Technology Elon Musk: The Worlds Richest Man

Pinhead in Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth said:
Unbearable Hilarious, isn't it? The suffering of strangers the Left, the agony of friends Leftards. There is a secret song at the center of the world Internet, Joey Sane Person, and its sound is like razors through flesh. the screaming of triggered SJW's, Woketards, "Feminists", and Democrat Cultists.
Click to expand...
 
Scottty said:
Pardon my asking a basic question here - but if you own Twitter shares, it's your choice whether to sell them to The Elon, not Twitter management's.. right?
Click to expand...
The shareholders would still need to agree to the offer by selling, so this isn't over yet.
 
Scottty said:
Pardon my asking a basic question here - but if you own Twitter shares, it's your choice whether to sell them to The Elon, not Twitter management's.. right?
Click to expand...
Agent23 said:
The shareholders would still need to agree to the offer by selling, so this isn't over yet.
Click to expand...
This should finalize in basically Musk making an offer to each shareholder, and the board and Musk has confidence that he'll be able to purchase >50%, as he has wooed key shareholders.

The thing that is important is that I believe that he can also force a sale once he's in such a position. This is basically necessary if a bunch of small investors are there with like one share, which would put it above the SEC threshold for a private company. But their shares are going to a lot more illiquid now that they aren't on a stock exchange, so it's in your best interest to sell.
 
Abhorsen said:
This should finalize in basically Musk making an offer to each shareholder, and the board and Musk has confidence that he'll be able to purchase >50%, as he has wooed key shareholders.

The thing that is important is that I believe that he can also force a sale once he's in such a position. This is basically necessary if a bunch of small investors are there with like one share, which would put it above the SEC threshold for a private company. But their shares are going to a lot more illiquid now that they aren't on a stock exchange, so it's in your best interest to sell.
Click to expand...


The Whispering Monk said:
What @Abhorsen said. If/when Musk gains a certain percentage of the shares (I think it's around 85-90%) he'll be able to pull the company to private status and de-list it.
Click to expand...
Unless the minority shareholders don't take him to court and block his purcahse, you mean.
Frankly most would probably be happy to sell, since Musk is giving them 40% above the stock price, for a company that is a loss maker.
That doesn't mean that massive political tools like BlackRock will agree to sell and not try to pull some shenanigans.
 
Agent23 said:
Unless the minority shareholders don't take him to court and block his purcahse, you mean.
Frankly most would probably be happy to sell, since Musk is giving them 40% above the stock price, for a company that is a loss maker.
That doesn't mean that massive political tools like BlackRock will agree to sell and not try to pull some shenanigans.
Click to expand...
BlackRock won't, I don't think. And honestly, they'd lose that lawsuit if they did do it, and possibly get sued by people for mismanaging their money (black rock doesn't own the shares, they just manage them. They've got a fiduciary duty that they'd be abandoning if they did).

They really can't block the purchase. Sure, someone might try, but they'll lose.
 
Agent23 said:
Unless the minority shareholders don't take him to court and block his purcahse, you mean.
Click to expand...
On what grounds? And, at a certain point, it's completely legal for an owner going private (with alarge enough portion of shares) to completely ignore any remaining stock holders.
Agent23 said:
That doesn't mean that massive political tools like BlackRock will agree to sell and not try to pull some shenanigans.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I mean, I think they'd love to try, but it would also open Blackrock up to lawsuits by their share holders if they don't sell to make a profit. You know...that whole fiduciary thing. :)
 
The Whispering Monk said:
On what grounds? And, at a certain point, it's completely legal for an owner going private (with alarge enough portion of shares) to completely ignore any remaining stock holders.
Click to expand...
When have things like logic and reason detered US lawsuits and courts from doing crap?
The Whispering Monk said:
I doubt it. I mean, I think they'd love to try, but it would also open Blackrock up to lawsuits by their share holders if they don't sell to make a profit. You know...that whole fiduciary thing. :)
Click to expand...
yeah, problem is that blackrock is akin to a 4th governmnet branch.
That is why Fink and those like him are pushing woke nonsense via ESG rankings and why "get Woke go broke" has not taken off properly.
 
Agent23 said:
When have things like logic and reason detered US lawsuits and courts from doing crap?
Click to expand...
Constantly? Like all the time? Seriously, the courts are pretty good about this stuff because of appeals at the very least.

Agent23 said:
yeah, problem is that blackrock is akin to a 4th governmnet branch.
That is why Fink and those like him are pushing woke nonsense via ESG rankings and why "get Woke go broke" has not taken off properly.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. "X is a fourth government branch" is way overplayed. They are far less powerful than that. They can force you to do very little, if anything. And they don't take constant federal money either.

The Whispering Monk said:
Really just a perfect example of a company that is TOO large and needs to be broken up into competing firms.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. I don't like the company, but that's no reason to break it up. It's 'size' is just assets under management, not anything else. Companies shouldn't be broken up for a size reason, that just punishes success.

Now if they are being anti-competitive in a way that harms the consumer, that would be a reason. But that's about it.
 
Abhorsen said:
Constantly? Like all the time? Seriously, the courts are pretty good about this stuff because of appeals at the very least.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that they are not political, and Twitter is the breeding ground for much of the alleged literati upperclass policymakres and the SJWs.

Abhorsen said:
No, they aren't. "X is a fourth government branch" is way overplayed. They are far less powerful than that. They can force you to do very little, if anything. And they don't take constant federal money either.
Click to expand...
The US Banksters and Hedgies have had massive influence over the US government for decades, usually so that they can socialize losses and privatize profits, and engage in quid pro quo whenever necessary.

Abhorsen said:
No, it doesn't. I don't like the company, but that's no reason to break it up. It's 'size' is just assets under management, not anything else. Companies shouldn't be broken up for a size reason, that just punishes success.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it is actively pushing more woke shit and that Fink is using passive investments done through their ETFs force companies into leftoid bullshit, and their size and all the money they have received from government sources give them a lot of influence.
Passive investments should, IMHO be passive, with whoever packages them not having any say how the companies are run, Index funds, especially ones the size of Vanguard and BlackRock have no skin in the game where one or two specific companies are concerned, they also have neither the legitimacy nor the in dept knowledge of the particular business they should have in order to interfere.
BlackRock and Vanguard will still hold trillions and they will still get their cut of a very big pie that takes up much of the international market, even if they push bullshit like ESG funds or tank a few companies or a whole sector with woke bullshit.

Also, Musk pledging about 50 billion worth of Tesla Stock for this whole deal is, IMHO not a good thing for Tesla stock prices, if he gets a margin call that will basically force him to dump the stock and by now I doubt anyone is insane enough to buy it at such massive prices.
 
Abhorsen said:
No, it doesn't. I don't like the company, but that's no reason to break it up. It's 'size' is just assets under management, not anything else. Companies shouldn't be broken up for a size reason, that just punishes success.
Click to expand...
I wasn't clear enough. I think they should break off the operations that our Governmental tasking essentially so that their private shareholders aren't exposed to the risk of government assets as well. This is an effort to minimize the threat of 'too big to fail' nonsense that always results from this kind of activity.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
I wasn't clear enough. I think they should break off the operations that our Governmental tasking essentially so that their private shareholders aren't exposed to the risk of government assets as well. This is an effort to minimize the threat of 'too big to fail' nonsense that always results from this kind of activity.
Click to expand...
It is extremely heavily intertwined with governments, and if you look at its directors you will see a bunch of Bush and Obama administration alumni.
Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart
Take a look at what they have to say about BlackRock, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top