Posted on 04/11/2022 5:11:38 AM PDT by JV3MRC
Tesla CEO Elon Musk declined a seat on Twitter’s board of directors after becoming the platform’s largest shareholder with a massive 9.2 percent stake. But this move could end up signifying an even greater play by Musk to seize control of the platform, according to CNBC.
Leftist Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted late April 10 that the world’s richest man “decided not to join our board.” Agrawal seemed to admit the quiet part out loud when he said that having Musk “as a fiduciary of the company where he, like all board members, has to act in the best interests of the company and all our shareholders, was the best path forward.” Musk’s appointment was supposed to take effect April 9, “but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the [B]oard. I believe this is for the best,” Agrawal claimed.
There could be another reason why Musk chose an about-face. He could attempt a hostile takeover of the company.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
There are a lot of ‘hostile’ takeover specialists that Musk could hire, although he is a pretty smart guy and might try it himself. Don’t count him out of a hostile takeover. I thought it was odd that he would want to be on the board because of the obvious - it was a way to control him. He doesn’t like to be controlled and it was an obvious ploy on the part of the turds that sit on their board.
If Musk were to be on the Board, he would NOT be able to SAY ANYTHING...this is a smart move
bookmark
They probably are packing their bags.
Things move very fast in Silicon Valley.
In the long term, I’m not sure this is going to be a win for anyone.
Radicals won’t work for Musk, Musk won’t be able to find anyone to replace them.
Twitter dies.
Now if on the remote chance he CAN find replacements, this is a very good thing.
Still very remote chance.
This is probably good news, if you seek Twitter reform. As a member of the Board, he has to act in the best interest of Twitter. And that means passively playing nice with them, if he can’t win. 9% is less than 91%, so unless he has pre-existing allies on the board, he would lose every time and then be ethically obliged to support the decisions he opposes.
Off of the board, he can wage holy war, including pushing stock prices up and down as he sees fit to help him gain influence. Plus, he still gets a vote as a shareholder.
>> What happens to the stock price if there is a hostile takeover? <<
Unknown. Most famously, people who want to stay in power try to outbid the hostile. But if other investors feel like the war could harm the product, or simply value the potential “new” company less than the devil they know, it could drop. If Twitter turns out to be a vanity holding (like, say, the Washington Post), the price could drop even if the value doesn’t.
Demolish the building during a live stream.
Usually the target has to leverage itself to make a buyout both too expensive and to limit the financial return to the ‘raider’. Many companies in the 80’s and 90’s got forced into unfavorable re-structuring deals when they feared a takeover attempt. Sometimes the ‘White Knight’ brought in by the board to finance that restructuring did worse by the company than the ‘hostile investor’ would have.
Joke post?
Musk has founded and run multi billion dollar companies. He has people begging and eager to work for him.
I think the one you want to say this to is Cowgirl? She’s the one asking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.