Business Elon Musk Clinches Deal to Take Twitter Private for $44 Billion - The deal marks the close of a dramatic courtship and a sharp change of heart at the social-media network

1649933159786.png

The tech billionaire Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter for $41.4bn.

A regulatory filing showed on Thursday that Musk was offering $54.20 a share – a 38% premium to the closing price of Twitter’s stock on 1 April, the last trading day before the Tesla chief executive’s investment of more than 9% in the company was publicly announced.

More to follow…



1649933831102.png
1649933810146.png






Elon Musk has made a “best and final” offer to buy Twitter Inc., saying the company has extraordinary potential and he is the person to unlock it.

The world’s richest person will offer $54.20 per share in cash, representing a 54% premium over the Jan. 28 closing price and a valuation of about $43 billion. The social media company’s shares soared 18% in pre-market trading.

Musk, 50, announced the offer in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, after turning down a potential board seat at the company. The billionaire, who also controls Tesla Inc., first disclosed a stake of about 9% on April 4. Tesla shares fell about 1.5% in pre-market trading on the news.

Twitter said that its board would review the proposal and any response would be in the best interests of “all Twitter stockholders.”

1649936433325.png

The bid is the latest saga in Musk’s volatile relationship with Twitter. The executive is one of the platform’s most-watched firebrands, often tweeting out memes and taunts to @elonmusk’s more than 80 million followers. He has been outspoken about changes he’d like to consider imposing at the social media platform, and the company offered him a seat on the board following the announcement of his stake, which made him the largest individual shareholder.

After his stake became public, Musk immediately began appealing to fellow users about prospective moves, from turning Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters into a homeless shelter and adding an edit button for tweets to granting automatic verification marks to premium users. One tweet suggested Twitter might be dying, given that several celebrities with high numbers of followers rarely tweet.

Unsatisfied with the influence that comes with being Twitter’s largest investor, he has now launched a full takeover, one of the few individuals who can afford it outright. He’s currently worth about $260 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index, compared with Twitter’s market valuation of about $37 billion.

In a letter to Twitter’s board, Musk said he believes Twitter “will neither thrive nor serve [its free speech] societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company”

The takeover is unlikely to be a drawn-out process. “If the deal doesn’t work, given that I don’t have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder,” said Musk.

1649936465070.png


Musk informed Twitter’s board over the previous weekend that he thought the company should be taken private, according to today’s statement.

The $54.20 per share offer is “too low” for shareholders or the board to accept, said Vital Knowledge’s Adam Crisafulli in a report, adding that the company’s shares hit $70 less than a year ago.

Although Musk is the world’s richest person, how he will find $43 billion in cash has yet to be revealed.

“This becomes a hostile takeover offer which is going to cost a serious amount of cash,” said Neil Campling, head of TMT research at Mirabaud Equity Research. “He will have to sell a decent piece of Tesla stock to fund it, or a massive loan against it.”

Musk has hired Morgan Stanley as his adviser for the bid. The offer price also includes the number 420, widely recognized as a coded reference to marijuana. He also picked $420 as the share price for possibly taking Tesla private in 2018, a move that brought him scrutiny from the SEC.

“There will be host of questions around financing, regulatory, balancing Musk’s time (Tesla, SpaceX) in the coming days,” said Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush. “But ultimately based on this filing it is a now or never bid for Twitter to accept.”

I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.
Elon Musk’s full letter to Twitter’s board





EXCLUSIVE Twitter set to accept Musk's 'best and final' offer-sources​


Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) is nearing a deal to sell itself to Elon Musk for $54.20 per share in cash, the price that he originally offered to the social media company and called his 'best and final', people familiar with the matter said.

Twitter may announce the $43 billion deal later on Monday once its board has met to recommend the transaction to Twitter shareholders, the sources said. It is always possible that the deal collapses at the last minute, the sources added.

Twitter has not been able to secure so far a 'go-shop' provision under its agreement with Musk that would allow it to solicit other bids from potential acquirers once the deal is signed, the sources said. Still, Twitter would be allowed to accept an offer from another party by paying Musk a break-up fee, the sources added.

Twitter and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.




Twitter and Elon Musk Strike Deal for Takeover​

Twitter Inc. TWTR 5.52% on Monday accepted Elon Musk’s bid to take over the company, giving the world’s richest man control over the influential social-media network where he is also among its most powerful users.

The deal marks the close of a dramatic courtship and a sharp change of heart at Twitter, where many executives and board members initially opposed Mr. Musk’s takeover approach. The deal has polarized Twitter employees, users and regulators over the power tech giants wield in determining the parameters of acceptable discourse on the internet and how those companies enforce their rules.

The two sides worked through the night to hash out a deal. Earlier on Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported Twitter and Mr. Musk had reached an agreement to value Twitter at $44 billion.

The takeover, if it goes through, would mark one of the biggest acquisitions in tech history and will likely have global repercussions for years to come related to how billions of people use social media. Mr. Musk, who is also chief executive of Tesla Inc. TSLA -1.30% and Space Exploration Technologies Inc., must find a way to balance his commitment to less moderation with the business needs of a company that has struggled to reconcile free-wheeling conversation with content that appeals to advertisers.

On Monday, after the Journal reported that a deal was close, Mr. Musk tweeted to indicate that he wants the platform to remain a destination for wide-ranging discourse and disagreement.

“I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means,” he wrote.

The San Francisco-based social-media company had been expected to rebuff the offer, which Mr. Musk made April 14 without saying how he would pay for it.

Twitter, a day after the unsolicited offer, adopted a so-called poison pill, designed to make it more difficult for Mr. Musk to reach more than a 15% stake in the company.

Twitter changed its posture after Mr. Musk detailed elements of his financing plan for the takeover. On April 21, he said he had $46.5 billion in funding lined up. Twitter shares rose sharply, and company executives opened the door to negotiations.

Twitter shares were ahead more than 5% in afternoon trading on Monday.

The potential turnabout on Twitter’s part comes after Mr. Musk met privately Friday with several shareholders of the company to extol the virtues of his proposal while repeating that the board has a “yes-or-no” decision to make, people familiar with the discussions said.

Mr. Musk, with over 82 million Twitter followers, has long used the platform to pronounce his views on everything from space travel to cryptocurrencies. In January, he began buying Twitter stock, becoming the single-largest individual investor with a more than 9% stake by April.

He has previously used Twitter to escalate a conflict with the Securities and Exchange Commission after the agency opened a probe into some of his recent stock sales, and he often blasts his critics on the social network.

Twitter, at the beginning of the month, invited Mr. Musk to join its board—which would have prevented him from owning more than 14.9% of the company’s stock. Mr. Musk initially agreed and then rejected the offer.

Twitter has already embarked on a turnaround plan after a fight with activist Elliott Management Corp. about two years ago. Twitter said a little over a year ago that it would work to at least double its revenue to $7.5 billion by the end of 2023 and reach at least 315 million so-called monetizable daily active users at that time.

Mr. Musk’s proposed changes for the platform include softening its stance on content moderation, creating an edit feature for tweets, making Twitter’s algorithm open source—which would allow people outside the company to view it and suggest changes—and relying less on advertising, among other ideas.

Mr. Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist,” said in a recent interview at a TED conference that he sees Twitter as the “de facto town square.”

Twitter should be more cautious when deciding to take down tweets or permanently ban users’ accounts, Mr. Musk said, pointing to temporary suspensions as a better solution.

Mr. Musk said he also wants the platform to be more transparent when it takes action that amplifies or reduces a tweet’s reach. He said he wasn’t certain how some of those ideas would be implemented.

Twitter has spent years advocating for healthier discourse on its platform and adding content moderation, arguing at least in part that it is good for business.

The company also has introduced new features that have been gaining some traction with users, including Twitter Spaces, which allows people to host live audio conversations with each other within the platform.

Mr. Musk has said he wants Twitter to rely less on advertising—which provided roughly 90% of its revenue in 2021—and shift its business model more toward subscriptions. The platform currently offers a subscription-based service called Twitter Blue, which gives customers premium features like “undo tweet” for $2.99 a month. He suggested removing all ads on Twitter as part of the subscription offerings.

Mr. Musk also floated the idea of cutting staff, shuttering the company’s San Francisco headquarters building and not giving the board of directors a salary. The latter could save roughly $3 million a year alone, he said.

His other proposed changes for Twitter include trying to stop spam and scam bots and allowing for longer tweets. The current limit is 280 characters.

On Thursday, Twitter is scheduled to announce its first-quarter earnings.


 

Attachments

Last edited:
I never heard of a "financial terrorist" before.
"Terrorist" is just their "othering" word. They want to conflate thoughtcriminals as worse than Osama bin Laden (which they really do think, pic related).

sandmann.jpg

My favorite iteration of the buzzword is when they called anyone casting doubt on the bullshit rape claims against Brett Kavanaugh as "information terrorists".
 
it doesn't make money, and it can't make ad revenue the way facebook or instagram does.
It absolutely could, if it wasn't run by hyper woke morons. There is no technical reason why Twitter could not have an ad product like Facebook or Instagram's. They fail at ads because they've driven away all of the normies for everything besides looking up what celebrities said and talking to customer support bots.
 
For maximum salt, he should buy it and then do absolutely nothing regarding Trump.

Literally unban everyone except him, and utterly refuse to ever elaborate as to why.

Don't say anything to acknowledge it, just pretend that he doesn't exist while unbanning literally every other banned person on the platform and watch as both sides have a complete and total meltdown.
 
Last edited:
For maximum salt, he should buy it and then do absolutely nothing regarding Trump.
Tbh trump being off twitter is one of the best things that could have happened to him because without him in the spotlight 24/7, the Left has been melting down trying to conjure up a Boogeyman that invokes as much fear as Trump. Nigga really is the Baba Yaga to leftists.
 
If you're a middle class person and your net worth (mostly tied up in housing and retirement plans) is $500k, a fun midlife crisis at 15% of your net worth is a decent sports car.

If you're a doctor and your net worth is $4 million, spending 15% of your net worth on a midlife crisis is a decent yacht and a yacht club membership.

If you're a successful stockbroker and your net worth is $100M, your equivalent midlife crisis is a nice private jet.

But when you're Elon Musk rich, mere material goods don't cut it. There's no private island, no 747, no megayacht that can possibly spend even 2 or 3% of your wealth. You've got to buy a major corporation. I love it.
 
Going hostile shows he lost interest? Interesting take I guess.

The board of a public corporation has legal obligations and doing what you are saying they will violates those obligations and a lot of laws - those same things they were hoping to muzzle Musk with by offering him a spot on that board.

There's a point where they become personally liable or in prison.
There's also the less-than-consensual option. Nothing is stopping Musk from announcing "I am buying all common shares at $X and all proxy votes at $Y." Once he controls 50%+1 of voting shares he has the power to unilaterally vote out the board and install one that will sell. The only reason the board declines is because the price is low (probably is) or they think he won't pull the trigger on a hostile acquisition.
 
No, 51% would not be enough for a takeover in the sense of turning it into a private company. He would need either 90% or 95% (I am not sure what the threshold is in the US) of the shares before he can take the company over, in the sense that he has so many shares he can legally FORCE the remaining 5-10% of shareholders to sell their shares to him and the company would become private.

With 51% he would just have full control of the board and be able to control every vote. And as he controls the vote he could appoint whomever he wants as a CEO and set the strategic direction for the company. But even at 51% he would still be legally required to represent ALL shareholders.
The threshold is 15% in this case, I believe. That's why he would have been limited to 14.9% of shares as a board member. He declined that because it became obvious that offer was an attempt to neutralize and muzzle him.

His voting power with just his 9% is crazy high already. You'll also have people start buying in who don't like Twitter's censorship who will likely hand proxy votes to him.

And, like any shareholder he has the right to sue the board if he thinks they're not actually fulfilling their duty of looking out for the shareholders. They're not really representatives of the company, that's the c-suite, they're representatives of the shareholders.
 
There's also the less-than-consensual option. Nothing is stopping Musk from announcing "I am buying all common shares at $X and all proxy votes at $Y." Once he controls 50%+1 of voting shares he has the power to unilaterally vote out the board and install one that will sell. The only reason the board declines is because the price is low (probably is) or they think he won't pull the trigger on a hostile acquisition.
Erm. That is not how public companies or share ownership works.

The board can not decide to sell or not. The board represents ALL the shareholders and the board can make recommendations to the shareholders
but they can not decide to sell or not sell, aside from shares owned by individual board members.
Decision to sell or not ultimately lies with the individual shareholders NOT the board.

Sometimes a board may represent large shareholders and sometimes a board may contain influential people that are there to advice on strategic directions but othervise do not own significant shares, but never can they decide whether to sell or not for the shareholders that are not board members. They can make recommendations. But they can not stop large shareholders from going against that recommendation.
 
Last edited:
For maximum salt, he should buy it and then do absolutely nothing regarding Trump.

Literally unban everyone except him, and utterly refuse to ever elaborate as to why.

Don't say anything to acknowledge it, just pretend that he doesn't exist while unbanning literally every other banned person on the platform and watch as both sides have a complete and total meltdown.
And then reveal that Trump technically was unbanned, he could have made a new account at any time and got it verified, just not get his old one back. But no one told him because Elon wanted the lulz. Increase the salt exponentially
 
There's also the less-than-consensual option. Nothing is stopping Musk from announcing "I am buying all common shares at $X and all proxy votes at $Y." Once he controls 50%+1 of voting shares he has the power to unilaterally vote out the board and install one that will sell. The only reason the board declines is because the price is low (probably is) or they think he won't pull the trigger on a hostile acquisition.
The best part is if this happens people will complain that it's unfair without realizing they're actually criticizing democratic systems.
 
Erm. That is not how public companies or share ownership works.

The board can not decide to sell or not. The board represents ALL the shareholders and the board can make recommendations to the shareholders
but they can not decide to sell or not sell, aside from shares owned by individual board members.
Decision to sell or not ultimately lies with the individual shareholders NOT the board.
The board has a lot of control on when/if those shareholder votes happen. If this was a good deal for everyone the board would be calling a shareholder meeting on this decision, instead it looks like they are denying it out of hand. That doesn't mean shareholders cannot sell in the meantime (or buy), it just simply is not a brokered deal to privatize the company. When Elon end's up with 50%+1 it's not like he could install a board to just sell the remaining shares at $0. What it does do is enable him to go to the existing board and say "call a shareholder vote on this offer, or I will install a board that will." While individual shareholders can be holdouts to drive the price up, it eventually hits a point where the other shareholder's want to sell at a set price outweighs it. This is a protracted and nuanced back and forth. Expect more like this for a while instead of some End Run.
 
The board has a lot of control on when/if those shareholder votes happen. If this was a good deal for everyone the board would be calling a shareholder meeting on this decision, instead it looks like they are denying it out of hand. That doesn't mean shareholders cannot sell in the meantime, it just simply is not a brokered deal to privatize the company. When Elon end's up with 50%+1 it's not like he could install a board to just sell the remaining shares at $0. What it does do is enable him to go to the existing board and say "call a shareholder vote on this offer, or I will install a board that will." While individual shareholders can be holdouts to drive the price up, it eventually hits a point where the other shareholder's want to sell at a set price outweighs it. This is a protracted and nuanced back and forth. Expect more like this for a while instead of some End Run.
There is no a vote on if to sell or not. Votes are on recommendations or who should be CEO.
I own shares in many companies. The board can not vote and decide if or to whom I can sell my shares.
They can recommend to me "do not sell to xyz" but ultimately it is my shares and I make the final decision on whether I want to sell or not.

Just because Elon would end up owning 51% of the shares, he can still not run the company as a dictator. There are very strict laws that say that you have to represent ALL shareholders even if you own 51%.
The only way to have full control of the company to do whatever he wants is to make it into a private company but that is VERY DIFFERENT from being a company where he owns 51% of the shares.

That is why he is talking about making it into a private company and not about becoming majority shareholder. One is a private company and the other is a public company with a majority shareholder. These two things are very different legally and in what freedoms he has to do what he wants.
A private company is basically a company where he or a conglomerate owns 100% of the shares. Not 51%.

EDIT: and in order to become a private company with 100% ownership, there are rules in place that once someone owns ~85% of all shares, tehy can force all the remaining 15% of the shares to automatically sell the shares at a fair price. This is to guarantee that you CAN take over a company and not be blocked by Billy-Bob owning just one share and refusing to sell. So once elon reaches 51% he still can not make much and as he has stated he wants to make it private. That means he will aim for 85% or more of the shares and then he will just force the remaining shareholders to sell the remaining shares to him until he gets 100% of the shares and he declares the company private.
 
He'll deliver on this promise the same way he's delivered on the Cyber Truck and the humanoid robot and the full battery swap 'charging stations and the ...

It's a real stroke of self-promotion genius that Elon has integrated himself so well into general culture wars; it dilutes any legitimate criticism he should be getting as an absolute huckster. He is unparalleled in his ability to reap the benefits of promises he never delivers on.

Dis you know that Tesla gets the tax credits for EV's when customers sign pre-order agreements, not when they actually deliver? They're already profited off of those non-existent cybertrucks.

In a moral sense, independent of the legal definitions, I genuinely believe he should be in jail for the stunts he pulls. If, consistent with his track record, it turns out that this is all a lie and he really has no intention of buying at this inflated price, it's such a massive, massive grift. He'll sell his recently purchased shares for a huge profit and be fined, what, a few hundred grand?
 
Back