Twitter is better

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah thanks for proving the point.  It’s March 17th and he hasn’t posted on x since March 11th.  He’s had 6 posts on x in the entire month of March.

This account copies his Truth Social posts.  Looks like he made over 15 “truths” today alone.

 

He’s prolly firing Elon tomorrow right. ?

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

He’s prolly firing Elon tomorrow right. ?

Honestly, I like that he’s showing Elon that Trump is still President 1A and Elon is 1B

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Honestly, I like that he’s showing Elon that Trump is still President 1A and Elon is 1B

Are we ignoring that Trump owns Truth Social, not Twitter?

[1032004]

6 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Are we ignoring that Trump owns Truth Social, not Twitter?

I don’t expect him to give up on Truth Social, I just would have expected it to be more of an even split, considering the advertising he has done for Musk’s other companies 

[headshuck]

Many don’t know this, but Trump wears SpaceX pajamas.

[mspart]

6 hours ago, headshuck said:

Many don’t know this, but Trump wears SpaceX pajamas.

No way!!

mspart

[headshuck]

X value back to $44b. WKN must be busy getting ready for NCAA’s.

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 hours ago, headshuck said:

X value back to $44b. WKN must be busy getting ready for NCAA’s.
 

Wow, I did miss this. Got busy with NCAAs and some other stuff. From what I can find there is very little, and contradictory detail behind this. Call me skeptical. For example, Bloomberg and the FT appear to be the only outlets who have seen any documents, and they describe it very differently.

[Caveira]

Elon Musk sells X to his own xAI for $33 billion in all-stock deal

https://apnews.com/article/x-musk-sale-xai-b245f463076ac9b72c41f92160dc77eb

[ionel]

30 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Elon Musk sells X to his own xAI for $33 billion in all-stock deal

https://apnews.com/article/x-musk-sale-xai-b245f463076ac9b72c41f92160dc77eb

Surprised Wkn wasn't the buyer. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

My left pocket just bought my right pocket for $34 billion

[headshuck]

My left pocket just bought my right pocket for $34 billion

But only after my left pocket got really deep.

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

My left pocket just bought my right pocket for $34 billion

Yea can you explain this?   I’m sure Musk is making money here even though he “sold” x for $11 billion less than he bought it for right?

[WrestlingRasta]

So guys uses his own AI company to purchase his own social media platform, and guy is also, by standards of his own artificial intelligence, the biggest spreader of misinformation…I.e. biggest liar….on the planet. 
 

Now that’s cool!! Fortunately he doesn’t have any influence in our government. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

34 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yea can you explain this?   I’m sure Musk is making money here even though he “sold” x for $11 billion less than he bought it for right?

No one knows what this means, which is, I think, the point of the transaction.

Musk paid $44 billion for the equity of Twitter. He did it by borrowing $12 billion and paying $32 billion of his, and his investors, money. So right before he bought it it had $44 billion of equity. Right after, $32 billion, but the same enterprise value, only more leverage. He just did a funding round about a month ago to raise $1 billion at, what was reported by him with no supporting detail, a $32 billion equity / $44 billion enterprise value. Now he is saying the sale of the company happened at $33 billion / $45 billion.

But what does it mean that he sold the company? There are outside investors. Did they get cashed out at the same price? Or did he simply sell his controlling interest at that price?

If it is just his controlling interest, he replaced it with xAI shares that he already owns. So, sure pick any number. It is just moving from the right pocket to the left pocket. But if he cashed out others then he is giving up something of value (xAI shares). 

But at what value? He says the xAI share price chosen valued that company at $80 billion. The last independent funding round where they revealed a price valued xAI at $51 billion. The two funding rounds after that, they did not reveal a valuation, which always causes the market to assume it was a down round, but who knows.

Musk has also been in talks to raise $10 billion at a $75 million valuation. If that is a post cash number then it implies a $65 billion valuation without that investment.

So, saying xAI was worth $80 billion when doing this transaction implies that if outside investors were cashed out, the terms may not have been that favorable. If xAI is worth $65 (or $51) billion when they say it is worth $80 billion then the investors did not really get a $33/$45 billion dollar valuation on X. Working backward if the xAI shares were overvalued by 18.75% (65/80), then the real implied price for X is $26 billion, rather than $33.

But they still get some upside exposure to xAI. And maybe that is enough in their minds.

But the real point of the transaction is this gets the market to stop talking about the X valuation because it is now just a subsidiary of xAI.

[Wrestleknownothing]

I have some follow up questions.

Was X for sale? Did Musk solicit any other offers? Does it bother the other shareholders of X or xAI that this was a conflicted transaction? Has this received regulatory approval? Given Musk's control of X, xAI, and the regulators will he even bother? Has the deal closed? Or is it just announced? What protections did minority shareholders receive? Isn't it clear that the prior funding round for X was just used as a way to validate a merger price?

[ionel]

28 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have some follow up questions.

Was X for sale? Did Musk solicit any other offers? Does it bother the other shareholders of X or xAI that this was a conflicted transaction? Has this received regulatory approval? Given Musk's control of X, xAI, and the regulators will he even bother? Has the deal closed? Or is it just announced? What protections did minority shareholders receive? Isn't it clear that the prior funding round for X was just used as a way to validate a merger price?

My only question is why didn't Wkn buy it?  

[Caveira]

51 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have some follow up questions.

Was X for sale? Did Musk solicit any other offers? Does it bother the other shareholders of X or xAI that this was a conflicted transaction? Has this received regulatory approval? Given Musk's control of X, xAI, and the regulators will he even bother? Has the deal closed? Or is it just announced? What protections did minority shareholders receive? Isn't it clear that the prior funding round for X was just used as a way to validate a merger price?

Don’t all these things happen in business all the time?

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Don’t all these things happen in business all the time?

Yes

[Caveira]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yes

Cool beans boss.  
 

and as a general answer.  Upper level leadership doesn’t consult or care what happens to the little people when doing stuff like this.    

Edited yesterday at 01:08 AM by Caveira

[Wrestleknownothing]

30 minutes ago, ionel said:

My only question is why didn't Wkn buy it?  

See the first question

[ionel]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

See the first question

Everything is for sale at the right price so ...

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

Everything is for sale at the right price so ...

The right price is an issue

[Caveira]

7 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The right price is an issue

How so?

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

How so?

If it isn't the right price then outside shareholders of one of the two might be getting a bad deal. See my commentary above.

One other odd thing this reminds me of is both companies apparently used the same investmemt bankers. Hard to ensure a fair price when the majority shareholder of one is the majority shareholder of the other and thr same investment bankers are also on both sides of the "negotiation".