Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 12K
- Views: 618K
- Politics
- Messages
- 21,782
From August but still relevant - Musk believed in his own brand of deficit spending when it came to acquiring Twitter:
Gift link —> https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musks...cb?st=9nkmED&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
“… The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.
The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.
The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory. …”
Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis
Loans of around $13 billion have remained ‘hung’ for nearly two years, bringing in interest payments but weighing on banks’ balance sheets
Gift link —> https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musks...cb?st=9nkmED&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
“… The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.
The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.
The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory. …”
- Messages
- 21,782
“… Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago who has tracked such deals since the 1980s, said Twitter isn’t only the biggest hung deal by dollar amount since the 2008 financial crisis but one of the biggest of all time.
“The loans have weighed on the banks for much longer than other hung deals we’ve seen,” he said.
The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal. Musk and other investors ponied up around $30 billion to buy the company, giving the banks some cushion in case things were to go wrong.
The banks—which also include Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—have been able to collect hefty interest payments from the X loans. They are generally for seven to eight years and carry rates several percentage points above the benchmark for investment-grade companies. And the banks could still ultimately be made whole if X is able to cover its interest obligations and repay the principal when the loans mature.
“At some price, they could sell it at a loss, but with Musk they could end up receiving 100 cents on the dollar, if things pan out,” said Kaplan. …”
“The loans have weighed on the banks for much longer than other hung deals we’ve seen,” he said.
The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal. Musk and other investors ponied up around $30 billion to buy the company, giving the banks some cushion in case things were to go wrong.
The banks—which also include Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—have been able to collect hefty interest payments from the X loans. They are generally for seven to eight years and carry rates several percentage points above the benchmark for investment-grade companies. And the banks could still ultimately be made whole if X is able to cover its interest obligations and repay the principal when the loans mature.
“At some price, they could sell it at a loss, but with Musk they could end up receiving 100 cents on the dollar, if things pan out,” said Kaplan. …”
- Messages
- 2,835
So everyone and their mother on the planet knew Musk would lose money on this, except the supposed financial geniuses who run the banks. Brilliant.
StrangePackage
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,566
Guys, I'm starting to wonder if selling off critical aspects of our infrastructure, research, and national security apparati to multinational corporate interests was a wise decision.
- Messages
- 5,744
What does he do that would lead you to believe that he has any other ambition than to increase his wealth and therefore his influence?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see him following Gates around the world trying to eradicate Polio or bring better sanitation to remote parts of the world.
I mean a quick search and this is the first thing returned:
Musk's Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023. Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk's enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years. For the third year in a row, Elon Musk's charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money. Dec 12, 2024
Musk’s Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023
Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk’s enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years.
Seems like Musk is really into his philanthropy.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,038
The only thing I see that would lead me to believe he doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to increase his wealth is acting like a complete idiot and hurting his businesses. It was probably only a few years ago where Tesla And SpaceX were absolute darlings of the left, and Musk was widely admired for his scientific and business accomplishments. And then he ruined all that by tweeting like a monkey. It's hurting his wealth and he just doesn't care.What does he do that would lead you to believe that he has any other ambition than to increase his wealth and therefore his influence?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see him following Gates around the world trying to eradicate Polio or bring better sanitation to remote parts of the world.
I mean a quick search and this is the first thing returned:
Musk's Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023. Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk's enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years. For the third year in a row, Elon Musk's charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money. Dec 12, 2024
Musk’s Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023
Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk’s enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years.www.nytimes.com
Seems like Musk is really into his philanthropy.
If his one and only goal was to get richer and richer, he'd be Larry Ellison or Sergey Brin: basically invisible and enjoying their vast riches. Even Mark Zuckerberg seems well adjusted compared to Musk in the last few years.
That's why I think Musk doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to get even richer. I mean he'll do it when he can but I don't think that's his overriding purpose. He's beaten the become the richest person in the world video game. He's moving on to something else which seems to be political power and influence.
- Messages
- 2,835
Bleak outlook for US farmers – and Trump tariffs could make it worse
Bumper grain crop set to weigh heavily as farmers count costs of seed, fertilizer – and effects of possible trade war
Many US midwestern grain farmers will lose money this year after reaping a bumper crop, and the outlook for their future income is bleak.
US farmers harvested some of the largest corn and soybean crops in history this year. Big harvests traditionally weigh on crop prices because of plentiful supply. And those price pressures comes at a time when costs remain persistently high to grow corn and soybeans, the US’s most valuable crops.
That double whammy is hurting farmers. Income will vary per farmer and per state, yet even for producers in top agricultural states such as Illinois, losses could be staggering.
Agricultural economists from the University of Illinois and Ohio State University estimate that the average Illinois farm could make a loss of $30,000 for 2024. Their projections place farm incomes at the lowest level since the 1980s’ farm crisis led to bankruptcies.
The decks are stacked against farmers for 2025 as well. Costs for seed, fertilizer and other inputs rose during 2022, fueled by the Russia-Ukraine war, which also lifted crop prices to record highs.
While crop prices are down nearly 50% from those highs, in part due to a global supply glut, input prices remain elevated. Sterling Smith, an independent commodities researcher, says the national average break-even price for corn is $5.67 a bushel, and $12.72 a bushel for soybeans. Those levels are far above current Chicago Board of Trade most-active futures prices of $4.43 for corn and $9.76 for soybeans.
“We’re looking at this crop, that, when it gets planted, of being a money-loser next year,” Smith says.
And things could look worse for farmers if Donald Trump places tariffs on imports. Trump pledged to impose across-the-board tariffs of 20% on all US imports, with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. Recently, he advocated for 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.
...
Until the first trade war between China and the US in 2018, China was the No 1 destination for US agricultural goods. That came to a halt during the trade war, although China and the US eventually signed an agreement in 2019 to import a set amount of agricultural goods for two years.
During the skirmish, China began diversifying its suppliers, including buying from Brazil. Brazil was already a global grower and exporter of soybeans, but Chinese investment ramped up expansion, Smith says.
“China is not going to put their food supply at risk,” Smith says.
Brazil increased their soybean production by the equivalent of an area the size of the state of Kansas, and some estimates suggest it has as much as 70m acres (28m hectares) of unused pastureland it can plant to crops, the equivalent of two states the size of Iowa.
Brazil can also grow the equivalent of two crops in one year, planting soybeans in September and after that harvest, quickly plant a corn crop, he says, increasing Brazilian corn production. If Brazil continues with its aggressive expansion and the US continues its traditional output, a global situation of habitual oversupply will result, especially for soybeans, Smith says.
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,673
Not gonna lie, I kinda hope farm bankruptcies triple over the next 4 years. Some as trade war casualties, others due to a lack of affordable labor.
- Messages
- 1,391
He realized that the path to greater richest was controlling politicians and that was much easier done by controlling the kind of folks who vote MAGA because they are so easily manipulated. The political power is just a path to further wealth.
He has already used it to block stiff EV competition by killing the CR.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,038
Time will tell. At the end of the day it doesn't matter his motivation as He's using his money to inject himself into the political process and I don't agree with most of his policies.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,932
In the last trade war debacle, Trump wrote a check for over 30 billion dollars to bail out the farmers.
He will have no qualms doing the same after next year's trade war debacle.
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,673
DOGE will have qualms.
ChileG
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,807
This “negotiating” style is keeping homeowners interest rates higher than they would be, and having a dampening effect on the stock market.
So, to those who defend Trump as saying this is just his style, then I’d say his style is actively hurting Americans, and it isn’t doing any good and will not have any tangible positive effects in the future.
Last time he did this our farmers lost large markets and never got them back. That necessitated Trump bailing them out with socialist payments the republicans claim to abhor so much.
None of this can be defended in good faith, imo.
So, to those who defend Trump as saying this is just his style, then I’d say his style is actively hurting Americans, and it isn’t doing any good and will not have any tangible positive effects in the future.
Last time he did this our farmers lost large markets and never got them back. That necessitated Trump bailing them out with socialist payments the republicans claim to abhor so much.
None of this can be defended in good faith, imo.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,782
“… The debate broke out late last week on social media as Mr. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy defended the legal, high-skill H-1B visa program from critics who want to sharply reduce even legal immigration. “I have many H-1B visas on my properties,” Mr. Trump told the New York Post. “I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”
Mr. Trump may be confusing the H-1B program with the H-2B visas he has used for workers at his hotel properties. But the point is that both are legal programs that help to fill labor needs in the U.S. economy. Unlike illegal migration, these programs don’t offend the rule of law or risk importing criminals.
… Some critics say H-1B visas let companies pay less than U.S. workers earn, but under the law employers must pay H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to comparable U.S. workers. Mr. Anderson says the average annual salary for an H-1B visa holder in 2023 for computer-related jobs was $132,000, according to U.S. immigration data. This isn’t exploitation of cheap labor. [MyNote — it is a bit more complicated when you factor in expected hours worked and inability to switch jobs]
… Some conservatives want to define nationalism solely by geography and ethnicity. But the U.S. has thrived because it has invited talented newcomers from many nations who add to U.S. strength and vitality. This is intelligent nationalism of the kind we assume Mr. Trump wants. …”