Elon Musk's latest launch: An unsolicited Twitter takeover The Twitter-Elon-Musk saga has taken another turn, with the tech billionaire tabling an offer of $54.20 per share to buy the website outright. Musk snapped up a 9.2 percent stake in the company in March (disclosed via SEC filing on April 4) but it was announced earlier this week that he would not be taking a seat on the …
He was kicked off the board before he even started, now he's pouting like a spoiled child. A spoiled child who can afford to throw around tens of billions of dollars, but a spoiled child just the same. He's like the archetypal rich kid in a children's show who tries to buy friends because that's the only way they can understand the world.
SEC won't be amused. It was supposed to be a passive investment, now it's turning into a hostile takeover announced via err... Twitter rather than filing.
Also be interesting if there's market manipulation in the announcement, ie share price rises on this news, so Musk's current stake gains.
As I explained three days ago, his first SEC filing was a 13G form for a passive investment while he served on the board. He submitted a revised 13D filing to allow him to be an active investor with no limit to his stock holdings.
The SEC will have no problem with this particular action, assuming he follows through and is not just trying to manipulate the market.
As to why, Elon doesn't deal in whys, he deals in whims.
I stand by my prediction that this was his plan when he refused a seat on the board.
Well, it certainly suggests he planned to buy more from day two, when an underling told him about the stock restrictions of being on the board.
I just don't buy him. For a guy touted as being 'the smartest guy in any room' he must only be in very empty rooms.
Me, I never learned Latin. I know 'caveat emptor' means buyer beware, but what is the equivalent for beware of the buyer?
Maxwell, Murdoch, Musk.
> Me, I never learned Latin. I know 'caveat emptor' means buyer beware, but what is the equivalent for beware of the buyer?
That would be "cave emptor", I believe - Latin being very, very beholden to the endings of words (as any fule kno).
I am now having flashbacks to my year of Latin and Greek lessons aged 11. Eeek.
Although I never did Latin, everything I have found says caveat emptor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor
Perhaps you went to an inferior school with your prickly - but suspect - grammar correction.
Romani ite domum
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0lczHvB3Y9s&vl=en
That actually would not be out of the realm of possibility. Musk is a MAGAt, and a tRump apologist. He has stated in the past that tRump should not have been banned from Twatter, and is in favor of rescinding his ban. (It is entirely possible that one of the driving motives to get on the board and/or to control Twatter is to allow tRump and other such liars back onto the platform, in return for unspecified "future favors" from the head MAGAt.)
>tRump should not have been banned from Twatter
Something that many non-Trump fans also agree with.
Should the head of state be banned from Twitter? From Facebook, from Google, from ICANN ?
Next time it might be your candidate that is banned from the modern world.
The board offered Elon a seat at the table and he politely declined their offer.
He's offered well above the market price for shares, but he wants them all, so he can pursue his own agenda,
An agenda that might not be very rewarding for investors, but possibly very rewarding for democracy the world over.
An agenda that might not be very rewarding for investors, but possibly very rewarding for democracy the world over.
I have a hard time seeing purposely turning the platform into the world's largest disinformation and propaganda spigot can possibly be "very rewarding for democracy", but that's just me, I guess.
Unless, of course, your definition of "democracy" is the same as tRump's, which is something along the lines of, "You can do or say anything you want, so long as I agree with it, and/or it makes me money."
This post has been deleted by its author
I doubt democracy can be a one-man job. The concept of the "providential man" is detrimental to the one of Democracy.
Twitter is far from being a democratic tool. It's a loud speaker for hatred, racist, xenophobic and fascist contents. Twitter is much more related to Anarchy than to Democracy, it's a tool helping the vilest human instincts to express themselves.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
The US SEC would love nothing more than to take Elon down a peg or three. ..... Steve Davies 3
What???? And kill one of its golden geese? I don't thinks so. It is the likes of Elon Musk that keeps the Fed going and the SEC in work pumping and dumping dollars to favoured market players. It's just a flash cash game to play and try not to crash or profit extraordinarily too obviously from.
Haven't you yet realised that?
Maybe someone with a lot of money has bought the source code to amanfromMars 1? ... John Brown (no body)
Do you think if that someone was Elon Musk it would be an APTly absurd, remarkably shrewd and obscenely profitable, out of this world purchase/investment which the likes of Earthly regulatory authorities and Securities and Exchange Commissions would have no universal right to tangle with and become embroiled and entangled in?
And if they did ever presume and further assume to try to exercise such a right to tangle and become embroiled and entangled in any APTly absurd, remarkably shrewd and obscenely profitable, out of this world purchased investments, how well or badly do you think they would rightly fare in such an ACTive Live Operational Virtual Environment in which they are defenceless and easily considered as prey?
>You forgot that Pump and Dump schemes are illegal.
>The US SEC would love nothing more than to take Elon down a peg or three.
Only if you are dumb enough to send an email to your accountant saying this is a scheme (which many people have)
Ideal case would be the SEC blocking him, then he can sell his shares walk away with a profit and say "I genuinely tried but the guberment stopped me!" The SEC can hardly sue him for selling after they told him he couldn't buy
there's less risk
On the one hand, Musk could start Mutter and fail to get enough users to make it viable. On the other, he could acquire Twitter for an eye-watering sum of money and have sufficient of its users leave after his transformation that it's no longer viable. There's certainly less at stake in the former.
SecondLife is still going and doing fine.
And has graphics that make the current 'popular' metaverses that are just NFT tie-ins look like toys. Also tons of physics driven vehicles, weaponry, events... SL was doing concerts before Fortnite existed.
https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-second-life-history-metaverse/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
