0·
1 month agotwitter filing for bankruptcy doesn’t absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk’s, not twitter’s.
- 0 Posts
- 81 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
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.
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?
yeah, guess what, this is not your average home mortgage :D it is more complicated, but short story is yes, musk paid with his own money and money backed by his other property.
and no matter what, it still doesn’t explain this nonsense you said:
I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
not sure where this absurd idea of yours comes from, but it is still nonsense. no matter where he borrowed the money from, he has to return them, even if he drowns the twitter in gasoline and then set it on fire.
On April 20, Musk disclosed that he had secured financing provided by a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Société Générale, Mizuho Bank, and BNP Paribas, for a potential tender offer to acquire the company.[27][28] The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.[29][30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk
he did. the fact he had to borrow the cash is irrelevant, he now owes someone 44B.
I do think he was essentially forced to buy it.
he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.
More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal
I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money.
your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).
with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash
that’s how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash
I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
that doesn’t make sense, destroying twitter doesn’t absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.
it’s just that he could take big risks
yes, that is definitely part of his success. and since this strategy got him to position of richest person in the world, it is pretty clear that “genius at losing money” is not really accurate description of situation.
as for twitter, he clearly is not in it for the money, otherwise he wouldn’t be there to begin with. he originally hoped to buy position of cheered and admired hero and when he failed, he settled for a position of hated douchebag. infamous still means people know you, i guess 🤷♂️
that’s why he is the richest person in the world with 270B net worth.
look, i hate the asshole as much as the other guy, but changing meaning of words and underestimating the enemy never helped anyone.
ok, i fixed that 😆
Wouldn’t that technology make them easy to
rewindfast-forward?
22·2 months agoDon’t give people your phone number. Afaik signal now works without it.
As a downside, you may find you are not as important for these other people as you think, people are under no obligation to accept you forcing your quirks on them.
No rich people, no need to draw a line.
If you want to deny rich people existence, you have to define what rich means, so there is pretty clear need to draw a line.
See, you cant even deliver your stupid thiefy argument correctly.
Thanks for making this so simple!
They didn’t make it simple, they just showed you that you are so simple that you can’t comprehend any kind of at least slightly complex topic.
Don’t worry about it, go back to your young communist lego or something.
I am nowhere near rich.
You have the internet and some kind of computer, which means you are more rich than lot of other people on earth. Does that mean all of them can steal from you, because you are rich? Or are you just a piece of shit trying to justify why it is ok for you to steal, hoping for protection from others at the same time?
Are you getting paid to deepthroat the boot or do you just enjoy it?
I am just teasing idiots for fun. But if you knew someone who would pay for this, don’t hesitate to let me know.
Where do you live and how much money do you have? If you have more than me by any chance, I would like to steal some from you, I hope that ok with you.
Is stealing okey just when you steal from others, or are you also okey with others stealing from you?
The advertisers who spent 10m usd on fake “customers” disagree…
It was a real “we should encrypt all our drives” moment.
I would say think twice whether you really need it. Encryption is another technological layer that can fail, so it is double edged sword and encrypting something “just to be on the safe side” might not be the best thing to do.
opera and a punk
And which one is the mainstream in this analogy? :)
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.