Disappointing.
It was the first thing I thought of when I heard he bought that stock.
He wouldn’t have much power as just one board member. His power comes from the implicit threat that he might just buy controlling interest, and that threat is more really when he deliberately turns down a seat. That’s what they’re worried about.
Don’t be disappointed.
If he joined the board he would be under constraints as to what he can do stock wise.
As a stockholder, and a big one at that, he can do more ‘damage’ to their little plans that if he was on the board.
This may signal the beginning of a hostile takeover of the company.
How can his option to own MORE stock/control be disappointing?
I’m glad he turned down the (stock ownership) limiting Board seat.
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.