Posted on 04/11/2022 6:13:30 AM PDT by shadowlands1960
- Elon Musk, 50, last week was revealed to be the biggest shareholder in Twitter, having bought a stake worth 9.2 percent - four times that of founder Jack Dorsey. - Agrawal said he thought Musk's decision was 'for the best' and said the company must remain focused on its corporate goals.
- He did not say why Musk would not join, but suggested that shareholders had expressed concern.
- Several Twitter employees tweeted reactions to the announcement, seemingly agitated by the roller coaster surrounding Musk's company involvement.
- On Monday, Twitter stock briefly fell to 8% in premarket trading, before mostly recovering to an only 2% decline.
- Analysts speculate the drop stemmed from news of Musk's board seat refusal.
Twitter stock fell 8 percent in premarket trading Monday after the social media giant revealed majority shareholder Elon Musk had refused his seat on the company's board of directors.
Musk, who disclosed a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter just a few days ago, was offered a board seat on Tuesday, and his appointment was to become effective on Saturday. But Chief Executive Parag Agrawal announced Sunday evening that the Tesla CEO had decided to decline.
'Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board', Agrawal said on Twitter, adding that he thought it was 'for the best'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yep. A board seat would be a handicap at this point. 698-3587
Carl Icahn fired 12 floors of people from a company he bought. I don't think Musk would even blink pulling the trigger on thousands if he was getting resistance to his policy.
Not sure why the kabuki of the board seat anyway. He was buying a bill of goods and an SEC invest. Glad to see him reject that seat and stay activist.
Hope he goes through with the Q&A with Twitter staff -- it will give him a beeline as to who to fire immediately. After he shits down Twitter's neck, it's Meta's turn.
That would be... committment.
Even with Musk's net worth estimated at $233 Billion, he would probably have to divest some of his stock in SpaceX or Tesla to come up with that type of money, which I doubt he wants to do. I figure if anything, If he attempts to a buy Twitter out, it will be with a coalition of like minded investors. I doubt he really wants that much exposure in something like Twitter that might be worth very little as soon as the next big social media thing hits.
Network Effect is why you buy Twitter. It’s also why startups never manage to put a dent in the entrenched social media platforms.
they will pass a law(s) or the.gov will stop that from happening imho, but will be fun to watch all this nonetheless .
#1 and partially #3.
#2 doesn’t seem to make much sense to me as the man has plenty of money and that does not seem to be his focus in general, as in Mo Money.
GOOD -— drive that share price lower so he won’t have to pay so much to control twitter.
Contracts are not uncommon. Unless you own or control over 50% of the companies outstanding stock a seat on the board is by invitation, and it can come with strings.
In Musk's case they offered him a seat on condition he sign a contract that he wouldn't agree to. It would have limited the amount of stock he could own or control.
It's also interesting that Musk has made a filing declaring that he intends to be an active investor. That's significant because only passive investors enjoy limited liability. Active investors can be sued for actions taken by the company if it can be shown that they influenced the company to take those actions.
“Majority shareholder”
Um, not yet. Largest shareholder, but not the majority holder. He doesn’t own at least 50%.
“Since when do board members have contracts”
They always do.
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.