I don't think it will.I think it'll be a bit of a shock for them to see MM crash and burn.
We'll see.
I don't think it will.I think it'll be a bit of a shock for them to see MM crash and burn.
As @Cherico said, these people think they're invincible. They've never really had someone with just as much money, or more money in total, and influence than them not only survive their bullshit maneuvers but actively use it against them.I don't think it will.
We'll see.
As @Cherico said, these people think they're invincible. They've never really had someone with just as much money, or more money in total, and influence than them not only survive their bullshit maneuvers but actively use it against them.
As an example, Disney's higher ups are in a panic right now that someone, a billionaire who is against their Leftist bullshit, is going to hostile takeover the company and do whatever he wants. Someone with that capability isn't on their side/under their influence, and it's terrifying to them.
Musk destroying one of their Lefty compatriots? It'll cause ripples.
Not so sure about Disney. From what I hear I think it’s more diversion and smoke and mirrors.
There's more to it. Chapek was still progressive, but more interested in making money, so he was meant as "controlled opposition", rolling back some of the crazier stuff and pleasing the investors (who do want actual profits). But even that was too much for the loonies to accept, so Chapek was sabotaged from within Disney. You have to understand, their entire managerial cadre is run by far-left psychos by now. There's very few sane people left. They literally consider The Message more important than having a profitable company.
But as soon as this became clear (that Chapek was going to be forced out), a group of shareholders tried to organise a boardroom coup / buy-out. Didn't work out, since they lacked a majority. So Chapek was canned, and Iger brought back.
Now, Disney's annual numbers have gone off a cliff. Since Iger (the erstwhile champion and sponsor of Kennedy and other "The Message!"-pushing loons) was brought back at the behest of the loonies, they can't really get rid of him like they did with Chapek. And Iger can be removed at the behest of upset shareholders. And there are by now plenty of upset shareholders. So Iger is actually now doing what Chapek was also doing: moderate roll-backs of the insanity.
To the leftists, those are temporary appeasements, and they'll go right back to the lunacy as soon as they can get away with it. But at that time, it'll just sink profits again.
And this process is happening across the media industry. Diversity officers (and often their entire departments) are getting fired left and right. There's something of a sea-change to be seen. I don't think we're there yet, and that it'll be a tug-of-war for a few more rounds, but we're edging closer and closer to the day when a group of upset big shareholders just forces a change at Disney. And not the kind of partial, temporary roll-back, but a really big sweep that kicks all the wokies to the curb in the name of restoring profits.
The reason they're looking with such trepidation at Musk is because he's ahead of the curve. He's the kind of mad lad doing this before it's fashionable. He's slipping through the first crack of the opening Overton Window, and they know he's a sign of things to come. He's showing others that the loonies and the wokies and crybullies can be fought. And that when you fight them, you can win.
(The basic trade-off is that going against 'The Message' gets you a lot of media -- and social media -- backlash, which the big corporations fear. They don't want controversy. But counter to this, going along with 'The Message' kills your profits. The upshot is that they go along with it for as long as profits are still substantial enough. We're now getting to the point that the cost of being 'woke' is higher than the cost of courting controversy by rejecting 'woke'. Musk is one of the first to get this, and he's willing to make the needed moves, because he's a hypergiant and they can't touch him.)
the crybullies and wookies havent even begun to suffer for all of the shit they have pulled.
These people are a good thing and a feature of human societies. They are the gatekeepers of culture and societal stability, the problem is I don't think we've ever seen a society be completely reshaped by total media control in a few generations so the otherwise stabilizers are themselves unstable in what they are enforcing.And the crybullies won't.
You need to understand something: the crybullies will always exist. There's a personality type, let's call them the "Social Enforcer" who gloms onto what they see as the most popular moral system and proceed to attempt to enforce it upon others via social shaming and public moralizing. You used to see these as the "Church Ladies" who were constantly made fun of back in the 80s and 90s, and whom are often credited with "turning people off" from Christianity. Well... take a look at the demographics of those who are crybullies and engage in cancel culture. They're the exact same demographic who made up the "Church ladies" back in the day, only they've traded Christian morality for Social Justice, and because Social Justice has no redemption and no mercy, nor is it tempered by generations of analysis and now they are not longer limited to just their immediate social circle due to the internet.
But in the end, it's the same personality type and people, and if we start winning those types will merely switch sides to enforce the new public morality.
Advertisers still leaving Twitter & Musk couldn't care less.The real problem for MM and the people in it is NOT Musk's lawsuit. If that works, they just declare bankruptcy and start again under a different name.
No, the real problem is the fraud investigations. Those will target MM AND individuals. Bankruptcy won't protect them from that.
So basically his actions have been profitable for Tesla, but Teslas stock acted in the opposite way (for awhile at least.)Speaking of which, recent poll says among likely purchasers of EVs, 35% are more likely to purchase Tesla because of Musk's recent actions while only 27% are less likely.
Needless to say, this is despite likely purchasers of EVs not being evenly distributed among the political spectrum by any means. And this is despite the media's desperate pushing of any dirt they can find, as this leftist article's author disbelievingly notes. She does express the plaintive hope that just maybe reinstating Alex Jones will tip the balance . . .
Kinda explains the increasingly frantic attacks by a media fearing the loss of their influence over even their core audience.
Tesla stock has been divorced from anything approaching reason for years. Musk has even said this at least once, and likely only kept from constantly saying it by fear of shareholder lawsuits. That Tesla is the financially healthiest car manufacturer in america doesn't matter when its market capitalization is several times what that can justify.So basically his actions have been profitable for Tesla, but Teslas stock acted in the opposite way (for awhile at least.)
Well, not the crybullies, but you have to admit-- the Wookiees had it pretty bad under Palpatine's rule.
Stock market is literally a ponzi scheme.Tesla stock has been divorced from anything approaching reason for years. Musk has even said this at least once, and likely only kept from constantly saying it by fear of shareholder lawsuits. That Tesla is the financially healthiest car manufacturer in america doesn't matter when its market capitalization is several times what that can justify.
The only way to justify its peak price points was the irrational belief that Musk will pull something totally insane out of his ass. That might actually happen now given the progress with Tesla robotics, but that doesn't change the irrationality of all Tesla share price movements.
It is.And here I thought that the whole point of being a stockholder was that one got some of the profits of the company...
With many companies in top fortune 500 never paid a single cent in dividends.The portion of publicly traded U.S. companies that paid dividends peaked at 66.5% in 1978 and fell to a bare 20.8% by 1999
It's explicitly dividing the stock itself, so if they do it to double the amount of stock, you have two at half the price. Same value in-the-moment, lower minimum buy-in cost. It's rather essential to maintain trade volume when the valuation goes nuts.Oh, and then there is share dilution. where the company is free to, at any time, just print more "stocks". thus dividing the so called value of your stock.
No, what you are describing is an "anti dilution clause".It's explicitly dividing the stock itself, so if they do it to double the amount of stock, you have two at half the price. Same value in-the-moment, lower minimum buy-in cost. It's rather essential to maintain trade volume when the valuation goes nuts.
Common stock comes with voting rights and greater fluctuations in share price. Dividends are paid out when the corporation's board of directors declare them.
Preferred stock is often called a "hybrid security" because its fixed-income dividend behaves like a bond even though it's an equity investment. It comes with preferential status to other investors, which is where it gets its name. The increase in preferred stock share price is modest.
So yea... even if there was anti dilution provisions when you bought the stock. they can just be negotiated away at any time by other people!
- Anti-dilution provisions are negotiable, and different parties in each financing round will have different perspectives on the right approach.
- Full-ratchet anti-dilution provisions are rare, partly because they can put off future investors who may not get the same rights. Also, founders are resistant to them because they could effectively whittle the founders' ownership stakes down to nothing.
- Future investors sometimes negotiate away prior investors' anti-dilution protections. This can result in disputes among investors, which delay or altogether derail a company's ability to raise future rounds.
Its not a Panzi scheme, its gambling,Stock market is literally a ponzi scheme.