Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Elon Musk’s Proposal to Buy 100% of Twitter
Now that Musk is bidding for a full takeover of Twitter, the left and the likes of Max Boot are crying about the effect unfettered (or less fettered) speech has on democracy.
These same clowns didn’t care when social media blocked a true story about the Biden family’s global influence-peddling scheme during the 2020 election cycle.
I suspect Biden’s SEC will hold this up, or maybe it’s a ploy by Musk to drive up the price and sell the 9 percent he currently has.
One thing about Twitter and the last four years: it showed the media for who they really are, especially the GOPe (e.g., Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard gang).
Published in General
Not as rude??? Trump didn’t even call pedophiles pedophiles let alone cave divers.
He can probably force a vote of all shareholders. That would be epic.
Whatever his plan, he wasn’t going to tell that yoink.
Well it looks like Twitter’s board instantiated a poison pill, where if any one buyer accumulates more than 15% of stock, it allows the current shareholders to buy at a discount.
This could stop it, it could not. But I’m hearing that some might be interested in buying 2-5 shares and appointing musk as voting proxy without triggering the 15% threshold. Question is, can those in Musk’s corner collectively get to voting majority?
Wouldn’t that require issuing new stock? And wouldn’t that require SEC approval, regulation etc?
This is all I got:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/twitter-adopts-poison-pill-to-ward-off-musk-takeover/ar-AAWgug6?ocid=uxbndlbing
While I’m learning, stocks feel too much like high risk gambling to me, so I don’t know that much on it.
Yup. And it dillutes the value of existing shares. And that can trigger charges of fiduciary irresponsibility. And that can honk off a lot of shareholders. Taking a poison pill isn’t as effective as threatening to.
We should soon see details at:
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1418091&owner=exclude
Torba to Musk:
https://news.gab.com/2022/04/14/gab-coms-offer-to-elon-musk/
Seems like we’ve been here before:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/gab-elon-musk-tweet
Seems to me that if Musk successfully takes control of Twitter, and he already has the ISP structure, then he’d be much better off than by buying Gab.
Twitter 8-K disclosing the poison pill:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522107462/d296740d8k.htm
The Twitter board, excepting Jack Dorsey who leaves the board in a month, owns 77 shares total. They are not invested in the company financially and Dorsey hinted at other problems over the weekend.
This is, apparently, not unusual in tech, but…why? So many reasons to ask ‘why?’ here. Why is the board taking protective measures? What is their actual stake here? It’s not financial unless you include their board salaries.
It seems like a dangerous game because shareholders now have no dividend and no prospect of buyout. In short, no reward for their investment beyond the prestige(?) of owning Twitter stock. At least one analyst is screaming “Sell!” and at 48 and change with a resistant board, I’d be out of there fast.
uh oh. My plan of buying 78 shares to outvote the board might be a mistake.