This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke.
I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA.
Why does he need a cover? Because TSLA is way too overvalued. He has to know that it is overvalued. Tesla's market cap is double of Toyota, VW, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Honda, Ferrari and Volvo all combined! [1]. If you sell stock while knowing your company's stock is way too overvalued, you're fleecing unsophisticated investors. Pretending to buy Twitter provides a convenient cover.
Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA.
In reality, both Musk and Gates sold TSLA, the only difference is that Musk sold stocks he owned, but Gates sold borrowed stocks. But Musk used buying Twitter as a cover, so he gets to pretend to be morally superior. Even though both men sold TSLA, according to Musk, Gates' sales means that he isn't serious about climate change [3].
> Is it fun for him? If he manages to walk away having spent only millions in financing fees, millions in legal fees and say $1 billion in termination fees, was it worth it? What did he get out of this? The guy really seems to like being on Twitter, and he did make himself the main character in Twitter's drama for months on end. That’s nice for him I guess. Also he made the lives of Twitter’s executives and employees pretty miserable; as a fellow Twitter addict I can kind of see the appeal of that? I always assume that “everyone who works at Twitter hates the product and its users,” and I suppose this is a case of the richest and weirdest user getting some revenge on the employees. He also gave himself an excuse to sell a bunch of Tesla stock near the highs. He maybe got an edit button too? Maybe that’s worth a billion dollars to him?
But for that to be the sole reason of the whole circus is conspiracy theory.
> Musk has buying Twitter as a cover
It's a very, very annoying/distracting cover, not to mention an expensive one.
> It's a very, very annoying/distracting cover, not to mention an expensive one.
It is hard to say how expensive it actually is… if he had sold overpriced Tesla stock without cover, could that lose be much more than - one billion termination fee?
How much has he lost in his stake of Twitter as its share price decreases? Why would he use Twitter as cover when he could use much better alternatives? Why would he waive normal due diligence that is customary if it was a fancy plan to exit Twitter from the beginning?
I don't think they apply to someone who tweeted "considering to take my company private at $X a share; funding secured" when funding definitely wasn't secured.
The story where he made an(other) impulsive decision (buy Twitter!) and then realised some potential benefit as a side effect (liquidate overpriced stock without raising eyebrows) sounds plausible.
In the end, Elefino [1]. Musk gonna musk, I guess.
well then Musk's plan is "a couple sandwiches short of a pinic basket"[1], which leads me to believe it's not a master conspiracy plan and he's just winging it.
You do admit it is a circus, and no official explanation holds its ground. Why do you belittle the real reason, whatever it is, by negatively branding it a conspiracy theory? The real reason for this by definition falls in the category of a "conspiracy theory", since it is not included in any official explanation.
That seems like an enormous amount of risk to take on just to sell stock that he actually owns and avoiding "looking like a hypocrite". It's not just plausible but somewhat likely that he'll be forced into an 11-figure settlement with Twitter to avoid the actual worst case outcome of being forced to take custody of and actually operate Twitter until he can unload it on someone else.
It's not about avoiding looking like a hypocrite, the major theory is that it's about being able to sell 8.5bi without causing the value to go down too much.
Your argument is inconsistent. Why would the value go down at all, if not because he would look like a hypocrite otherwise.
Regardless, even if this were consistent, GP's argument still stands: that's an enormous asking of risk to take on. It could end up costing him more than the $8.5bn.
The argument is not incosistent, as I understand it, you just talked past each other. What the above commenter meant is that Elon was not worried about appearing a hypocrite, as a matter of shame - that is, it is not like his conscience was burdened. He worried about losing Tesla valuation, something that truly would be caused by appearing as a hypocrite to the public - so his circus was merely a calculation based on that.
Sure "hypocrite" can be understood in the two ways you describe (burdened conscience vs. consequences of appearance), but the term was used in the context of stock dropping -- the latter.
You said "It's not about avoiding looking like a hypocrite, the major theory is [...]", which is not the same as "The major theory is that it's not about avoiding looking like a hypocrite, [...]".
Well, have fun picking apart the way I structured my previous post, even though I already clarified what I meant in the reply. Hope you find someone to have an internet fight. Have a nice day.
> Because TSLA is way too overvalued. He has to know that it is overvalued.
Indeed he does. He has talked about this publicly in various interviews over the years. [1]
> Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock
Musk definitely really dislikes short sellers, no doubt about that. However that is different from pretending that TSLA valuation is reasonable.
--
[1] A decent example is the 2021 Kara Swisher interview, where he states I have literally gone on record and said that our stock price is too high.https://youtu.be/O1bZg7frOmI?t=2450
Wasn't that tweet supposed to be cryptic? Right before he announced the stock spilt? I mean, he's surely a smart dude and a master in 140 character public manipulation. We'll never know but it's sure entertaining to watch.
Thank you for the explanations. How this is not one of the top comments is beyond me. This comment most logically explains all the drama started several months when Musk offered to buy Twitter. The stories generated several of the highest rated posts and several of the most commented posts at HN, just adding to the drama. Now it seems that it's quite a possibility that the Twitter drama is just a red herring for Musk to sell the much overpriced TSLA stocks.
Too much conspiracy theory. I think simply that Musk do not see the imminent market crash. Now he is going in tribunal to negotiate a lower price. The think will end with Musk owning Twitter in a way or another.
OTOH let's not underestimate what kind of scheme smart people can come up with for billions of dollars. Maybe what he didn't see wasn't the market crash but that he could not back away as easily as he tough.
> I think simply that Musk do not see the imminent market crash
It is possible of course, but unlikely. Musk doesn't seem to me as a person who might be surprised by this market crash, I heard him talking about the coming crash and how it will influence his plans before he started talking about buying twitter. My memory may be faulty but I think he mentioned it for example in December when justifying himself pushing SpaceX engineers to work harder to bring Raptor 2.
It seems more plausible for me that he tried to sell Tesla shares before the crash hit them.
This is the obvious answer for any rational observer.
Everyone seems to want to attribute it to some projected character fault in Musk, a chance to elevate their morality or intelligence higher than a famous rich guy.
Musks offer was strategically made before yearly earnings, when everyone posted bad earnings the market tanked.
> This is the obvious answer for any rational observer.
"Obvious" and "rational" in one sentence seem to me suspicious every time. I'm suspicious about "obvious" itself, because of my math education, but when combined with "rational" it is just too much for me.
The answer you refer is a simpliest one: it doesn't need any special assumptions of Musk's personality and it is built on a smallest possible sample of relevant facts. May be it means that it is an obvious answer? May be. But it doesn't mean that it closer to reality than more complex opinions relying on more data points and more complex models of Musk's personality, not just an assumption of his rationality.
On the contrary, explanations like the one by the GP seem to attribute way more superhuman character to Musk than who he is: just another person, and one with a pretty peculiar personality at that. His traits could have brought him spectacular success, but could also make him prone to eccentric episodes like this, especially as the years go by. I don’t see anything petty minded in just analyzing the situation in this way.
You can't announce that you are purchasing a public company until after due diligence, and the sale is in its final closing process. There is no "waiver" of due diligence per se, but the initial offer says "I did enough due diligence and I intend to purchase."
Most people would do their due diligence under NDA for a while while negotiating prices before making an announcement, and before lining up funding.
There is certainly some limit to how much of his stake he could sell out of at once without spooking the market and destroying retail investor confidence, though it’s hard to say what that limit is. Without some cover story I suspect an $8.5 billion sale would be newsworthy and significantly impact the share price.
Arguably the Twitter poll and attendant media circus with Bernie Sanders about taxation was also to provide pretext for a large sale without spooking retail investor confidence.
He needed to liquidate stock to pay taxes from previous stock options he'd been given either way of the Twitter poll. I find a lot of the comments here to be pretty off-base and ill-informed to say the least.
I think this makes a lot of sense. A question I have about it though - why not say it's for something else then? If the goal is to get value out of Tesla and put it elsewhere, it seems like cash for another company he's running seems reasonable enough? Perhaps that's illegal for some reason I'm naive about?
This such an elaborate conspiracy, even if true, he's set himself up legally to all but have to acquire the company after Twitter beats him in court. This seems much less plausible than Elon is an impulsive person who likes attention.
Do we really need to assign a financial motive to Elon Musk?! Musk is in it for his own entertainment. Period. And that greed changes as often as the phases of the moon. It's a good story to his following to come out financially ahead. It's also a good story to the libertarian crowd to drag the issues of bot accounts and free speech into court. And if the deal were to have gone through, I'm sure Musk would have made a great story forming an Alphabet/Berkshire-like holding company across Tesla, SpaceX, and his other amusements. And of course daily amusement of adding a Twitter edit button, an irony mode, etc.
But what will the legacy of all this mess be? It's looking a lot like Howard Hughes, except that Hughes successfully monetized his stage presence. Elon has officially thrown in the towel, and spit in the face of his wider audience in the process.
Elon Musk has probably taken a big haircut on his current stake in Twitter and is also risking being forced to buy Twitter anyway or losing 1 billion plus legal fees. That sounds like an awful lot of work to sell 8.5 billion worth of Tesla shares.
Well, Musk is not "most people", and 8.5 billion is a small percentage of Elon Musk's net worth. I'd not be surprised if 8.5 billion is perhaps the daily fluctuation in his net worth!
> Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA.
This is outright false and goes directly against his multiple stated instances of saying that the Tesla stock price is overvalued. Don't make things up to suit your biases.
If you believe your company's stock is overvalued, how can you fault someone for selling the stock? Bill Gates sold TSLA stock that he borrowed. If you truly believe that TSLA is overvalued, then it makes no sense to fault someone for selling it.
He doesn't find fault with people selling the stock. He finds fault with people shorting the stock. He seems to believe shorting in general is morally wrong as it's external influences who don't understand the goal (or actively want the goal to fail) trying to make money on the failure of something.
Try and find any instance of him attacking anyone who was an investor and then sold out.
> I’m a little confounded that you suggest Elon believes shorting to be “morally wrong”. Why conflate his ego and financial stake with “morality”?
Because in the over ten years I have of watching what he says and what he does I've found him to be a forthright person who says what he thinks. He's not the type to intentionally deceive others. He's often wrong, but he's upfront with what he thinks. Also he's shown many times to not be interested in financial merits. He wants to achieve great things and be known for doing great things. He only cares about money in the sense that it lets him achieve the goals he wants to achieve.
> Plus, Elon has proven himself to be morally nefarious more than anything. With the law and social expectations and plenty more.
I've not seen that myself. I've seen him let his emotions get out of control many a time that he often regrets, but I've not seen him act in an explicitly nefarious way.
> The only thing I can find about Elon and his utterance of morality is him saying it was morally wrong to ban Donald Trump. What a joke.
He didn't say that it was morally wrong to ban Donald Trump. That was an oft-repeated synthesized quote that was also taken out of context. He doesn't particularly like Donald Trump at all.
> He's not the type to intentionally deceive others.
Have you seen him tweet that he was in a deal to take Tesla private?
Have you seen his Solar Tiles marketing stunt, where he was claiming all of the houses around him had functioning solar tiles, when instead they were pure props?
Have you seen him sell FSD with a promise that it will work in 1 year, and that it will literally pay for itself by letting your car be an autonomous taxi while you are at work?
Have you seen him claim the Tesla Cybertruck will be available for pre-orders next year?
Have you seen him claim he is backing out of this Twitter deal because of the many bots on Twitter, when he was previously claiming that he is buying Twitter to fix the bot problem?
There are instances where he might have indeed believed the ridiculous promises he was making, but he has a long history of directly lying to consumers and investors to get his way or manipulate stock (or crypto) prices.
> Have you seen him tweet that he was in a deal to take Tesla private?
Except he was. Have you seen the leaked tweets between him and the Saudis? He had verbal guarantees of funding and he trusted them at their word. That goes back to him being truthful, he doesn't have much ability to spot people lying to him and takes great offense at it when he finds out he was lied to.
> Have you seen his Solar Tiles marketing stunt, where he was claiming all of the houses around him had functioning solar tiles, when instead they were pure props?
It's not a marketing stunt. My friend works on them and Tesla sells them.
> Have you seen him sell FSD with a promise that it will work in 1 year, and that it will literally pay for itself by letting your car be an autonomous taxi while you are at work?
That's him being honest of his own thoughts on the matter. He keeps thinking that they're close to it being complete but then the improvement rate plateaus. He's commented as such in in interviews when asked about the repeated 1 year time periods. And the autonomous taxi is still the plan. That hasn't changed.
> Have you seen him claim the Tesla Cybertruck will be available for pre-orders next year?
Because events in the business changed. What their plans are at one point in time doesn't mean that what they say will happen.
> Have you seen him claim he is backing out of this Twitter deal because of the many bots on Twitter, when he was previously claiming that he is buying Twitter to fix the bot problem?
Except he wasn't saying he was buying Twitter to fix the bot problem. That was never the plan at all. A lot of you people have ridiculous recency bias where you completely forget the events of even a few months ago. I've seen several people in this thread state this assuredly when only a couple weeks ago we were all talking about him buying Twitter to create a internet public town square and how it was about not banning people for what they say (and people claiming how horrible this idea was), but now suddenly that's all gone and its about bots. Elon is more trustworthy than most of the posters on hacker news and reddit as at least he's consistent.
> There are instances where he might have indeed believed the ridiculous promises he was making, but he has a long history of directly lying to consumers and investors to get his way or manipulate stock (or crypto) prices.
He has a long history of making crazy predictions, and fulfilling some of them while others completely flop. A lot of people doubted that Tesla would reach 500,000 vehicles per year production rate, and yet they have, almost exactly when they planned to. Growing at a rate faster than any automotive company has grown in history. A lot of people doubted that SpaceX could re-use rockets and now they land rockets multiple times per month and re-fly them within only 2-3 weeks. A few weeks ago they launched 3 rockets (that were all being re-used) in the span of 36 hours.
(Oh and the whole supposed crypto pump and dump is a myth given that he's never come around and stopped supporting it. He's never manipulated stock prices/crypto for personal gain.)
People ignore all the promises he's fulfilled and focus on the promises that either haven't come true yet or the promises that were discarded for a better idea. The general public on the internet is incredibly disingenuous about Elon and it drives me to frustration all the time. It seems to be largely an internet problem as most people I know IRL are either neutral on him (don't really care) or like what he's done.
> He's not the type to intentionally deceive others. He's often wrong, but he's upfront with what he thinks.
So when he submitted official documents that he wants to be a passive investor at Twitter while already having internal talks about buying it and/or getting a board seat he ... accidentally forgot about that?
In 2016 a Tesla on autopilot mode decapitated a man because of deficiencies in its sensor stack. Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake. Then, predictably, a second person got decapitated in the same exact manner. The issue still has not been fixed to this day.
Are these the decisions of a good engineer and a moral person? Or someone who would rather be right than prevent deaths?
> Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake.
Except they did fix the deficiency and he never "doubled down" on the events that happened. He did remind people to pay attention while driving reminding people that it was beta software. Your recollection of events seems to be mistaken. Additionally, "Recalls" are a legacy regulatory requirement based around the era that required you to take a vehicle into a service station to have something replaced or serviced. They're not required for a software update to fix some problem.
> Then, predictably, a second person got decapitated in the same exact manner.
You're going to have to source that as I'm not aware of any second instance of the exact same thing happening.
> Are these the decisions of a good engineer and a moral person? Or someone who would rather be right than prevent deaths?
They're the decisions of a person who's working toward the long term and thinks that saving lives in aggregate is a good thing to do even if in the process very few deaths of a different type are caused. Yes they're moral. By some accounts he's saved several thousand lives already in prevented car accidents based on the lower accident rate of vehicles running on autopilot.
You could have saved yourself the trouble and done a Google search before writing all of that.
Obviously they didn’t fix the problem because it happened again. The problem wasn’t software it was hardware. Musk’s excuse was PEBCAW (problem exists between keyboard and wheel), but in reality it was his marketing and the failure of his products to live up to his own misleading hype.
And Musk did absolutely double down because he seems to have something to prove by eschewing LiDAR. The doubling down comes from the fact that the Model 3 could have corrected these issues but it didn’t. It made them worse by removing certain sensors. And again, the issue still isn’t fixed.
> They're the decisions of a person who's working toward the long term and thinks that saving lives in aggregate is a good thing to do even if in the process very few deaths of a different type are caused. Yes they're moral.
There are many such people working toward that goal, and those who are doing so earnestly aim to create a culture of safety. Musk is not one of these people. He has chosen to unleash beta quality software/machines with deficient sensor stacks onto an unsuspecting public, a public that has not agreed to his beta test. These cars are operating in stealth mode on public streets, when they should be clearly marked with flashing lights indicating that they are autonomous vehicles, as had been established as a common safety practice among autonomous car researchers for over a decade.
Musk threw out all of this and has caused literal deaths as a result. That’s on him. He ignores industry best practices for bragging rights, and he does so with no technical or engineering basis. There’s no ethical basis for it either, including your utilitarian “ends justify the means” take, because it’s quite clear at this point he will never even get to that end. He has boxed himself into a local maxima and his pride is preventing any advancement toward the safe future you imagine. Instead he’s stuck with machines that decapitated multiple people, and he can’t design one that won’t.
Musk and Tesla have been a giant step backwards for robot ethics in the industry. The whole world would be safer if he never even got the idea of autonomous cars in his brain. We were doing just fine developing safe autonomous vehicles without him. That better safer future you imagine will happen in spite of Musk, not because of him.
That's your problem. You've actually done your research and actually listened to the man and watched how he has acted over a 10 year period, giving you much better insight than people who only read click-bait headlines. It's not even worth arguing with people who don't know what they're talking about.
Okay, so Musk didn't even pretend TSLA's price was reasonable, but surely you agree that "buying Twitter" is a good excuse for him to dump some TSLA while it's incredibly overvalued?
I think he fully expected to buy Twitter and was working toward that goal which required him to sell TSLA shares. If there's some kind of side benefit that he now gets to keep that money now that the deal has fallen through, I have no problem with that personally as a TSLA shareholder as I'd prefer he spend that money on something like SpaceX. Making my stock value go down while helping SpaceX is a great thing.
>Tesla's market cap is double of Toyota, VW, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Honda, Ferrari and Volvo all combined!
This phrase gets thrown around a lot with dunning-kreuger confidence so I'd like to add context that it's not unusual for a market disruptor to be worth more than the sum of its legacy competitors - you are on a tech website related to startup incubator you should know this already.
That would be the case if they had disrupted some market, but Tesla has only succeeded in creating a new niche vehicle, and cornering that market to some extent. They are still bit players in the overall car market (and they are losing market dominance even in BEVs, mostly to Chinese companies).
Erm, it's VW due to overtake Tesla for EV sales by the end of this year.
Edit: ouch that statement might have been correct if VW hadn't sold out annual production by May and supply chain problems hamper ramp up. So it's predicted for 2024 VW BEV sales will exceed those of Tesla.
Further I have no doubt that now BMW are making electric cars that look like normal cars inside, are screwed together properly and support CarPlay, they too will overtake Tesla in this segment.
Are you sure that TSLA is overvalued? Right now they are performing pretty well, for their niche.
I mean it will be overvalued if Toyota gets its act together - if the competition can produce reliable electric cars for the mass market. I suspect that this is not quite happening due to some real technical problems. A mass market electric car would need to handle some real problems with battery depreciation/range loss. I am not sure if that is happening, right now.
I found quite a range of opinions on battery depreciation, not quite sure who is right (never owned one):
It would be perhaps plausible for Tesla to be worth more than any other single car company.
But it is patently absurd for them to be higher than all other car companies combined. By any possible measure, they are far far smaller, and have far smaller prospects for growth, than the rest of the card industry put together.
The only place where Tesla has a lead is in sales of BEVs, where indeed they are selling more than the rest of the industry combined, except for some Chinese companies. However, BEVs are still a tiny part of the car market, and are likely to remain so for the next ten years at least.
Even their sales leadership is eroding (at least looking at global figures). The next biggest three combined (VW, Hyundai-Kia, Stellantis) have sold as many BEV cars as Tesla in 2021. And there are many big players on the following ranks that clearly have the money and willingness to grow
Several of the mentioned brands already have class leading or at least competitive electric cars on the market. The Mercedes EQS might be the best electric car on the market. VW’s MEB platform (ID3, …) clearly has mass market appeal even though it still has some weaknesses. Car companies have copied most of what made Tesla unique (OTA, …) and looking at any dimension, you’ll find a competing car that is better than a Tesla. Tesla still sells a good overall package but the times where they were without competition are clearly over
I think there's an even better explanation, and liquidating $8.5 billion of Tesla stock may just be the icing on the cake:
Elon despises the SEC and he's now has exposed that the "less than 5%" of accounts are bots, that the SEC should have verified and accepted their methods for determining that number - and it should be adequate and reasonable to give a grounded-in-reality output, and it seems like it's a total bullshit statement.
I'd be surprised if Twitter stockholders don't sue the SEC.
> he's now has exposed that the "less than 5%" of accounts are bots
He did the opposite of that. The Twitter CEO's explanations are quite believable, and Musk has not presented a single tiny shred of evidence against them. He hasn't even presented any methodology he used to arrive at the belief that the 5% is wrong - and note that his lawyers were careful to call it a belief only, since they know full well that claiming it as a fact would be indefensible in court.
Does Twitter also say in their official filings that it's their belief that bots are less than 5% or is it a concrete statement that less than 5% of accounts are bots?
I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA.
Look at this story: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dol... The headline is: "Elon Musk Sells $8.5 Billion of Tesla Shares After Deal to Buy Twitter"
Why does he need a cover? Because TSLA is way too overvalued. He has to know that it is overvalued. Tesla's market cap is double of Toyota, VW, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Honda, Ferrari and Volvo all combined! [1]. If you sell stock while knowing your company's stock is way too overvalued, you're fleecing unsophisticated investors. Pretending to buy Twitter provides a convenient cover.
Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA.
In reality, both Musk and Gates sold TSLA, the only difference is that Musk sold stocks he owned, but Gates sold borrowed stocks. But Musk used buying Twitter as a cover, so he gets to pretend to be morally superior. Even though both men sold TSLA, according to Musk, Gates' sales means that he isn't serious about climate change [3].
[1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers...
[2] https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-shorting-tesla-wo...