“Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion”

I found this funny.

  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts.

    why would you think that? most of the money were his loans, not some 3rd party investors. why tf would he not have to pay back?

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        twitter filing for bankruptcy doesn’t absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk’s, not twitter’s.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/154769/musk-bought-twitter-with-13b-loans-why-is-twitter-liable-for-this-debt-rath

          https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money

          Twitter is responsible for that debt. Not Musk. That’s because of the way the agreement for the loan was structured. That’s why he would lose control of the company if they file for bankruptcy.

          • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.

            but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Insider trading is illegal. Tax fraud is illegal. There’s lots of things in the business world that have been deemed illegal including the theft of ideas that are trademarked, copyrighted or patented and businessmen steal those all the time and spend a lot of time looking for loopholes. The bottom line is that I can’t say with 100% certainty that this is exactly what’s going on but I can point to articles with analysis of the entire thing and see some distinct possibilities, and you can’t say for certain that that’s not what’s going on, unless you happen to work in the field and have information that I don’t.

              The other parts of the acquisition are covered by his own companies and the sale of his own stock. With the right insurance (the right contracts) he’d get a golden parachute that would make him whole without having to pay those back either. Golden parachutes are not only legal but also quite normal for CEOs. If Twitter were to end up bankrupt, he may not have to pay back the money he borrowed from Tesla or his other companies, and that leaves him having to pay back just the private parties. Depending on their agreement, that may be in stock options for all we know. Further allowing him to dump Tesla stock without selling it (which won’t effect Teslas valuation in a negative way).

              A house of cards is a house of cards. Things being illegal have never stopped this man before.