Comment on Elon Musk's X claims it's now a 'video-first platform' as it tries to reverse an advertiser exodus that has cost it billions in value

• gregorum@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  it would be accurate to say Twitter was worth what Musk paid for it at the time because that’s how capitalism works. He instantly inflated the price by paying far over market value in a stupid showboating maneuver, and has, in doing so (as well as his subsequent antics) totally screwed himself and his investors.

  source

  • ech@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Correct.

    source
• Clent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I don’t think you understand how someone takes a company private such as Musk.

  No company is going to agree to a buyout lower than the trading pricing. The shareholders would reject the offer.

  Even if we pick the $40 value for the public price, musk has erased over 60% of the value.

  Do you understand the math behind your devil advocacy? Because from where I sit your argument can be summed up as: “well acktually it only dropped 60%” — except that’s not true. The people who backed Musks buyout lost the full 77% – they can’t go to their shareholders and claimed, “well actually we overpaid so we really only lost…” because that’s not how any of this works.

  source

  • ech@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Why do you keep calling my comments “devil advocacy”? I’m not making theoretical arguments for the sake of debate. I’m saying that in real, actual numbers, Twitter was not worth $44 billion. That figure was purely invented by musk to show off. That he had to pay out is just karmic justice, not the objective valuation of Twitter.

    And I’m not saying whoever put up that money isn’t losing tremendously, either. They definitely have, and that’s my point. Whether it was musk or someone he went begging to, it was an equally dumb decision since, again, Twitter wasn’t worth that much.

    Also, since you seen like you may know, afaik the “71% drop” is purely from one investment company, Fidelity, right? Are they a reliable authority in this? The only other time I’ve heard of them was during the Reddit drama last summer, so to me they mostly come off as latching onto Internet drama rather than providing sound investment advice. Do they have a good track record to earn this level of credit the news is giving them?

    source

    • Clent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If I sell someone a banana for $20, that banana is worth $20. Someone else may disagree with the value but that does not change the fact that in that moment the banana was valued at $20.

      source

      • ech@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It means the person that bought it is a fool, nothing more.

        source

        • -> View More Comments