Posted on 04/04/2022 4:14:18 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
They can. Learning curve is steep. Trump does scale that curve rather quickly though. Putting a former politico in charge rather than an uber nerd was his big mistake.
He didn’t do it for the money. His Twitter shares are now worth just under $3 Billion, which is peanuts for a guy worth over $250 Billion.
He did it to make sure he has free speech on Twitter.
Re: 19 - the CTO is out at Truth Social, so hopefully they are going to fix sooner, rather than later:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/two-key-tech-execs-quit-truth-social-after-troubled-app-launch.html
Generally (having been to several stock-holder meetings of non-US companies), there’s a mandatory meeting held each year and it’s open only to the stock-holders. Various things will be put up to a vote....usually to bring new board members, or change the organization.
I’ve been to two meetings where a group would have arranged for massive voters, and gotten secondary stock-holders to agree to a ‘purge’ of one or two board members.
I could see a scenario where Musk talks different groups holding stock, to let a board member or two go. Short-term changes? Limited. But if you gave him three years, he could probably dump half the board members, and bring in some very unfriendly board executives that terminate key members of organization.
Stock is at $44 right now. I could see buying some shares and playing into the Musk strategy...it’s not Twitter that you need to aim at...it’s the board.
Hedge funds are the biggest shareholders.now probably over 50 percent is owned by 5 or six groups
Could just be the typical T Boone move. Spend about a year buying up Gulf Oil stock through various accounts to not draw attention then make a bold public move and state you’re going to take over the company. Market reacts, stock shoot up and then you dump everything and walk away with a big smile on your face.
Hedge funds will be interested in what Musk wants because he has the power to destroy the stock value by very publicly dumping it and the ability to create a competitive alternative.
For all we know, Musk could also already have heavy influence in one or more of these hedge funds giving him de facto control of their Twitter shares.
He generally doesn’t do things without well thought out moves and long range planning.
Trump’s company sucks. Why can’t conservatives learn about scaled data hosting?
—
Because DJT once again got bad advice and was talked into dealing with a CEO who runs a CCP company in China. It was designed to fail.
Its also cheaper to buy into a social media company and take it over than create one from scratch.
The downside is other large companies that share the current Twit politics wield influence that could be brought to bear in other spheres where large contracts are involved.
Possible case in point: NASA and Blue Origins influence on the FAA and EPA blocking rapid prototyping of his StarShip in Texas and perhaps the Cape facilities also. Without rapid prototyping, Musk faces financial difficulties with SpaceX.
As of Jan, 30% owned by very familiar investment companies:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060916/top-3-twitter-shareholders-twtr.asp
If he can get a load of the 91% with him they can change everything
“Re: 19 - the CTO is out at Truth Social, so hopefully they are going to fix sooner, rather than later:”
__________________________
Is there something wrong with Truth Social that needs to be fixed?
Hmm, well… it depends on who you believe, if the posts at FR are an indication.
There is a growing habit of more and more FReepers not even considering information because of the source. In other words, these FReepers are unable to discern what may be informative and useful even from sources they do not approve of. Probably some combination of in whole or in part of laziness, ignorance, willful ignorance and confirmation bias.
I thought from the words you wrote that there might be something wrong with Truth Social.
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: 36 - I understand.
Because it was reported in CNBC, I have no doubt that some FReepers, the “intellectual giants”, will dismiss any report that does not comport with their worldview, in this case, reported problems standing up Truth Social.
Yes.
I participated in a heated thread(s) over the last week and one poster of fame mentioned on March 31 that the platform would be fully operational on March 31.
Whenever libs take over something, our automatic response has been to flee from it. I love that someone like Musk is doing something different. Dont flee from it, take it back over. Who knows, maybe he will get a seat on the board and make things better.
It’s passive stake because it’s not a controlling amount, i.e. 51%. But his 9.2% is tied with Morgan Stanley as largest shareholder and I have to wonder if Musk has funds there or personal influence. I don’t think it will be very hard for him to put together a majority coalition.
He’s bought himself a very big stick to beat the wokesters with.
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.