Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 643K
  • Politics 
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.
 
hedge said:
What's an i-bank?
Click to expand...
Investment bank. The investment part is a bit of a misnomer as they don't really do much investment. But if a company wants to sell some stock or sell themselves all together, they find buyers. And vice versa if someone wants to buy a company.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ergo, a paper loss.
 
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 never been more true. lol :cry
 
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...
$45B valuation less $12B assumed debt
 
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...

Was there an assumption of $12b of debt by xAI to even it out to $45b? So $33b of xAI stock and assumption of X/Musk's $12b debt.

jinx/
 
I seem to recall that Musk did something similar with his brother/cousin's solar company at some point through Tesla.
 
1743288329075.png
Yes, Elon, the goal of the left is to destroy you. Because, it's all about you, isn't it? Of course it is, because you're a very, very special person.

You sir, are a megalomaniac.
 


First of all, at best this is a dumb message (and worse, calls for vandalism), let Teslas burn on their own and don’t create sympathy for Musk the victim.

Second, they missed the obviously catchier alliteration opportunity using “Torch” rather than “Burn” so incompetent all the way around.
 
If anyone is wondering, in my opinion, xAI or grok is decent but not exactly top of the line. They have some pretty good generative image stuff, some decent LLM stuff, and integration with twitter/X. It also open sources their older models which is nice.

If there's going to be one winner like Google was for search, I don't think xAI is going to be it although all these companies announce new breakthroughs seemingly every week so that could change. If there are going to be multiple winners like Facebook / tiktok/ Twitter/ instagram for social media, xAI is going to be a pretty strong offering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top