← Back to context

Comment by Rapzid

10 hours ago

You're argument was Musk and his investors designed an 80% drop in valuation post purchase?! LOL!?

No, Musk designed an offer that forced the board to sell to uphold its fiduciary duty to shareholders. (And then famously got cold feet about it, but it was so well-designed that he couldn’t shirk it.)

The valuation crashing back to reality after going private, and therefore being measured by its intrinsic worth rather than whatever the latest trader paid for a share of it, was an inevitable but meaningless consequence.

  • Meaningless to who? The employees? The investors?

    Twitter has become text book bad purchase, bad management, and worst "rebranding" in history.

    • Meaningless to the investors, including employees with vested RSUs. They got bought out at $54.20, way above the soon-to-become market value.

      It was meaningless to Musk for all of about a week, when he came off his ketamine binge and realized what a stupid offer he’d made. But it was a done deal by that point.

      According to Reddit[0], it might not have been meaningless to employees with unvested RSUs. They lacked an acceleration clause, so instead of immediately becoming 100% vested at $54.20, the schedule remained intact with a cash payout instead of stock. If the cash payout was relative to current company value, then it was a massive hit.

      [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/comments/yykn1e/if_you_work...

      1 reply →

Elon Musk was the only investor. Which investors are you referring to? And yes, when you pay a premium for stock, you’re paying more than the intrinsic value. This was widely reported so I don’t understand why you would pretend that it’s a big secret.