Qwitter? Don’t be bitter. Got the jitters.
Heavy hitter? Big bull—-?
It’s good.
“Loser Loser, Chicken Shitter”.
Phone ran out before I could finish. Here is the intended form.
Qwitter? Got the jitters.
Heavy hitter? Big bull—-?
Non committer.
Twitter, don’t be bitter.
(They’ll acquit ‘er?)
If he sold his shares today, he would be down ~$2/share on his investment:
Musk tried to get the judge to delay Twitter’s case against him, saying that he needed more time to investigate the information that Twitter sent him about their bot numbers.
I don’t see how this isn’t an admission of guilt?
Musk said that he was backing out of the deal because they wouldn’t send him good data to analyze and he was skeptical of what they did send him. This would seem to say that he discounted it on methodological concerns.
If it’s methodologically bad data then what’s the point of analyzing it, now? Musk should be able to show a paper trail of stating his complaints about the methodology and what his demanded adjustments to it are, and he should be able to show Twitter refusing to do so or giving an unreasonably huge timeline for it. For a court case, that paper trail should be sufficient.
But once you say “Oh wait wait, I need to actually look at what they sent me!” You’re basically admitting that it’s good data after all (or plausibly good) and, further, that you never bothered to even check what it was.
How can you say that you backed out of the deal, because the data was bad, while saying that you still haven’t checked the quality of the data?
Being a Psychotic ShitMeister helps.
It’s just an entitled rich guy trick made popular in recent years. Shit might hit the fan? Delay! Delay!
It worked for another asshole, so he gave it a shot.
Musk’s comments may undermine his stupid defense strategy, but it doesn’t do anything to prove Twitter’s case.
The case before the Delaware Court of Chancery is not about the number of bots on Twitter (or anything else in the data dump). Twitter has asked the court to force Musk to follow-through on his offer to purchase Twitter and to expediate the trial so that it completes before Musk’s financing times out. Twitter argued that the data dump is not germane to the deal so Musk’s team does not need extra time to analyze the data.
I’m not so sure that Twitter can be sure what percentage of bots they have. Are the bot accounts so clearly identified as such? How can they be sure? And if they can’t be sure, how can you verify the data?
To an extent, it doesn’t matter.
Twitter’s own documentation shows they admit they do not have total confidence in the numbers and that it represented a good faith best effort on the number of bots.
Legal chicanery aside, Musk’s agreement to purchase does not depend on the accuracy of Twitter’s numbers but whether or not Twitter was being deliberately deceptive or fraudulent in the information they provided. The information they provided is so wishy-washy about the numbers that it almost cannot be deliberately deceptive.
Musk’s reservations about accurate numbers do not appear to be about a real concern of his but rather an attempt to build a case to get out of the deal at minimal (ideally zero) personal expense after he got cold feet.
More to the point, Musk would have to show that the deception or fraud lead to an overestimate of the market value of Twitter. Given his $54.20/share offering that was well above the trading value, it’s kind of difficult to argue that any overvaluation isn’t due to his lack of due diligence prior to making the offer. Twitter also has a basis to sue Musk for the damage that his statements and actions (some of which definitely violate SEC regulations) have materially reduced the market capitalization of the company, although it also has issues there. Basically, this deal is now a big legal bramble and both sides have hired top legal firms to represent them guaranteeing that whomever loses (probably investors and ordinary employees) the lawyers will win.
Stranger
Deal is back on.
My theory: he got his ass handed to him so badly yesterday that he’s spending $45 billion to shut down all the losers and haters.
This is why I was pleased he was backing out in the first place. I realize that Twitter was doing the fiscally responsible thing by suing him into oblivion to try and force the deal to completion. But we don’t need that asshole playing with it like it’s his personal fief, including letting Trump back on his favorite platform.
This news is a downer.
It sounds like he’s agreeing to fulfill his contractual obligations by completing the purchase.
The question is how he plans to pay for it. The uber-rich don’t keep their wealth in some Scrooge McDuck money pit; they have various assets like stocks, bonds, real estate, etc – how much of Elon’s assets are in forms that lend themselves to clear tallying at any given moment (e.g. stocks) and how much are subject to Trumpian flim-flammery in that regard (e.g. real estate)?
Tesla could do so much better for a CEO.
Exactly. The whole reason he had to shut it down before seemed to be that he couldn’t raise the money. So how does he have it now?
His taking control of Twitter would definitely be a bad thing, given his stance on moderation–i.e. “free speech except when I don’t like it.”
He is making the original deal only because he is unlikely to prevail in court and no longer wishes this. It remains to be seen what the reaction of Twitter will be. They might be eligible for damages but will probably agree, along with the shareholders, to do it if the offer is sincere. It is probably not a bad move on Musk’s part after his latest ruse.
One scenario that occurs to me is that he presents a payment offer based on dubious asset valuations, Twitter rejects it, and Elon tries to wriggle out of the penalty clause by claiming that he tried to complete the deal but the other side scuttled it.