What's new
By:
Filters

Musk and Twitter

IEATRKS84 said:
Some further reading on this, it seems this is a defensive tactic while they consider their options. The "pill" doesnt kick in until someone gains 15% of the shares. So if none of the big boys buy more then it wont happen. I think its a posture to prevent Musk from acquiring more shares for a time period.

Many are saying they are going to sell to Musk as they basically have to.
Click to expand...

What prevents Musk from buying 15% just to cause havoc? It may be his best play to do that and sit back while the stock tanks and the board gets raped by other angry shareholders. Come back in a few months with a lower offer for the company.
 
Crimsen said:
Hope he buys 14.9999999999% for majority holdings, or forces vanguard to hit the 15% and trigger the pill.
Click to expand...

to be fair, that would crush a lot of retirements... and the gov't would step in with a bailout for Vangard along with a "Capitalism is why we can't have nice things" message.
 
Motorcharge said:
They don't want Musk to purchase any more of the stock so they've created an option for existing shareholders to purchase more stock at lower than market price if someone (Musk) buys more than 15% of the company. Basically they're hoping current investors buy more to dilute the percentage of the company Musk's purchases make up. It hurts the company though because it devalues the stock and increases the amount of existing shares.

Frankly it should be illegal since it's essentially shorting your own stock to keep someone from buying a controlling interest. Don't want someone to do that? Don't be public.
Click to expand...
that would make me happy if he buys 15% just to trigger this :laughing:
 
rockota said:
to be fair, that would crush a lot of retirements... and the gov't would step in with a bailout for Vangard along with a "Capitalism is why we can't have nice things" message.
Click to expand...
Anyone who invested Twitter (and hasn't got out already) deserves to have their retirement crushed.

A company that isn't profitable, has no path to profitability, and effectively has minimal assets, does not deserve a valuation of 1/10th of what TWTR currently holds.

Investors are fucking morons and the market reflects it. Correction is badly overdue.
 
Provience said:
8.5% inflation is fucking retirements waaaaaaaay harder than collapsing even the entire tech sector could, because people don't even bother noticing it
Click to expand...

maybe... but I'll be you a vast majority of people who have a 401k/403B or pension that are "managed" or have only a certain set of "funds" to select from... are heavily leveraged in Tech.

I'm not saying what Musk is doing isn't good, or correct. Just that a large entity like Vangard taking a huge hit will have a ripple effect.
 
rockota said:
maybe... but I'll be you a vast majority of people who have a 401k/403B or pension that are "managed" or have only a certain set of "funds" to select from... are heavily leveraged in Tech.

I'm not saying what Musk is doing isn't good, or correct. Just that a large entity like Vangard taking a huge hit will have a ripple effect.
Click to expand...
A bunch of these funds are going to take a hit when their China exposure finally comes home to roost.

Their exposure to massively overvalued tech is generally minimal in comparison.

They will burn their clients, write books about it, and move on. You give those fucks your money and you get what you get.
 
Scott Cee aka 2drx4 said:
A bunch of these funds are going to take a hit when their China exposure finally comes home to roost.

Their exposure to massively overvalued tech is generally minimal in comparison.

They will burn their clients, write books about it, and move on. You give those fucks your money and you get what you get.
Click to expand...

So put the money under the mattress? :flipoff2:
 
rockota said:
maybe... but I'll be you a vast majority of people who have a 401k/403B or pension that are "managed" or have only a certain set of "funds" to select from... are heavily leveraged in Tech.

I'm not saying what Musk is doing isn't good, or correct. Just that a large entity like Vangard taking a huge hit will have a ripple effect.
Click to expand...
sure, i'd believe that. people would notice if tech crashed. 2007/8 when banking "collapsed" and we all died really only lost 2 or 3 big names and was completely glossed over 4 years later.

tech could suffer a same world end and we could easily lose 2 or 3 big names, recover even faster and have far less fallout because "social media" fails all the time and isn't expected to last, so the exposure levels are/should be significantly lower and much tighter watched.
 
rockota said:
vangard manages quite a bit... if they take a hit, people will take a hit.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that while Vangard may own a sizeable chunk of Twitter, that sizeable chunk of Twitter does not equate to a sizeable chunk of Vangard's holdings. Also consider the subsidiaries/subaccounts that Vangard manages (e.g., Vangard manages a BUNCH of mutual funds, each with their own "positions" in the market) that split that chunk of Twitter into smaller chunks, each still only a tiny part of a comprehensive portfolio of stocks, bonds & other instruments. Twitter could drop to zero and the largest holder of Twitter within Vangard might go down a percent.

In reality, the news of this "poison pill" will likely hit the managers of the various funds within Vangard and they will begin reducing their Twitter holdings come Monday (along with other investment firms) if for no other reason than the uncertainty of the outcome of this battle drives the stock into a risk that falls outside the bounds of the "allowable" risk for said funds.

I'm not a stock guru by any means but knowing that the fund managers will not look favorably upon holding onto Twitter stock with the latest news I would expect a sell off over the next week barring some offsetting news. Unless, of course, the higher ups at Vangard are screaming liberals and willing to eat the costs if Twitter stock falls and therefore direct their fund managers to not sell, that is.
 
woods said:
Somehow, despite never having a Twitter account, I'm somehow going to be sucked in paying for something at the end of all this.
Click to expand...
Yup.

I’ve also never used the tweeter…
 
Provience said:
sure, i'd believe that. people would notice if tech crashed. 2007/8 when banking "collapsed" and we all died really only lost 2 or 3 big names and was completely glossed over 4 years later.

tech could suffer a same world end and we could easily lose 2 or 3 big names, recover even faster and have far less fallout because "social media" fails all the time and isn't expected to last, so the exposure levels are/should be significantly lower and much tighter watched.
Click to expand...
Tech crashed in 2001? Internet bubble. Investment management was throwing money at anything that had internet in the description.
Funds heavy in tech lost their ass. Rest of market has a couple of month sag and came back.
 
Broncokyle88 said:
It was a great disservice to the American people to not allow gm and Chrysler to fold. The assets would have been carved up and sold to people who were actually interested in running a profitable company and building vehicles consumers actually wanted with some semblance of quality instead of that weird detour we actually took.

Now GM and Chrysler are forever beholden to the almighty government titty, and will do whatever the .gov tells them to do as long as the opportunity to continue suckling at it remains an option in the future. Unfortunately Ford walks lockstep with them so as to not allow their competition to get an unfair advantage over them.
Click to expand...
Derail to clarify this:
This isn't true for either company anymore, though there's some shady shit that happened with regard to GM "paying back" the .gov.

Chrysler: They were small enough when the recession came to actually get buyers who could float the whole nut, which is why Fiat was interested. Fiat was negotiating with creditors to buy the company before the .gov came in, pushed by the unions, to accept their "help". Once the .gov got involved, all the deals that Fiat was trying to make with the creditors went off the table as the creditors thought they would recoup more of their losses once the money printer got involved. This backfired as the .gov pushed for repayment to creditors of less than they were negotiating with Fiat for. Sergio Marchionne pushed the new FCA to pay back the .gov as soon as they could, being free of any .gov debt (and control) in 2011. This was one of Sergio's first goals once acquiring Chrysler as they (rightly IMO) figured that the government being involved in their decision-making would be very bad.

GM: So big at the time that nobody wanted to assume the whole of GM, all the players wanted to buy pieces of it (remember when a Chinese company wanted to buy the Hummer brand?). Again, with prompting by the unions the .gov got involved. They 'restructured' the help they gave GM several times (I remember something about they traded shares in GM to a position in the GM retirement/pension plan which is somehow separate from the car company). In 2013 the .gov sold the last of the GM shares they took on, but at a drastically reduced rate. So, the .gov basically wrote off a bunch of the GM debt by doing so. I'm not sure of this, but I believe they still hold some position in the pension plan.

I agree that both companies should have been left to their own devices (as well as every damn bank they bailed out). If you don't tie your shoes, trip over them, but it never hurts, what incentive do you have to learn to keep your shoes tied? Yes, GM would be gone as we know it. Perhaps Chrysler would be radically different (though it already is). Perhaps there would be no "big banks" anymore? Would the world be better or worse today? Did anybody really learn anything from tripping over their laces in '08? No, which is why it will happen again.

There's a lesson from the great depression (or more recently the '80s farm crisis) that can be used with regard to this topic. I'm using it because it's very tangible to me, but can be understood by anybody. With all the farmers that went broke during both times all the land that needed to be farmed got farmed. I know this is hard to believe, but there was a major glut in farm production in the '20s and even the very early '30s. The land that was "abandoned" was marginal land that wasn't productive when commodity prices were low. The .gov burned, slaughtered, and buried tons of grain and thousands of farm animals in the mid '30s to try to increase the commodity prices by bringing on scarcity. This is the perfect example of a government solution. In the '80s there were tens of thousands of people who 'lost the farm' to the bank. Did those farms not get farmed? Far from it, the bank just leased them out to others until they could get the property sold. Again, some farms did sit idle, but they were marginal farms anyway. With the increase in farm production per acre it was overflow production. I'm assuming you can see the parallels here between this and banking/auto manufacturers. So the banks default, other banks will buy the assets that have value and will be able to provide loans. So the automakers go belly up, other will come in and scoop up what production capacity is necessary to serve the market. This is how capitalism works. If capitalism isn't working, its because someone is fucking with it.
 
I agree with everyone here that thinks that Musk doing this is a good idea. No matter what happens at this point it can only be good for freedom of speech, expression, and thought. While I don't think Musk is a savior or right all the time, I trust his judgement more than our so-called leaders and the current technocratic leaders in Silicon Valley we have now. His principles seem to be in the right place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh