tl;dr They’re spending 90% less over the past 3 months than they did 3 mo before acquisition
Are there any legal implications when knowingly lying about the profitability of a privately held company like X?
She’s not lying, she’s just not saying the whole truth. It’s totally true advertisers are returning.
They’re returning at a steep discount.
Plus some are leaving faster then others are returning.
deleted by creator
Unlikely. There aren’t any shareholders to screw over and it doesn’t look like Musk has any desire to sell Twitter at the moment (I refuse to call it X).
Jack Dorsey, a clutch of Saudis, and at least one bank have multiple billions of dollars still invested. When I read that Dorsey was leaving a bit over a billion on the table by not cashing out at $54.20. I assumed that he had done a back room deal where Musk agreed to redeem Dorsey’s shares at $54.20 no matter the current valuation, and that recently came out as being the case. I assume he had to make a similar agreement with the Saudis, but the bank has already marked down their investment by about 70%.
Still, Musk remains the most fucked since he’s not only on the hook for the $1B per year interest payments but also is still the largest single investor. I suspect between hemorrhaging money, guaranteed buy backs, and loss of value versus TSLA or whatever else he used for collateral that he’s going to lose more than his $40B stake. That would be quite the feat, and I’d love to celebrate it by sending a bottle of champagne to him at Twitter HQ.
But not real champagne, that’s cruel
(To the tune of “If I had a Million Dollars”)
What an ingenious strategy! Only a true business genius could do that.
Yeah, but Musk can afford to lose $20 billion, unlike basically everyone else in the entire world. Musk didn’t put in $40b. It was 20 from him, a couple from Saudis, 10 from Larry Ellison and 13 from bank loans.
Interesting about Dorsey. I still wonder about the horrifying statement about the sale, “Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness”. Now I wonder, was he actually that deluded or was that only Elron manipulation?
I think that billionaires need to think that they are the ones responsible for their success and wealth - that we live in a meritocracy and so anyone with Elmo’s money must be brilliant. I’ve also heard that Elmo can be quite funny and charming in person if he wants to be. Given that, plus the well known halo effect, I suspect that Dorsey mostly meant what he was saying, but the fact that he got his buyout guaranteed at least makes me suspect that he had reservations.
Yes, if they lie on anything official then it’s investor fraud.
No investors, it’s a private firm by musk who took loans against it.
I saw video of her being interviewed on stage at a conference and she seems just as weird and psychologically unhealthy as Musk. Smug and condescending while narcissistically unable to acknowledge unpleasant realities that every single person knows are true. I think I’m mostly talking about style here. All big CEO-types would lay off thousands of good humans who are hard workers in a heartbeat to make their rich investors more money, but some manage to do it without the delivery of a shitposting bond villain. Watching her answer questions for 5 minutes made my skin crawl.
When Musk said it would be difficult to find somebody crazy enough to take the job, he wasn’t lying, for once.
The linked article had some excellent examples of what these advertisers are getting.
What would you expect to happen when extreme right-wing, elitist messaging is encouraged from a self-absorbed, misogynistic lunatic.
