Comment on Mmusks new ideas

• Prandom_returns@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Elizabeth Holmes was “worth” 4.5B, now I’m worth more than her.

  That’s the life of frauds. One day you’re a billionaire, the next day you’re in jail with 0.

  source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  But it will humiliate him, and that’s the only way to hurt him.

  source

  • zeppo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    He doesn’t seem to be trying that hard to not totally fuck Twitter, though.

    source
  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m sure the rest of his $200B will make him feel better.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Money can’t make you happy. And he doesn’t act like he’s a happy person as it is.

      source

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think money can help a whole hell of a lot of people find and fund happiness.

        source
• maynarkh@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yeah but he took loans from the billionaire equivalent of loansharks to buy it.

  source
• anlumo@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No, the reason it’s not going to break him is that Twitter took on the loan, not himself.

  source

  • valkyre09@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

    if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

    Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

    source

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

      Yes

      I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

      Not the same at all, a house can’t be a legal person, the money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. That is possible because companies can have limited financial responsibility, meaning the money they owe are not owed by their owners. It’s a pretty nifty arrangement, to help the rich stay rich no matter what happens.

      source
    • zaph@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

      There’s a type of insurance for everything.

      source
    • anlumo@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

      Only if it was destroyed intentionally.

      Of course, it could be argued that Musk is destroying Twitter intentionally, but that’s for a court to decide.

      source
    • squiblet@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That's what bankruptcy is for. Twitter files bankruptcy, and they can officially tell the banks to stuff it.

      source
  • dragontamer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not quite. The the $33 Billion of equity Elon Musk put up junior to the $13 Billion loan.

    That means that if the company starts at $44 Billion then falls to $15 Billion, then Twitter still owes $13 Billion, but Elon Musk only has $2 Billion now.

    Leveraged buyouts are… well… levered. It grossly increases the risk of losing everything.

    source
• original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Its networth, not cash. $240B in stonks can fluctuate very often

  source

  • sol@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    they may even fluctuate up, especially if you own a bunch of monopolies backed by the goverment

    source
  • zeppo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Oh no, they might dip severely and he’ll only have $60B or as a little as $10 billion!

    His problem seems to be more cash flow. As a prominent shareholder and executive, he can’t sell large amounts of his stocks without PR and legal risk. He could do what people like Bill Gates do and sell them slowly on a set schedule, though.

    source
• dbilitated@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  he has that much in stock, he doesn’t have that much cash. he also has to make huge payments on what he borrowed to buy twitter so that may affect cashflow and then value of his other companies…

  source

  • sol@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not having that much in cash is a good way to not pay more taxes. If any of his stock is valued 1 cent less than what it’s supposed to be worth in the stock market i’m down to buy all of them.

    source
• Haibane@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You have no clue how much money that is. “It’s like buying a car”. This is a joke, right?

  source
• sol@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  With the difference that a car is not the second most popular social network in the world and a big business

  source