RIP Twitter

#2,527
#2,527
BigOrangeMojo said:
It's 426MM per their 10K. The 184.3 is used within past month and the 426MM is within past 12 months.
Click to expand...
Yet it was enough to wreck public confidence and send it into a harsh spiral down. I've said on here already that if the true number is 6% rather than 5% as stated then you chalk it up as square but Musk said in his letter that it's substantial so what are we talking here? 10%? 15%? More? That is material. Very much so.

From an auditing standpoint, it's only as good as the system generates. How deep was it peeled back, we simply don't know. You may have to peel it back quite a bit to find the answer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ernest T. Vol and Orangeburst
#2,528
#2,528
Ernest T. Vol said:
What's material?:
The new definition in the ASB's Statement on Auditing Standards is:
Misstatements, including omissions, are considered to be material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
The foundation of the new materiality definition lies in the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. which opined that an omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would(not could) consider it important in deciding how to vote.

Materiality is determined in the board room between the auditor and the Board. What if all facts were not known at the time of the issuance of the opinion?
Click to expand...

Most of the PayPal issue was from bots created in 2021 to take advantage of $10 sign on. It appears that any bots prior to 2021 would be immaterial to financial statements and any bots in 2021 was disclosed by time 10K was filed.
 
#2,529
#2,529
utvols88 said:
Yet it was enough to wreck public confidence and send it into a harsh spiral down. I've said on here already that if the true number is 6% rather than 5% as stated then you chalk it up as square but Musk said in his letter that it's substantial so what are we talking here? 10%? 15%? More? That is material. Very much so.

From an auditing standpoint, it's only as good as the system generates. How deep was it peeled back, we simply don't know. You may have to peel it back quite a bit to find the answer
Click to expand...

Just a guess..I bet just most SM is overvalued at double digits. We see reports all the time.
 
#2,530
#2,530
utvols88 said:
Yet it was enough to wreck public confidence and send it into a harsh spiral down. I've said on here already that if the true number is 6% rather than 5% as stated then you chalk it up as square but Musk said in his letter that it's substantial so what are we talking here? 10%? 15%? More? That is material. Very much so.

From an auditing standpoint, it's only as good as the system generates. How deep was it peeled back, we simply don't know. You may have to peel it back quite a bit to find the answer
Click to expand...

If Twitter is 15% instead of 5%, then yes, that would be material and would reduce value of Twitter by 10%.

The point I'm making is the market reduced the value of unprofitable tech companies like Twitter by 30-50% in Q2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#2,531
#2,531
utvols88 said:
Yet it was enough to wreck public confidence and send it into a harsh spiral down. I've said on here already that if the true number is 6% rather than 5% as stated then you chalk it up as square but Musk said in his letter that it's substantial so what are we talking here? 10%? 15%? More? That is material. Very much so.

From an auditing standpoint, it's only as good as the system generates. How deep was it peeled back, we simply don't know. You may have to peel it back quite a bit to find the answer
Click to expand...

PayPal was already down, they showed slowing revenue, and they issued very tame guidance. That caused the crash more than anything, not a 1% fake account issue.

PayPal had the same issues in April-June losing half it's value well after 1% bot issue was known.
 
#2,532
#2,532
BigOrangeMojo said:
If Twitter is 15% instead of 5%, then yes, that would be material and would reduce value of Twitter by 10%.

The point I'm making is the market reduced the value of unprofitable tech companies like Twitter by 30-50% in Q2.
Click to expand...
So I went back and read a little more on musk's letter. He THINKS it's 20% but Twitter has given him incomplete information or refused to provide. We will see what happens in discovery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ernest T. Vol, BigOrangeMojo and Orangeburst
#2,533
#2,533
utvols88 said:
So I went back and read a little more on musk's letter. He THINKS it's 20% but Twitter has given him incomplete information or refused to provide. We will see what happens in discovery.
Click to expand...

Yeah that sounds like a self-serving statement on Musk's part. This is not going to a trial, but there will be all the early litigation BS. You're right, there is going to be some serious discovery, but I keep seeing "experts" saying what an earlier poster said, whether this issue was addressed in the binding offer agreement and to what extent materiality was mitigated or enhanced.

There are a lot people who claim the $1 billion escape payment is pretty ironclad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and IluvdoubleD's
#2,534
#2,534
RockyTop85 said:
It may move faster than expected, I’ve always heard DE courts are the best courts in all the land on this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

The people of Delaware are super smart. They’ve continually elected a moronic imbecile to office for half a century.
 
#2,535
#2,535
WBO said:
Yeah that sounds like a self-serving statement on Musk's part. This is not going to a trial, but there will be all the early litigation BS. You're right, there is going to be some serious discovery, but I keep seeing "experts" saying what an earlier poster said, whether this issue was addressed in the binding offer agreement and to what extent materiality was mitigated or enhanced.

There are a lot people who claim the $1 billion escape payment is pretty ironclad.
Click to expand...

His daughter told him she would change her name if he didn't. Musk is in a spot where he can be the king of mars, but only if he acts right. I don't think he think he lives that long and he is probs right.
 
#2,540
#2,540
Truth is twitter was taking over by bots (mostly russian) when they handed it over to the AI. You have to dig deeper than ever, and the nag screen keeps you from going too far.
 
Last edited:
#2,541
#2,541
Orangeburst said:
Good response
Click to expand...


This guy is pretty solid and cites this Vandy law professor who says:



Basically second guy is saying the real question is whether the Judge says Musk has to buy the company (unlikely) or pay monetary damages up to 1-2 billion (more likely) or maybe they settle on a renegotiated agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#2,544
#2,544
Even if they get the $1 billion payment, Twitter is damaged now. This significantly impacted the stock value and now its business model is under scrutiny. Wonder if they don't wish they had maintained an adversarial response and not agree to work with him. That way they could have told him to screw himself when he wanted to look at the underlying data (within SEC rules, of course). At this point Twitter would have looked like heroes for beating off a challenge from a controversial figure, but now both sides are slinking away, rather wounded.

It makes Musk look smaller and you know he's not going to react well to that.
 
#2,545
#2,545
RockyTop85 said:


This guy is pretty solid and cites this Vandy law professor who says:



Basically second guy is saying the real question is whether the Judge says Musk has to buy the company (unlikely) or pay monetary damages up to 1-2 billion (more likely) or maybe they settle on a renegotiated agreement.
Click to expand...


I look at it like the VW scandal when they lied about their emissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#2,546
#2,546
WBO said:
Even if they get the $1 billion payment, Twitter is damaged now. This significantly impacted the stock value and now its business model is under scrutiny. Wonder if they don't wish they had maintained an adversarial response and not agree to work with him. That way they could have told him to screw himself when he wanted to look at the underlying data (within SEC rules, of course). At this point Twitter would have looked like heroes for beating off a challenge from a controversial figure, but now both sides are slinking away, rather wounded.

It makes Musk look smaller and you know he's not going to react well to that.
Click to expand...

Twitter's stock price was propped up in the quarter of a tech crash because of Musk's offer. If Musk did not invest in Twitter, they would likely be in the 20s now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top