Elon Musk becomes Twitter's largest shareholder

[Bann]

Wedbush securities analyst Dan Ives told FOX Business on Friday that Twitter's move to prevent a takeover from Musk is a "predictable defensive measure" that will "not be viewed positively by shareholders given the potential dilution and acquisition unfriendly move."

Under the plan, which is also referred to as a "poison pill", shareholders' rights will become exercisable if an entity, person or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter's outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the board. In the event that the rights become exercisable, existing Twitter shareholders — except for the person, entity or group triggering the plan — would be entitled to purchase additional shares of common stock at a discount. Musk currently has a 9.2% stake in Twitter.

"The Board has the back against the wall and Musk and shareholders will likely challenge the merits of the poison pill in the courts," Ives explained. "We believe Musk and his team expected this poker move which will be perceived as a sign of weakness not strength by the Street."

Going forward, Ives says that Musk will need to give specifics behind his financing for the $43 billion bid and come back to Twitter's board with a formal response. Meanwhile, he expects that Twitter will kick off a strategic process to look for other buyers.

Musk, who has offered to take Twitter private at $54.20 per share, has stated that the $43 billion bid is his "best and final" offer. However, he revealed at TED2022 on Thursday that he is prepared with a "plan B" if the offer is formally rejected. He did not elaborate on the details of that plan.

Twitter, Musk battle escalates: Poison pill, Musk’s ‘plan B’ and a divided Wall Street

FOX Business takes a deep dive into the latest developments of Elon Musk's battle with Twitter and what investors and analysts are forecasting.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[GURPS]

Musk Speaking To Co-Investors As Twitter Board Adopts "Poison Pill" To Thwart Hostile Takeover​

... is about to get bombarded with a barrage of lawsuits claiming it violated its fiduciary duty, the board also said it wants to be able to analyze and negotiate any deal, and may still accept it (spoiler alert: it won't).

Twitter’s board met Thursday to review Musk’s proposal - which according to the world's richest man was his “best and final” offer and who had already accrued a stake of more than 9% in Twitter since earlier this year - to determine if it was in the best interest of the company and all of its shareholders.

Included in Musk’s securities filing disclosing the bid Thursday morning was a script of text he sent to the company. In it he said, “it’s a high price and your shareholders will love it.” Hilariously, one prominent - and former - investor said the offer was too low and the market reaction appeared to agree. Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said the deal doesn’t “come close to the intrinsic value” of the popular social media platform. Which is, well, hilarious since as we showed yesterday, it appears the Prince no longer has direct ownership of even one share of Twitter stock.

[clip]

 

[GURPS]

So, Musk, freed from Tesla’s financial, shall we say creativity, now has real **** You Money. Not stock. Not assets. Cash.

And that cash he’s putting on the line today to force the moment of Twitter’s malfeasance as a public entity to its crisis point.

He has succeeded brilliantly.

He doesn’t even need to actually take control of Twitter. He’s already won.

By forcing Twitter’s board, who doesn’t own any shares in the company, to adopt a Poison Pill strategy, Musk has revealed them to be more interested in maintaining Twitter as a social control response engine rather than as a public company with a responsibility to shareholders.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Monello]

Think Trump will get his voice back?

I never thought I'd see a company remove a former president's first amendment rights. And there not be a huge stink about it. Imagine if this was any other politician, you would see a lot more public outrage.

 

[HemiHauler]

I never thought I'd see a company remove a former president's first amendment rights. And there not be a huge stink about it. Imagine if this was any other politician, you would see a lot more public outrage.

Removing that baboon's account from Twitter is *not* a violation of first amendment rights.

It's amazing you mooks don't understand how this works.

 

[Gilligan]

It's amazing you mooks don't understand how this works.

Bet you get invited to a lot of parties.

 

[Kyle]

Bet you get invited to a lot of parties.

They might, but I'd bet they make him kneel behind a wall with a hole in it.

 

[Bare-ya-cuda]

Bet you get invited to a lot of parties.

He doesn’t like parties! Probably because he was never invited or never had his birthday recognized by coworkers. The curmudgeon in the corner.

 

[Gilligan]

He doesn’t like parties! Probably because he was never invited or never had his birthday recognized by coworkers. The curmudgeon in the corner.

Poor feller.

 

[glhs837]

Selling my few Netflix to buy Twitter.

 

[Bann]

 

[Kyle]

Dems Explain They Don't Want Billionaires Controlling Our Media Unless They're Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bloomberg, Buffett, Or Soros

U.S.—Democrats have explained that they absolutely do not want billionaires controlling our media, unless those billionaires are named Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, or George Soros—along with about a thousand other names, according to sources.

"Elon Musk buying Twitter would represent a dangerous new world where billionaires who disagree with me own massive Big Tech companies," said local Democrat activist and vegan smoothie cart owner Polly X. Walden. "Imagine a world in which social media sites can just ban you for your opinion if it's unpopular. That's the world we would be creating if we were to allow Musk to buy Twitter."

Dems Explain They Don't Want Billionaires Controlling Our Media Unless They're Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bloomberg, Buffett, Or Soros

U.S.—Democrats have explained that they absolutely do not want billionaires controlling our media, unless those billionaires are named Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, or George Soros—along with about a thousand other names, according to sources.

babylonbee.com

 

[GURPS]

DeSantis Vows To Hold Twitter Board Members ‘Accountable’ For Adopting ‘Poison Pill’ On Elon Musk​

“The state of Florida and our pension system, we have shares of Twitter. I didn’t buy it, we have people that run the fund but, nevertheless, it hasn’t exactly been great in returns on investment. It’s been pretty stagnant for many, many years,” the governor said. “But nevertheless, I think that’s probably an injury to the fund, so we’re going to be looking at ways that the state of Florida potentially can be holding these Twitter board of directors accountable for breaching their fiduciary duty.”

 

[HemiHauler]

DeSantis Vows To Hold Twitter Board Members ‘Accountable’ For Adopting ‘Poison Pill’ On Elon Musk​

“The state of Florida and our pension system, we have shares of Twitter. I didn’t buy it, we have people that run the fund but, nevertheless, it hasn’t exactly been great in returns on investment. It’s been pretty stagnant for many, many years,” the governor said. “But nevertheless, I think that’s probably an injury to the fund, so we’re going to be looking at ways that the state of Florida potentially can be holding these Twitter board of directors accountable for breaching their fiduciary duty.”

OMG!

What a strange hill to die on, the culture war. Little more than a dog whistle for the unmoored, lost, and frightened mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who would vote for a dumb ass like this - not just in FL, but also on a national stage.

The GOP - the party of small government, amirite?

Elon doesn't have the liquidity to buy Twitter. Everyone who knows anything about business at this level knows this. Back in the olden days, he'd do a leveraged buyout where he borrows against the value of Twitter to raise the cash. But that's not really done any longer, and he couldn't do that anyway without risking positions in SpaceX and Tesla.

Musk is a free speech absolutist. Nothing wrong with that. But to make Twitter the bastion of free speech he envisages, he'd have no advertising at all which wouldn't be viable. His goal was pump and dump, which is admirable.

 

[GURPS]

Everyone who knows anything about business at this level knows this.

 

[Clem72]

Musk should buy 14% along with several friends (that he can guarantee to buyout if they lose value), then have one of his buddies to buy 15.1% and trigger the poison pill allowing Musk and friends buy all that tasty discounted stock. If twitter raises the percentage do it again. Rinse, repeat. Then once twitter has completely crap the bed combine their assets and vote for a stock buy-back using the cash from the poison-pill-sales, driving the price back up.

 

[Louise]

Think Trump will get his voice back?

Yes.

 

[black dog]

I’d guess you know nothing about selling equity shares at this volume. He can’t dump sharea all at once. Otherwise the shares tank while he is selling, since you know, there are lots of them. He would sell in small lots over a period of time specifically to avoid that.

Alternatively, find an institutional investor who will buy as a block. But that sort of transfer will take place before the market knows that Elon is selling his shares, thus avoiding a nose dive in share price.

He walks away with a handsome profit, but share price is stable. This was likely his plan all along. He’s got a few SEC investigations to prove this.

He doesn’t have the cash to have carried this out.

 

[Bare-ya-cuda]

OMG!

What a strange hill to die on, the culture war. Little more than a dog whistle for the unmoored, lost, and frightened mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who would vote for a dumb ass like this - not just in FL, but also on a national stage.

The GOP - the party of small government, amirite?

Elon doesn't have the liquidity to buy Twitter. Everyone who knows anything about business at this level knows this. Back in the olden days, he'd do a leveraged buyout where he borrows against the value of Twitter to raise the cash. But that's not really done any longer, and he couldn't do that anyway without risking positions in SpaceX and Tesla.

Musk is a free speech absolutist. Nothing wrong with that. But to make Twitter the bastion of free speech he envisages, he'd have no advertising at all which wouldn't be viable. His goal was pump and dump, which is admirable.

Dude, you die on hill every time you post. Just sayin.

 

[Kyle]

Dude, you die on hill every time you post. Just sayin.

It's his gift.