Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 454K
  • Politics 
altmin said:
March 28 (Reuters) - Elon Musk said on Friday that his xAI has acquired X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter, in an all-stock transaction for $45 billion, including $12 billion debt.
"xAI and X's futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent," Musk said in a post on X, adding that the combined company would be valued at $80 billion.


-----------

He founded an ai company, raised money for it, then used that company to buy him out of owning X directly
Click to expand...
Playing Cards GIF by Warner Archive
 
altmin said:
March 28 (Reuters) - Elon Musk said on Friday that his xAI has acquired X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter, in an all-stock transaction for $45 billion, including $12 billion debt.
"xAI and X's futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent," Musk said in a post on X, adding that the combined company would be valued at $80 billion.


-----------

He founded an ai company, raised money for it, then used that company to buy him out of owning X directly
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. It's all worth the same. LOL at the $45 B valuation. It's an all-stock deal between two subsidiaries. He could sell it for $200B and it wouldn't matter (as far as valuation goes).
 
Absorbs a $12B loss to make X into an ATM machine. Stabbed investors in the back.

Gee, why am I not shocked?

The bank robberies will continue.

bafkreigbiy7ffcqk3zasu4yzvl2vap7igpkrqpm6zsjhltbpadii4hffve.jpg
 
When the Columbia protests were going on and the corrupt Mayor Adams did not arrest foreign Hamas, non-student elements - I had a problem.

Now Trump and Rubio go after the weaker students who were stooges who repeated Hamas propaganda. Including folks with Green Cards, Not criminals. Not illegal aliens.

Because once the Trump 2.0 Reich gets away with indiscriminate deportation of *alleged* criminals and *pet eaters* without due process to the *wrong country* (aka El Salvador, where none of the snatched immigrants are from) or a secret prison in Louisiana (frankly a third world location)...

...then escalating to deporting *without due cause* or *an arrest* where men in black take unsuspecting students to secret locations. A terrorist Gestapo.


Trump 2.0 is lawless where Congress, the FBI, DAs, Federal judges, capitulating law firms...none of them matter. It's the *Summer of Trump.*

We spent mountains of treasure and lakes of blood fighting Nazis and Communist in the 20th Century. Now, we're one of them...look at Trumps friends and our new enemies - former allies. Just ask them. It's repulsive.
 
sringwal said:
Serious question, because I am way out of my league here - How does that work if Twitter wasn’t a public stock?
Click to expand...
How does what work? Mergers? The law of mergers is state corporation law. Federal law sets forth rules that must be followed for companies with publicly traded securities -- but they are only rules pertaining to the stock and the stock trading. The actual authority for the merger is state corporation law.

Small mergers are common. I mean, really common. And so are intercorporate mergers (i.e. companies with common owners merging).

Is that what you're asking? Does this answer the question?
 
Duke Mu said:
Cheating. Took a $12B paper loss. xAI now becomes an ATM machine.
Click to expand...
I thought he valued X at $45B, not $33B.

Regardless, $33B is a price way over Twitter's current valuation, so there's no cheating involved. The transaction is conflicted, and Musk almost certainly did not follow any of the procedures usually required to prevent close scrutiny of the deal (he didn't in his pay package or in other mergers), so entire fairness review would apply. And entire fairness review can make it quite difficult for the company to prevail, but a price that is at least twice a current valuation will satisfy the standard.

There might be "cheating" in the sense that banks feel compelled to participate in the financing to avoid being on Musk's bad side, given his position in the government. But banks also felt compelled to participate in the twitter buyout just because Musk is a big fish.
 
superrific said:
I thought he valued X at $45B, not $33B.

Regardless, $33B is a price way over Twitter's current valuation, so there's no cheating involved. The transaction is conflicted, and Musk almost certainly did not follow any of the procedures usually required to prevent close scrutiny of the deal (he didn't in his pay package or in other mergers), so entire fairness review would apply. And entire fairness review can make it quite difficult for the company to prevail, but a price that is at least twice a current valuation will satisfy the standard.

There might be "cheating" in the sense that banks feel compelled to participate in the financing to avoid being on Musk's bad side, given his position in the government. But banks also felt compelled to participate in the twitter buyout just because Musk is a big fish.
Click to expand...
Musk bought twitter for $45B, but claimed $33B when he bought his own company with xAI. That's why it's a paper and not real loss. Reorganization like this is also a common ploy against legal action. And he paid himself during the exchange aka skimming off the top.

Buy: $45B
Sell: $33B (to himself)

 
Duke Mu said:
Musk bought twitter for $45B, but claimed $33B when he bought his own company with xAI. That's why it's a paper and not real loss. Reorganization like this is also a common ploy against legal action. And he paid himself during the exchange aka skimming off the top.

Buy: $45B
Sell: $33B (to himself)
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It depends on the financing and the merger agreement. Without seeing the merger agreement, it's impossible to evaluate.

An all-stock deal will not prevent any legal action. The surviving company will inherit all assets and all liabilities of the original companies, including contingent liabilities.
 
superrific said:
There might be "cheating" in the sense that banks feel compelled to participate in the financing to avoid being on Musk's bad side, given his position in the government.
Click to expand...
Trying to get my mind around how this old saw would apply to Musk: "When you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. When you owe the bank $100 million, it's their problem." Maybe: "When your potential customer's net worth is more than your firm's market cap, it's a problem...
 
hedge said:
Trying to get my mind around how this old saw would apply to Musk: "When you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. When you owe the bank $100 million, it's their problem." Maybe: "When your potential customer's net worth is more than your firm's market cap, it's a problem...
Click to expand...
It's not about the overall debt level. I'm pretty sure the banks syndicated their loans to spread the risk. I doubt any of them have a "problem" with Musk in that way.

The problem with Musk is twofold: 1. He creates plenty of business for i-banks, through reorgs, financing, new stock offerings etc. The people who work at the i-banks want a piece of that business. It's not good for the i-banks necessarily, but banks are run by people, and those people want the $$ from doing deals with Musk.

2. Obviously now that he's part of the government somehow, he can take aim at banks that displease him. There are actually a lot of ways the government can fuck over banks, and they are fairly easy to hide. It's not like the law firms, who have been able to obtain injunctions quite easily given that they are being attacked for their viewpoints. Banks can be flagged for inspections, reviews, and elevated capital controls based on their economic circumstances alone. It's hard to prove that they are being targeted for illegitimate reasons. So they would have to defend themselves with a selective prosecution defense, and that's quite difficult to make. Plus, regulators can kill a bank with 1000 cuts over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top