The Dumpster Fire AKA Twitter

Toro

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2005
113,771
69,962
2,605
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Or "Why Twitter was Down $10 in a Strong Up Day."

He bought the company for $44 billion. Here's the financing - Musk $24 billion in equity, Saudi Arabia (the guys who bonesawed a critic to finance the purchase of a platform by a guy who wants to give it more free speech is beyond ironic) $5 billion in equity, Larry Ellison $2 billion in equity, and $13 billion in loans from Wall Street banks. The interest payments on the loans are $1 billion a year. However, Twitter has never generated cash flow of more than $770 million.

He's got to find the cash flow someplace. That's why he's lurching around, from the incompetent firings to arguing with Stephen King over whether he'd pay $20 or $8 for a blue checkmark. Complete amateur.

And revenue isn't falling because of "woke activists." It's falling because corporations are worried about the brand value of Twitter. It's more than just trolls increasing the n-bomb 5x over the weekend. Twitter put out an innocuous statement to advertisers that things weren't going to change, then Musk retweets the retarded Paul Pelosi conspiracy theory. Who wants to be associated with a sewer? Musk's behavior has given advertisers little comfort.

Tesla was down $10 today when the Dow was up 400 points. Musk partially financed the purchase by selling $7 billion in Tesla stock. So where's the other $17 billion come from? I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that he pledged stock in a remote vehicle and borrowed against the vehicle. Rich people do that all the time. Rather than sell the shares, they pledge their shares as collateral for a loan. It makes sense. Selling stock triggers a capital gain, interest payments can be written off against income.

Why does that matter? If Twitter is going to fail, Elon is going to have sell $17 billion worth of stock to cover his personal loan. But he hasn't pledged $17 billion. He's pledged more. Perhaps 2x that amount. Banks require a cushion above the value of the loan. So if he has pledged $34 billion, that amount is declining every day as Tesla falls. If I were a hedge fund manager, I'd be shooting against Tesla and shorting the stock all day, trying to drive it down to force the banks to sell to get back their money.

Elon should have stuck to making electronic vehicles and rockets to Mars. It's easier than running a platform.
 
Give it time. This whole twitter thing is a knee jerk reaction from both sides. One side thinking that everything decent about the place is leaving because they think it'll turn into a shithole, the other side thinking that they'll finally have a chance to say things. Give it a few months, nothing will drastically change, and everything will go back to normal.
 
Fg_cjx4UUAANd8b.jpg
 
All adjustments, firings, hirings, remanaging, and reintigrating the company and the employees will take at least a year.

Gonna be a LOT of adjustments. Musk is apparently ready for them, as he hasn't gone into hiding and washed his hands of the HR part of the buyout.

It will all be different by the end of next year, and theres gonna be a LOT of flack, shit, lies, conspiracy theories, and flat out death threats and psychotic lunacy going on until then.
 
So, ending a social media's partisan toadying to Democrats and opening up the platform to free speech isn't profitable? Elon has nine billion dollars; I think he can deal with it. (Edit: Elon just let go a ton of people on the twitter staff because they were losing buku $ paying to do NOTHING, so let's see what happens in the next fiscal year.)
 
Last edited:
Toro did you see this?

 
So, ending a social media's partisan toadying to Democrats and opening up the platform to free speech isn't profitable? Elon has nine billion dollars; I think he can deal with it.

Oh, he's got more than that.

I do think he's spreading himself too thin at the moment, but he's not stupid by any means...........so he must have it all planned out.

Time will tell.
 
Or "Why Twitter was Down $10 in a Strong Up Day."

He bought the company for $44 billion. Here's the financing - Musk $24 billion in equity, Saudi Arabia (the guys who bonesawed a critic to finance the purchase of a platform by a guy who wants to give it more free speech is beyond ironic) $5 billion in equity, Larry Ellison $2 billion in equity, and $13 billion in loans from Wall Street banks. The interest payments on the loans are $1 billion a year. However, Twitter has never generated cash flow of more than $770 million.

He's got to find the cash flow someplace. That's why he's lurching around, from the incompetent firings to arguing with Stephen King over whether he'd pay $20 or $8 for a blue checkmark. Complete amateur.

And revenue isn't falling because of "woke activists." It's falling because corporations are worried about the brand value of Twitter. It's more than just trolls increasing the n-bomb 5x over the weekend. Twitter put out an innocuous statement to advertisers that things weren't going to change, then Musk retweets the retarded Paul Pelosi conspiracy theory. Who wants to be associated with a sewer? Musk's behavior has given advertisers little comfort.

Tesla was down $10 today when the Dow was up 400 points. Musk partially financed the purchase by selling $7 billion in Tesla stock. So where's the other $17 billion come from? I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that he pledged stock in a remote vehicle and borrowed against the vehicle. Rich people do that all the time. Rather than sell the shares, they pledge their shares as collateral for a loan. It makes sense. Selling stock triggers a capital gain, interest payments can be written off against income.

Why does that matter? If Twitter is going to fail, Elon is going to have sell $17 billion worth of stock to cover his personal loan. But he hasn't pledged $17 billion. He's pledged more. Perhaps 2x that amount. Banks require a cushion above the value of the loan. So if he has pledged $34 billion, that amount is declining every day as Tesla falls. If I were a hedge fund manager, I'd be shooting against Tesla and shorting the stock all day, trying to drive it down to force the banks to sell to get back their money.

Elon should have stuck to making electronic vehicles and rockets to Mars. It's easier than running a platform.

I went on and I'm still shadowbanned. Worse for them, after being stiffled for two years, probably with some "encouragement" by the Creepy Ones from Canada, I simply don't miss it anymore. I use other social media now in replacement or find other outlets for expression whereas before I was on their daily.

He grossly overpaid and he knows it. Part of this was Twitter themselves who ran an app with a great amount of potential into the ground through their censorship, bias, inability to break even etc. This is a moneypit and Musks best chance is to get people back, but it will be VERY tough.

Can he succeed? Absolutely, but he has to lead the planet on free speech and use his platform.

I'm not surprised he wanted Trump back because that was a HUGE chunk of twitter before he left. Their decision to ban him not only hurt America on the world stage, but it provided MORE suspicions about the 2020 election, while driving nearly half of the U.S off their platform.

Too many idiots doing the bidding of other idiots, neither of whom were very good at innovating. If you receive poor corporate leadership you get what you deserve.

Why was it not surprising to me that Netflix CEO send out an email to all his workers basically telling them (my words here, not his exact words) "you may not agree with all the products, but we are in the business of art, creativity, free expression etc. and some shows may offend you. If you disagree with these principles we may not be the right company for you".

The Safe Space demands of some were usurping Netflixes advantage. They may never reclaim the dominance they enjoyed now. Ditto for Twitter...
 
Or "Why Twitter was Down $10 in a Strong Up Day."

He bought the company for $44 billion. Here's the financing - Musk $24 billion in equity, Saudi Arabia (the guys who bonesawed a critic to finance the purchase of a platform by a guy who wants to give it more free speech is beyond ironic) $5 billion in equity, Larry Ellison $2 billion in equity, and $13 billion in loans from Wall Street banks. The interest payments on the loans are $1 billion a year. However, Twitter has never generated cash flow of more than $770 million.

He's got to find the cash flow someplace. That's why he's lurching around, from the incompetent firings to arguing with Stephen King over whether he'd pay $20 or $8 for a blue checkmark. Complete amateur.

And revenue isn't falling because of "woke activists." It's falling because corporations are worried about the brand value of Twitter. It's more than just trolls increasing the n-bomb 5x over the weekend. Twitter put out an innocuous statement to advertisers that things weren't going to change, then Musk retweets the retarded Paul Pelosi conspiracy theory. Who wants to be associated with a sewer? Musk's behavior has given advertisers little comfort.

Tesla was down $10 today when the Dow was up 400 points. Musk partially financed the purchase by selling $7 billion in Tesla stock. So where's the other $17 billion come from? I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that he pledged stock in a remote vehicle and borrowed against the vehicle. Rich people do that all the time. Rather than sell the shares, they pledge their shares as collateral for a loan. It makes sense. Selling stock triggers a capital gain, interest payments can be written off against income.

Why does that matter? If Twitter is going to fail, Elon is going to have sell $17 billion worth of stock to cover his personal loan. But he hasn't pledged $17 billion. He's pledged more. Perhaps 2x that amount. Banks require a cushion above the value of the loan. So if he has pledged $34 billion, that amount is declining every day as Tesla falls. If I were a hedge fund manager, I'd be shooting against Tesla and shorting the stock all day, trying to drive it down to force the banks to sell to get back their money.

Elon should have stuck to making electronic vehicles and rockets to Mars. It's easier than running a platform.

Who wants to be associated with a sewer?

Some of the same people who were associated with it before?

Musk partially financed the purchase by selling $7 billion in Tesla stock. So where's the other $17 billion come from?

He has sold about $33 billion in the last year.
 
Holy shit, you are so uninformed. You'll believe ANYTHING Right-Wing talk radio clowns tell you.
You didn't just get fired from twitter, did you? I smell sour grapes. Please, everything you just spouted was "left-wing liberal" propaganda. Let's wait a year, see how Elon does with Twitter, economically or otherwise.
 
You didn't just get fired from twitter, did you? I smell sour grapes. Please, everything you just spouted was "left-wing liberal" propaganda. Let's wait a year, see how Elon does with Twitter, economically or otherwise.
At the rate he's going it won't last a year. He must make payments of nearly $800 Million per month from a site that's hemorrhaging advertisers, with some of the largest follower accounts moving to Mastodon and Tribel. Where is that revenue going to come from?
 
I don't think so. That would have panicked Tesla investors. You got a link?
Really, dude? Are you a bot, a paid shill or really so smart you can't see the forest for the trees? (Edit: Elon is the best thing to happen to liberal owned social media ever, if that scared you, good.)
 
Or "Why Twitter was Down $10 in a Strong Up Day."

He bought the company for $44 billion. Here's the financing - Musk $24 billion in equity, Saudi Arabia (the guys who bonesawed a critic to finance the purchase of a platform by a guy who wants to give it more free speech is beyond ironic) $5 billion in equity, Larry Ellison $2 billion in equity, and $13 billion in loans from Wall Street banks. The interest payments on the loans are $1 billion a year. However, Twitter has never generated cash flow of more than $770 million.

He's got to find the cash flow someplace. That's why he's lurching around, from the incompetent firings to arguing with Stephen King over whether he'd pay $20 or $8 for a blue checkmark. Complete amateur.

And revenue isn't falling because of "woke activists." It's falling because corporations are worried about the brand value of Twitter. It's more than just trolls increasing the n-bomb 5x over the weekend. Twitter put out an innocuous statement to advertisers that things weren't going to change, then Musk retweets the retarded Paul Pelosi conspiracy theory. Who wants to be associated with a sewer? Musk's behavior has given advertisers little comfort.

Tesla was down $10 today when the Dow was up 400 points. Musk partially financed the purchase by selling $7 billion in Tesla stock. So where's the other $17 billion come from? I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that he pledged stock in a remote vehicle and borrowed against the vehicle. Rich people do that all the time. Rather than sell the shares, they pledge their shares as collateral for a loan. It makes sense. Selling stock triggers a capital gain, interest payments can be written off against income.

Why does that matter? If Twitter is going to fail, Elon is going to have sell $17 billion worth of stock to cover his personal loan. But he hasn't pledged $17 billion. He's pledged more. Perhaps 2x that amount. Banks require a cushion above the value of the loan. So if he has pledged $34 billion, that amount is declining every day as Tesla falls. If I were a hedge fund manager, I'd be shooting against Tesla and shorting the stock all day, trying to drive it down to force the banks to sell to get back their money.

Elon should have stuck to making electronic vehicles and rockets to Mars. It's easier than running a platform.
Fortunately, CEOs aren't evaluated on the opinions of over-emotional Liberal haters.
 
This post describes his advertiser problem very well:

 

Forum List

Back
Top