RIP Twitter

#2,102
#2,102
DC_Vol said:
I don’t understand your point. Twitter stated bot / spam accounts are less than 5% of their daily active user base. The question at hand is had Elon Musk discovered something significantly different.
Click to expand...
My point is that I've never been convinced he's serious about running Twitter and this could be a way to get out of it.
 
#2,104
#2,104
Velo Vol said:
My point is that I've never been convinced he's serious about running Twitter and this could be a way to get out of it.
Click to expand...

This comment is even more perplexing than your last. You don’t go to the lengths he’s gone to not be serious about it. He purchased almost 10% of a company worth 10’s of billions and he’s worked with outside parties to arrange financing for a full buy out when he could have just taken the board seat.

But he was just killing some free time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423, StarRaider and hog88
#2,106
#2,106
825VOL said:
You are not very smart are you? If it turns out that there is over 5% spam/bots on twitter, then Twitter is in breach of the deal. It think it might be called a "material breach" or something like that. That would mean that Twitter misrepresented its actual user numbers and violated the terms of the deal.

Maybe one of the real lawyers on here can tell us.
Click to expand...

Getting so much better all the time. Told you guys this was pure narcissism driving this deal and it was an idiotic move to try it. But narcissists are gonna be narcissists.



 
#2,112
#2,112
DC_Vol said:
This comment is even more perplexing than your last. You don’t go to the lengths he’s gone to not be serious about it. He purchased almost 10% of a company worth 10’s of billions and he’s worked with outside parties to arrange financing for a full buy out when he could have just taken the board seat.

But he was just killing some free time?
Click to expand...
I think once you have 50 billion dollars, the marginal utility of the next billion dollars grows smaller and small.

I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe he will buy it.

What I do know, based upon the tweets he's posted, is that he hasn't thought very thoroughly about how he would handle the really thorny speech questions on the platform. And if/when he does, it's going to add a whole other layer of complexity to his life.
 
#2,113
#2,113
Velo Vol said:
I think once you have 50 billion dollars, the marginal utility of the next billion dollars grows smaller and small.

I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe he will buy it.

What I do know, based upon the tweets he's posted, is that he hasn't thought very thoroughly about how he would handle the really thorny speech questions on the platform. And if/when he does, it's going to add a whole other layer of complexity to his life.
Click to expand...

I'm going enjoy watching the latest episode of how narcissistic billionaires spin out of control. Hubris is a helluva drug.

 
#2,114
#2,114
Velo Vol said:
I think once you have 50 billion dollars, the marginal utility of the next billion dollars grows smaller and small.

I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe he will buy it.

What I do know, based upon the tweets he's posted, is that he hasn't thought very thoroughly about how he would handle the really thorny speech questions on the platform. And if/when he does, it's going to add a whole other layer of complexity to his life.
Click to expand...

I think he’s been pretty clear in how he plans on handling it.
 
#2,115
#2,115
evillawyer said:
Getting so much better all the time. Told you guys this was pure narcissism driving this deal and it was an idiotic move to try it. But narcissists are gonna be narcissists.



Click to expand...

Read the first tweet carefully. Do it out loud. Then have a person nearby read it to you. If you still think you're on top, start the process to accept that you're an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hog88
#2,116
#2,116
utvols88 said:
Read the first tweet carefully. Do it out loud. Then have a person nearby read it to you. If you still think you're on top, start the process to accept that you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Guess what, I'm still LMAO. Musk spinning out of control is like watching the Russian tanks in Ukraine doing the turret toss contest. I'm here for it.

Elon Musk Trolls Twitter

From the article

  1. That contract does not allow Musk to walk away if it turns out that “spam/fake accounts” represent more than 5% of Twitter users. We discussed this last month, when Twitter admitted in a securities filing that it had (slightly) overestimated its daily active users for years. The merger agreement contains a provision that allows Musk to walk away if Twitter’s securities filings are wrong — and this 5% number is in its securities filings — but only if the inaccuracy would have a “Material Adverse Effect” on the company. (See Sections 4.6(a) and 7.2(b).) That is an incredibly high standard: Delaware courts have almost never found an MAE. An MAE has to be something that would “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner,” the courts have said; there is a rule of thumb that an MAE requires a 40% decrease in long-term profitability. If it turned out that 6% or 20% or 50% of Twitter accounts are bots, that will be embarrassing and might even reduce Twitter’s future advertising revenue, but will it be an MAE? No.
 
#2,117
#2,117
evillawyer said:
Guess what, I'm still LMAO. Musk spinning out of control is like watching the Russian tanks in Ukraine doing the turret toss contest. I'm here for it.

Elon Musk Trolls Twitter

From the article

  1. That contract does not allow Musk to walk away if it turns out that “spam/fake accounts” represent more than 5% of Twitter users. We discussed this last month, when Twitter admitted in a securities filing that it had (slightly) overestimated its daily active users for years. The merger agreement contains a provision that allows Musk to walk away if Twitter’s securities filings are wrong — and this 5% number is in its securities filings — but only if the inaccuracy would have a “Material Adverse Effect” on the company. (See Sections 4.6(a) and 7.2(b).) That is an incredibly high standard: Delaware courts have almost never found an MAE. An MAE has to be something that would “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner,” the courts have said; there is a rule of thumb that an MAE requires a 40% decrease in long-term profitability. If it turned out that 6% or 20% or 50% of Twitter accounts are bots, that will be embarrassing and might even reduce Twitter’s future advertising revenue, but will it be an MAE? No.
Click to expand...
1. That's an opinion.
2. He isn't looking to walk away but rather renegotiate if it's severe. If it's 6% rather than 5%, that would not be material. Correct. But if they have more or attempted to squash it, then the "embarrassment" isn't the only issue.
A. Shareholders will have issue
B. The SEC will have issue as a public company lied to their holders and cooked the books.

The study, led by Jonathan Karpoff, a professor of finance at the UW Business School, reveals than on average, companies that have cooked their books lose 41 percent of their market value after news spreads about their misdeeds.

A company’s reputation is what gets fried when its books get cooked

I'd like for you to simply review the effects this same type of issue had on PayPal recently where they have dropped 70% by having fake accounts. This would cripple Twitter if that was the case. Keep laughing. It's born out of ignorance.

tumblr_mldarnyE0u1rdqggno1_400.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and StarRaider
#2,118
#2,118
utvols88 said:
1. That's an opinion.
2. He isn't looking to walk away but rather renegotiate if it's severe. If it's 6% rather than 5%, that would not be material. Correct. But if they have more or attempted to squash it, then the "embarrassment" isn't the only issue.
A. Shareholders will have issue
B. The SEC will have issue as a public company lied to their holders and cooked the books.

The study, led by Jonathan Karpoff, a professor of finance at the UW Business School, reveals than on average, companies that have cooked their books lose 41 percent of their market value after news spreads about their misdeeds.

A company’s reputation is what gets fried when its books get cooked

I'd like for you to simply review the effects this same type of issue had on PayPal recently where they have dropped 70% by having fake accounts. This would cripple Twitter if that was the case. Keep laughing. It's born out of ignorance.

View attachment 454959
Click to expand...

Why backing out of the Twitter deal could be painful for Musk.
 
#2,120
#2,120
utvols88 said:
1. That's an opinion.
2. He isn't looking to walk away but rather renegotiate if it's severe. If it's 6% rather than 5%, that would not be material. Correct. But if they have more or attempted to squash it, then the "embarrassment" isn't the only issue.
A. Shareholders will have issue
B. The SEC will have issue as a public company lied to their holders and cooked the books.

The study, led by Jonathan Karpoff, a professor of finance at the UW Business School, reveals than on average, companies that have cooked their books lose 41 percent of their market value after news spreads about their misdeeds.

A company’s reputation is what gets fried when its books get cooked

I'd like for you to simply review the effects this same type of issue had on PayPal recently where they have dropped 70% by having fake accounts. This would cripple Twitter if that was the case. Keep laughing. It's born out of ignorance.

View attachment 454959
Click to expand...

Or how about those who have invested significant dollars in Twitter advertising based on an assumption of x% of their views being active users.
 
#2,124
#2,124
hog88 said:
If found that Twitter has been cooking their books on accounts Musk won't be paying the fee. You're supposed to be a lawyer, you should know basic contract law.
Click to expand...

That would be a negotiated term of the contract covering rights of termination. It's not "basic contract law."
 
#2,125
#2,125
WBO said:
That would be a negotiated term of the contract covering rights of termination. It's not "basic contract law."
Click to expand...

No **** Perry Mason. WTF would go into an acquisition like this without basic due diligence clauses?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top