576
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Nearly two years after Elon Musk’s acquisition, X’s business is still struggling to climb out of the deep hole it fell into under his ownership.

The $13 billion that Elon Musk borrowed to buy Twitter has turned into the worst merger-finance deal for banks since the 2008-09 financial crisis.

The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No debt holder is obliged to consider the reprecussions of collecting their debt, just look at house foreclosure. The wellbeing of a thrid party company has no bearing on the ability to pay back a debt, and there are stock sell off plans that facilitate large liquidation over a period of time to ameliorate the stock price drop and prevent it from a full crash. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply licking billionaire boots.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The person you're responding to is literally arguing that Elon can't "functionally" pay the debt because it would make him less rich and lower Tesla's share price.

Their breath smells like Italian leather.

[-] Sway_Chameleon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago
[-] shinratdr@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Corinth is famous for its leather!

[-] Sway_Chameleon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Ricardo Montalban approves.

[-] Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

If you think for one minute I like Elon Musk, I invite you to check out all the negative articles, including this one, that I’ve posted about that piece of shit. I’d love for him to lose every red cent he’s got. I’ve hated him since before it was cool.

[-] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You don't really understand the point I think, whether it's correct or not I don't know. His theoretical wealth is derived from the price of the last share sold. He probably can't just sell ($13bn/current share price) shares and get $13bn out of that, there aren't enough buy orders at that price, and you risk a panic sell by other holders. These other holders possible also include the banks were talking about, or at least related businesses and their clients.

Long story short, if banks had him liquidate shares worth $13bn, his net worth would fall (not the banks direct problem, bit probably wouldn't make future client acquisition easier); but it might be that they lose more money indirectly. All this calculation with a stock's market cap is a bit like a house of cards; it's really high, but don't shake it too much. At least that's an issue with overvalued stocks; sound businesses where the stock price reflects the company's actual value, maybe even pays dividend, don't have that problem.

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

He said it perfectly. There are sell off plans.

If not only Musk but also the banks are stuck in this problem, it's their own fault and incovenience. Not sure why you ignored his completely verbose explanation of how this problem is only Musk's (and maybe the banks he made the deal with).

Talking about individuals/market makers and their bots panic selling the stock is ridiculous, and subverts the idea of a free market. And as you say, the company's value barely reflects it's output, so it should happen, and it is odd that it didn't.

[-] Laser@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

If not only Musk but also the banks are stuck in this problem, it's their own fault and incovenience. Not sure why you ignored his completely verbose explanation of how this problem is only Musk's (and maybe the banks he made the deal with).

That's the thing, the banks fear it will be their problem. They don't care about Tesla as a third party, but themselves.

I'd love Musk to get fucked by this whole ordeal. This was rather about if the creditors allow it or of they're afraid of the fallout.

And you're right, it won't be all instantly sold, but it is a large amount of shares and I'd think it would have a negative impact on share price.

[-] Sway_Chameleon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

So, if his divestment of such a large amount shares in either company would have a negative impact on stock price, wouldn't the other share holders have a say in the matter? They typically frown upon someone acting in a manner that will devalue their share prices. I'm honestly asking bc I don't know the ins and outs, but I would assume that if Elon were to just try and sell shares to pay off his problem the pitch forks are going to come out from other share holders.

Also, wouldn't the banks potentially be in a conflict of interest? Presumably those institutions who gave him the loans have invested clients money into those stocks potentially? Again, just asking the question, bc this seems like a major boondoggle that could really fuck over a lot of people in a variety of ways.

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I guess it's possible. But to me it sounds too much like an extra conspiracy. The banks could just sell off the stock (give zero fucks about other banks), and then force Musk to liquidate.

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
576 points (98.2% liked)

News

23367 readers
2643 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS