Him spending $44B on Twitter is similar to someone worth $100k spending $18k on a car or a house remodel or something. Its proportionally a decent amount of money, but it’s not gonna break him if he totally loses it all.
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.
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, a house can’t be a legal person, the owner is the legal person of the house. The money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. To do the same with a house, you need to do it through a company.
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.
Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?
We are stupid for not being rich enough, and still allowing the rich unfair advantages.
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.
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…
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.
He’s worth $240B.
Him spending $44B on Twitter is similar to someone worth $100k spending $18k on a car or a house remodel or something. Its proportionally a decent amount of money, but it’s not gonna break him if he totally loses it all.
Yeah but he took loans from the billionaire equivalent of loansharks to buy it.
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.
But it will humiliate him, and that’s the only way to hurt him.
He doesn’t seem to be trying that hard to not totally fuck Twitter, though.
I’m sure the rest of his $200B will make him feel better.
Money can’t make you happy. And he doesn’t act like he’s a happy person as it is.
I think money can help a whole hell of a lot of people find and fund happiness.
Its networth, not cash. $240B in stonks can fluctuate very often
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.
they may even fluctuate up, especially if you own a bunch of monopolies backed by the goverment
No, the reason it’s not going to break him is that Twitter took on the loan, not himself.
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?
Yes
Not the same, a house can’t be a legal person, the owner is the legal person of the house. The money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. To do the same with a house, you need to do it through a company.
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.
We are stupid for not being rich enough, and still allowing the rich unfair advantages.
There’s a type of insurance for everything.
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.
That’s what bankruptcy is for. Twitter files bankruptcy, and they can officially tell the banks to stuff it.
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.
You have no clue how much money that is. “It’s like buying a car”. This is a joke, right?
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…
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.
With the difference that a car is not the second most popular social network in the world and a big business