upvote
I don’t see anything in what you wrote really support that Twitter did well after firing 80% of its staff.

As for this:

> Twitter as a company was doing quite poorly leading up to the acquisition

This is objectively false. 2020 revenue for Twitter was $3.71B while 2021 came in at $5.07B. The company was on a growth trajectory and path to profitability.

In fact, after the acquisition, the ad revenue dropped by a lot. https://www.businessinsider.com/x-revenues-plunged-months-af...

All of this is public information.

reply
> I don’t see anything in what you wrote really support that Twitter did well after firing 80% of its staff.

That’s because I didn’t make any claims about X’s financial performance. I was explaining to you why you were wrong on some important facts.

> This is objectively false. 2020 revenue for Twitter was $3.71B while 2021 came in at $5.07B.

First, you’re conflating revenue and profit, which is kind of unforgivable in this context. Second, I explained that in those years they made large profits. In my comment. Which you clearly didn’t read.

If this is just where you like to emotionally vent may I instead recommend Reddit? I like the interesting discussions here.

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

reply
Meaningless to who? The employees? The investors?

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

reply
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...

reply
I'm not talking about those investors and employees.

I'm talking about the investors and banks that ponied up over half the purchase funds, and the employees that didn't have life changing payouts who were laid off.

I suppose he has the money to pay back the investors and banks now though. Not sure what kinda return they were expecting vs what they got.

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.
reply