a fresh lockdown. Likely employees would just stay at the factory and do what they could. It'll be interesting to see what can get done with all the external materials/parts disruptions. I still think Shanghai will be able to make up a lot of the lost time since chips are the main bottleneck and they should be on-site.
Think there's anything the TMC community can do for these folks temporarily stuck living in a factory? I'd send them some cheesesteaks, but they don't travel well.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
