Elon Musk's X is now worth less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to a new estimate from investor Fidelity. The asset Elon Musk's X is now valued at less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to Fidelity.
“Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion”
Okay, this is a lot in a very small window, but we know a couple of things. The first is that Musk’s wealth is mostly tied to Tesla stock which is tied directly to the vastly over-inflated valuation of Tesla at 800Bn.
We also know that to get access to liquidity of funds he had to borrow money or sell Tesla stock. We know that when he sells Tesla stock, he ends up causing that stock price to fall significantly and that it’s only a matter of time before investors actually pull the plug on that because it costs them money/devalues their stake.
We also know that most of his outside lenders for the buy-up of twitter are from countries that want to deliberately stop the flow of new ideas and information. There’s no reason to assume that degrading Twitter the way he has been doesn’t give them what they want. Therefore I based my assumption simply on the idea that if they are receiving something quid pro for their help, they may not call in the debt, nor care about the overall health of the platform on a business or user level. In fact, that’s one of the only ways that the deal even makes sense given what we have seen.
Musk does care though because he took on the company’s debt when he bought the company. Meaning if it crashes and burns and is considered insolvent he won’t be responsible for the debt he took on when he bought it (not debt owed to outside lenders, but the debt he was required to take on through banks/finace brokers).
"The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk’s controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.
The main reason Twitter has a revenue gap is that Musk saddled it with $13bn of debt with his leveraged buyout. The business isn’t just failing because of Musk’s management since then, it’s failing because that was the purpose derived from the purchase."
The thing is as the company and CEO continue to make bad decisions that cost revenue, it will be better to not have to pay back lenders where he can. And you’ll note that while he’s been dodging payments to almost everyone else, he’s been paying back that 13Bn like clockwork. The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts. (This is similar to the plot of The Producers here. Make a product so bad that it doesn’t make any money and the investors don’t get the dividends because no money was made).
When you consider how little of the money is borrowed from outside interests (7Bn approximately) verses from his own other companies you realize that this is literally a house of cards he’s built. One of the few ways to get out from under a house of cards kind of scenario is to file for bankruptcy.
One of the few downfalls of filing for bankruptcy is that he’d lose control of Twitter, and that it would be a very public dent in the armor of his supposed high profile businessman persona.
But if he wanted to devalue it to make it not worth what he paid for it, it’s a double win of making it useless in the event that it’s no longer in his control, and not having to pay back a lot of the debts.
Twitter is responsible for that debt. Not Musk. That’s because of the way the agreement for the loan was structured. That’s why he would lose control of the company if they file for bankruptcy.
ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.
but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.
Okay, this is a lot in a very small window, but we know a couple of things. The first is that Musk’s wealth is mostly tied to Tesla stock which is tied directly to the vastly over-inflated valuation of Tesla at 800Bn.
We also know that to get access to liquidity of funds he had to borrow money or sell Tesla stock. We know that when he sells Tesla stock, he ends up causing that stock price to fall significantly and that it’s only a matter of time before investors actually pull the plug on that because it costs them money/devalues their stake.
We also know that most of his outside lenders for the buy-up of twitter are from countries that want to deliberately stop the flow of new ideas and information. There’s no reason to assume that degrading Twitter the way he has been doesn’t give them what they want. Therefore I based my assumption simply on the idea that if they are receiving something quid pro for their help, they may not call in the debt, nor care about the overall health of the platform on a business or user level. In fact, that’s one of the only ways that the deal even makes sense given what we have seen.
Musk does care though because he took on the company’s debt when he bought the company. Meaning if it crashes and burns and is considered insolvent he won’t be responsible for the debt he took on when he bought it (not debt owed to outside lenders, but the debt he was required to take on through banks/finace brokers).
"The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk’s controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.
The main reason Twitter has a revenue gap is that Musk saddled it with $13bn of debt with his leveraged buyout. The business isn’t just failing because of Musk’s management since then, it’s failing because that was the purpose derived from the purchase."
The thing is as the company and CEO continue to make bad decisions that cost revenue, it will be better to not have to pay back lenders where he can. And you’ll note that while he’s been dodging payments to almost everyone else, he’s been paying back that 13Bn like clockwork. The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts. (This is similar to the plot of The Producers here. Make a product so bad that it doesn’t make any money and the investors don’t get the dividends because no money was made).
When you consider how little of the money is borrowed from outside interests (7Bn approximately) verses from his own other companies you realize that this is literally a house of cards he’s built. One of the few ways to get out from under a house of cards kind of scenario is to file for bankruptcy.
One of the few downfalls of filing for bankruptcy is that he’d lose control of Twitter, and that it would be a very public dent in the armor of his supposed high profile businessman persona.
But if he wanted to devalue it to make it not worth what he paid for it, it’s a double win of making it useless in the event that it’s no longer in his control, and not having to pay back a lot of the debts.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-will-elon-musk-pay-twitter-2022-10-07/
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-twitter-files-for-bankruptcy-elon-musk-2022-12
why would you think that? most of the money were his loans, not some 3rd party investors. why tf would he not have to pay back?
If he files for bankruptcy. Did you read the articles?
twitter filing for bankruptcy doesn’t absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk’s, not twitter’s.
https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/154769/musk-bought-twitter-with-13b-loans-why-is-twitter-liable-for-this-debt-rath
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money
Twitter is responsible for that debt. Not Musk. That’s because of the way the agreement for the loan was structured. That’s why he would lose control of the company if they file for bankruptcy.
ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.
but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.