Why is twitter still trading?

Although I'm heavily invested in Tsla, I don't hold back against Musk when I think criticism is due. He is an ego driven guy whose need for attention leads him to make questionable decisions, like building a factory in the middle of Germany's auto manufacturing mecca, where union labor and governments have been sleeping with each other for many decades (figuratively and literally).
Buying and privatizing Twitter will be a double edge sword, as demonstrated by Tsla’s deep drop reflecting uncertainty about the purchase.
The complexity of managing the global public square is froth with all sorts of risks, the first of which will be the inability to satisfy all, and by consequence affect Tsla stock price and his other businesses when they go public. That is inescapable.
Surely, forcing real identity to tweet (like required in Europe) will be a major improvement. Many on all sides of the political spectrum will cancel their accounts rather than be outed. That's fine and maybe some civility will return to the square. Anyone should be able to express their opinion, however distasteful, as long as they own up to it.
But Musk will face greater complexities, such as government mandated oversight and/or curbs on speech, as seen in dictatorships around the world. When his decisions about Twitter begin to affect his other businesses negatively, he will have stockholders to answer to and may find that he chewed more than expected.
 
like a house purchase. They have an agreement but there are closing conditions (generally due diligence and government approvals)

You should read all of my posts before responding. I addressed this issue further.
 
Elon could expire before the deal is consumated.
He's made a good number of enemies.
Numerous entities, e.g. Democratic National Committee, etc. are comfy in the current ecosystem provided by the woke drones that inhabit the cancel culture hoipaloi that monitor communications of Twit. Without the deathgrip on narritive and assumed cloak of invincibility provided by said narritive, many assumptions and commonly 'accepted facts' would fall.
A lot can happen in 60 days.
Musker's getting fit for kevlar undies and staying out of small airplanes.
It's a looong way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.
 
You should read all of my posts before responding. I addressed this issue further.

You need to understand selling a house and selling a company are different. We just use it as an example. There are similarities but also major differences.

Even a deal is agreed on selling a company other bidders can still make hostile bids, for example. This of course won’t happen to selling a house.
 
I thought the deal is already finalized. And Twitter has already agreed to sell the company to Elon Musk for $44 billion and Elon Musk has already secured financing for it. How can it break? Wouldn't either of Twitter of Elon Musk be sued for breach of contract if the deal doesn't go through? Do we get to see the sale agreement?

Shareholders are under no obligation to take a deal unless a really high percentage of them tender their shares. I know in Canada I think if 90% ( or 95% ? ) agree the remainder can be forced to sell. Often if the company has legit value it pays to wait and see if a better offer shows up, but if it's a shit company there are risks the buyer could walk or regulatory issues. You seem to be confused about stock and company ownership. Twitter isn't a private company; how much of the company does mgmt own ? If Twitter agreed to a break fee then they'll pay it if shareholders balk.
 
Last edited:
There you go, this answers the OP's question, hopefully and my question, in a way.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...ion-experts-say-11651070763?mod=mw_latestnews

I need to look at the agreements signed in the corporate filing. The article mentioned that "The filing sets an Oct. 24 deadline for the acquisition, but allows for another six-month extension if regulators are slowing the process." So this could potentially stretch all the way to next April if the regulators feel "more study is needed".
 
Last edited:
I thought the deal is already finalized. And Twitter has already agreed to sell the company to Elon Musk for $44 billion and Elon Musk has already secured financing for it. How can it break? Wouldn't either of Twitter of Elon Musk be sued for breach of contract if the deal doesn't go through? Do we get to see the sale agreement?

Shareholders own the company. They have not agreed to any deal yet. Management can recommend they take the offer but they are under no obligation to do so. Most arbitrage opportunities are priced to reflect the risks.
 
Last edited:
The deal might break if a majority of shareholders vote to not approve it
Or, Elon just being Elon:)
https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-disparage-twitter-employees-224616582.html
Elon Musk is already at risk of violating a key provision of his deal with Twitter
Musk has singled out Twitter's top policy exec despite a non-disparagement clause in his Twitter deal.
K. Bell|04.27.22
@karissabe

a0c9d5a0-c62e-11ec-aadf-089d93be883b.cf.webp

SOPA Images via Getty Images
Elon Musk may have already broken a key provision of the deal he made with Twitter. One day after Twitter disclosed the terms of its deal with Musk, the Tesla CEO is already raising questions about his willingness to adhere to a non-disparagement clause.

According to an SEC filing shared by twitter on Tuesday, Musk is “permitted to issue Tweets about the Merger or the transactions contemplated hereby so long as such Tweets do not disparage the Company or any of its Representatives.” In other words, Musk can tweet about the deal all he wants, but he can’t denigrate Twitter or its employees.




But once again Musk seems unwilling to moderate himself, and has done so at the expense of a top Twitter executive.

On Tuesday night, Musk replied to a tweet about an earlier Politico story that reported Twitter’s top policy exec, Vijaya Gadde, had cried during a meeting with staff discussing Musk’s buyout. The original tweet also noted Gadde’s role in Twitter’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. (The company quickly reversed course after initially trying to limit the story, citing its policy on hacked materials.)

“Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk responded. On Wednesday, Musk targeted Gadde again, tweeting a meme based on her appearance on a 2019 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

The tweets, which have prompted a wave of harassment directed at Gadde, have prompted two former Twitter CEOs to come to her defense. Twitter co-founder and former CEO EV Williams wrote that Gadde is “one of the most thoughtful, principled people I know.”

Former CEO Dick Costolo was more pointed. “You're making an executive at the company you just bought the target of harassment and threats,” he said. “Bullying is not leadership,” he wrote in a separate tweet. “I’m just saying Twitter needs to be politically neutral,” Musk responded.

Notably, neither Jack Dorsey — who recently enthusiastically endorsed Musk’s takeover —or current CEO Parag Agrawal has commented directly. Agrawl tweeted Wednesday that he was “proud of our people who continue to do the work with focus and urgency despite the noise.”

Twitter didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Regardless, this kind of “noise” from Musk is not likely to sit well with Twitter employees, many of whom are already apprehensive about the direction Musk will take the platform.

Musk has claimed that he wants Twitter to be "politically neutral," which in his estimation "effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally." Early reports looking at changes in follower counts for high-profile accounts suggest that far-right politicians are seeing a sharp uptick in followers.
 
Back
Top