juanmedina
Active Member
Old news from last month. Has there been a significant update this evening?
No idea:
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Old news from last month. Has there been a significant update this evening?
I don't think he's the first; there have been many who have asked for it. The chorus is getting louder.Gary Black was the first person I saw to mention the stock buyback idea. He's been pushing it for some time.
Which is part of the reason I distrust the idea.
I do not understand why Gary Black gets so much attention in this thread
So Twitter is spending their time trying to gather more documents to use against Elon to make him purchase Twitter, when he has already said he wants to follow through with the deal on the original terms.
I do not understand why Gary Black gets so much attention in this thread
Here's a clear explanation of why Tesla don't got no stinking demand problem, and won't in a recession.
(The title is clickbait and contrary to the thesis.)
100% agree with this. Elon wants Twitter, Twitter doesn’t want to sell to him, TWTR shareholders want the deal to go through.It's ironic . . . Elon says he's ready to close the deal . . . and Twitter keeps trying to find reasons to not sell to him.
TL;DC (don't care) - Twitter wants Elon's $$$, but they don't want him to own the company and can't find a way to can the deal without being sued into oblivion by their shareholders for not selling to Elon at an insane price.
Typical Bloomberg and MSM... just like the exploding Tesla's in Florida.Forbes and Bloomberg ran stories this evening about Elon being under federal investigation. Actually, that was old news. They were relying on information that Twitter today was asking a Deleware court to allow them to obtain more information about this investigation. So scoop hungry writers and tweeters jumped to hasty conclusions that this might provide clickbait fresh news. Bloomberg has since revised its article to reflect reality. Unfortunately for a few after-hours traders, they quickly reacted to the clickbait and apparently sold short, and at least at the moment are in losing positions.
Demand Problems indeed!
I assure you Tesla's AH price dip is brought to you by "Daily", where it dips AH after market close everyday.Forbes and Bloomberg ran stories this evening about Elon being under federal investigation. Actually, that was old news. They were relying on information that Twitter today was asking a Deleware court to allow them to obtain more information about this investigation. So scoop hungry writers and tweeters jumped to hasty conclusions that this might provide clickbait fresh news. Bloomberg has since revised its article to reflect reality. Unfortunately for a few after-hours traders, they quickly reacted to the clickbait and apparently sold short, and at least at the moment are in losing positions.
How can that be true? Let's say a company has 10 shares owned by 10 members of the public. The company buys back 2 shares (of course from two members of the public) and holds them as treasury stock. So now each of the 8 remaining stock holders owns 1/8th of the company since they each also "own" their fractional interest in the company's treasury. Prior to the buyback, each shareholder only owned 1/10 of the company, but afterwards they each own 1/8 of the company. It's true that the company now has less cash on hand and could be considered to be worth less because of that fact. While that could affect the share price, it doesn't alter the fact that the fractional ownership of the remaining public holders increased.That is only true if they retire the shares. If they hold them in treasury there is no change to shareholders, just like if Elon buys them.
After the deal is done, Elon can sue TWTR and their board for fraud. Every shareholder would be looking at a lawsuit that could go on for a decade. Ask me how I know.So Twitter is spending their time trying to gather more documents to use against Elon to make him purchase Twitter, when he has already said he wants to follow through with the deal on the original terms.
Shouldn't they be working with him to complete the purchase by the 28th like the judge has given them time to do?
I don't understand what they are up to. Are they trying to find some way to cancel the deal that isn't their fault? (Are they afraid Elon will find out and release bad information on them, and what they have done at Twitter, once he takes over?)
In the non-retired case there are still 10 shares.How can that be true? Let's say a company has 10 shares owned by 10 members of the public. The company buys back 2 shares (of course from two members of the public) and holds them as treasury stock. So now each of the 8 remaining stock holders owns 1/8th of the company since they each also "own" their fractional interest in the company's treasury. Prior to the buyback, each shareholder only owned 1/10 of the company, but afterwards they each own 1/8 of the company. It's true that the company now has less cash on hand and could be considered to be worth less because of that fact. While that could affect the share price, it doesn't alter the fact that the fractional ownership of the remaining public holders increased.
The shares still exist, so they still just own 1/10 of the company. But since the company owns the two shares, they also own 1/10 of each of those shares. So they own 12% of the company. If the shares were retired they would own 12.5% of the company. (I think I got the math on that correct.) But that is right up until the company does something with those shares, which they can do much easier than issuing new shares. Be that sell them, issue them as part of stock compensation plan, or use them to buy another company.How can that be true? Let's say a company has 10 shares owned by 10 members of the public. The company buys back 2 shares (of course from two members of the public) and holds them as treasury stock. So now each of the 8 remaining stock holders owns 1/8th of the company since they each also "own" their fractional interest in the company's treasury. Prior to the buyback, each shareholder only owned 1/10 of the company, but afterwards they each own 1/8 of the company. It's true that the company now has less cash on hand and could be considered to be worth less because of that fact. While that could affect the share price, it doesn't alter the fact that the fractional ownership of the remaining public holders increased.