- Messages
- 780
Investment bank - e.g. Goldman Sachs.What's an i-bank?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Investment bank - e.g. Goldman Sachs.What's an i-bank?
Ergo, a paper loss.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.
It's never been more true. lol :cryTrying 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...
$45B valuation less $12B assumed debtI 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.
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)
And some dumb mother fuckers don't see anything wrong with this
Its the lip biting expression gives it away as a thing he's practiced before. Ass-boerger ass bite!And some dumb mother fuckers don't see anything wrong with this
No, he's the evil one, just like the villain in a Bond movie. And as always it's projection with these people. Always, always projection.
Not everyone is sold on the Artemis mission, though.Elon Musk’s Mission to Take Over NASA—and Mars
The billionaire is in position to speed up plans for a voyage to the planet, with a potentially huge impact on SpaceX
GIFT LINK—> https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-m...7b?st=Kw8yUM&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
“… It is at NASA, though, where Musk is making the biggest shift in an agency’s priorities to align them with his own—both financially and personally.
He is working to recast its programs, reallocate federal spending and install loyalists to aid his decadeslong goal of sending people to Mars.
He has also worked to win backing from Trump by telling the president that getting people to Mars would shine his legacy as a “president of firsts,” according to people briefed on the conversations.
The ambition could have a potentially huge impact on SpaceX, which has emerged as the dominant space technology and operations company globally and is already one of NASA’s biggest contractors. …”
——
By its timeline, NASA is on the verge of implementing the Artemis program to create a space station orbiting the Moon, supporting human access to the Moon from the orbiting station and eventually a platform for future Mars missions. China is our direct competitor.
Musk is stomping in, wanting to ditch a huge investment of planning and money on the cusp of implementation to rush his unproven tech to the forefront of skipping ahead to a manned Mars Mission. Because that is what his heart desires.
and what he is going to end up doing is setting back US space program at a time that we have real competition from China.