Yeah - but that's dumb bullshit. He can't legally pull out because of that.

He waived all of that to force Twitter to agree to the deal (because it'd be basically impossible for the board to reject it). This made sense at the time, because the board was looking for ways to weasel out of it because (imo) they politically don't like Musk. Then the market crashed and suddenly he was overpaying a ton for Twitter, then he complains about bots (this isn't new information from when he made the deal).

Whether or not the bots thing is true isn't even relevant based on the deal he put forward.

I think he earnestly wanted to buy Twitter for principled reasons around speech which I agree with. He structured the deal in such a way where Twitter's board couldn't reject it (because it was so favorable to shareholders). Then when the market tanked the deal way overpriced Twitter, but he had already committed to it so he's trying everything to get out of it. I suspect he actually believes the things he's arguing (he's always seemed pretty earnest to me), I just think he's wrong in this case and it's mostly driven by motivated reasoning.

That doesn't mean Twitter isn't a disaster, just that they're in the right with regard to him having to close the deal.

>I think he earnestly wanted to buy Twitter for principled reasons around speech which I agree with. He structured the deal in such a way where Twitter's board couldn't reject it (because it was so favorable to shareholders). Then when the market tanked the deal way overpriced Twitter, but he had already committed to it so he's trying everything to get out of it.

That's not how business valuations work (it's how speculation works). If Twitter was fairly valued by Elon Musk before the crash then it would be fairly valued now - the fundamentals of the business haven't changed.

I mean, okay. But it's not like he had $44B in cash lying around.

Implicitly, this was always, "I'm going to trade X% of Tesla for 100% of Twitter." Then the valuation of both Twitter and Tesla dropped, so to the extent that you think the "value" of a business is wholly determined by its fundamentals, then okay, they're both still the same "value" but now have lower prices.

Except that he hadn't sold the Tesla yet, so he was trading Tesla (at new lower price) for Twitter (at old higher price), and if you previously thought that X% of Tesla was worth Twitter, and Twitter is still worth the same thing, it's now X+Y% of Tesla.

Of course, it's not like the fundamentals of Twitter didn't change. Twitter's revenue comes from advertising, and it's entirely reasonable to believe that it was actually materially affected by the economic downturn, not just in terms of the speculation of the stock, but by how the business functions.

(None of this is to take the position that Musk ought to be able to back out of the deal: if the market had gone even hotter and now Musk could've traded less than X% of Tesla for the agreed upon, now conservative price for Twitter, it's not like the deal would've been renegotiated.)

One could argue that the value of a company is the sum of net present value of the future free cash flows it can produce. If the market crash is because of peope realizing there is a recession coming for example, it makes sense to update your expectations about the net present value of future cash flows - probably in sum a bit lower than before probably.

Valuation involves imperfect information. As the information changes so does the valuation.

"If Twitter was fairly valued by Elon Musk before the crash then it would be fairly valued now"

That's a big if - I think a lot of this stuff is more speculation than any sort of fundamental cash flow valuation. A lot Twitter's actual value (its network effect and influence) is hard to measure anyway.

> That's not how business valuations work (it's how speculation works). If Twitter was fairly valued by Elon Musk before the crash then it would be fairly valued now - the fundamentals of the business haven't changed.

Some "fundamentals" of a business like twitter's value are:

1. Product/market fit, finances, etc. What you mean by "fundamentals" I think.

2. How easy it is for them to raise money (i.e. the "public sentiment" of VC towards their company and the industry)

3. How likely it is for regulation to stifle their growth, which is a derivative of public sentiment.

4. How much shares can be sold for, i.e. the public sentiment about how much it's worth.

5. Predicted future sentiment of their users and of advertisers, both of which impact expected future revenue.

2-5 all change with public sentiment, and a market crash changes public sentiment of many companies at once.

It's self-evident that elon musk is overpaying more now than before unless you insist that twitter's value is not actually related to 2-5 above, or 2-5 above should have been trivially predictable 100% accurately already as part of its "fundamentals", both of which seem obviously silly.

He literally said he was buying it to fix the bot problem. It's not like he was unaware that bots existed on twitter.

Right? Elon was pretty much insinuating, before the deal, that he thought the bot problem on twitter was much bigger than what Twitter officially stated. And now he's trying to get out of the deal by claiming that the bot problem on twitter was much bigger than what Twitter officially stated.

The why doesn't matter, he explicitly waived the ability to back out of the deal for any of the reasons he's cited.

Twitter is a tyre pyre, but he should have thought about that before putting ink on that deal.

He is trying to get out of the deal because he's about to lose billions of dollars buying a pretty crappy company. All this stuff about bots is dishonest nonsense. He could have chosen to do due diligence, and chose not to.

granted, I'm not entirely certain Musk wants to pull out vs. getting a better price/discount on the purchase...

If Musk actually believes this represents anything it puts his IQ in the single digit - low double digits range.

So what you're saying is that an idiot can become the richest man in the world without being born into it?

How often has that happened in the entire history?

If 5 billion people flip coins all day long one of them will eventually flip only heads all day.

Profoundly dumb people have been heads of state, CEOs etc. So why not the richest person in the world?

Alternative suggestion would be that he doesnt actually believe that the reason he is trying not to buy twitter is the reason he was buying twitter.

>Profoundly dumb people have been heads of state, CEOs etc. So why not the richest person in the world?

It's simple to explain away - other people have appointed heads of state. And I have not heard of an idiot (in medical sense) top20 Forbes list CEO who's also been there since day 1 (i.e. the founder, not some figurehead appointed by a board for an arbitrary reason).

Can you appoint yourself the strongest person in the world or the fastest 100m runner in the world?

[0]While someone like the Saudi king or Putin can in theory allocate their respective states' funds to themselves and thus become the richest, that would simply be converting power into money, and not a result of some kind of entrepreneurial ability.

>If 5 billion people flip coins all day long one of them will eventually flip only heads all day.

This argument is flawed since that would assume a person would win some money every time they flipped correctly, when in reality nobody is going to pay anyone for succeeding in a flip. And applying that directly to business also breaks down because it is self-evident that the ways to lose money greatly outnumber the ways to gain money.