19/11/22 00:25
I used to have a twitter account. I might still have one, though I haven’t posted in a long time. I occasionally visit the site to see posts by friends. I am by no means an expert. And I won’t miss it if the company fails. It just isn’t a big thing to me.
There are a few details about the company and its recent decline that I have noticed, however.
Elon Musk is reported to have paid $44 billion to acquire the company. That is a healthy chunk of change, even for a rich guy, but one that reportedly, Musk can afford. It was estimated that he was worth $193.8 billion when he paid the amount that he said was ‘obviously overpaying” for the company. But here is the strange part. While Musk used some of his personal assets and investment funds, he also obtained bank loans to pay the amount. I’m no billionaire, but it raises the question, “If you have the money, why are you borrowing the money?” I think the answer is that he was hedging his bet. He knew that there was a substantial risk that the investment might end up in a loss and he wanted to share that loss with others and the banks seemed to be the candidates. At least I assume that if the company goes belly up, the banks will incur losses in the form of loans that will not be repaid.
I guess that one of the things about being fantastically rich is that your net worth tends to bounce around a lot. It hasn’t been a good year for the stock market in general and one news source reported that Musk’s net worth had gone down to $181 billion following the purchase of the social media company. To be sure, I have no idea what a billion is and it certainly seems like $181 billion is enough to cover rent and groceries with enough left over for a new car from time to time, especially for the owner of a car company. I don’t think the man is hurting financially.
It looks like Musk intended to lose the money he invested in twitter. Since his takeover his attempt to have investors pay $8 per month for verification backfired with a lot of people willing to pay $8 for verification of a completely fake account. Then they backed off of that deal. Meanwhile the company was losing employees left and right. Some of the company’s best talent, engineers and programmers, left the company. That was already in process before the company announced massive layoffs and instituted a loyalty pledge that required employees to commit to long work days and weeks with little time off. The talent is departing from the company. Users, too are fleeing, with a lot of them downloading their tweets and then cancelling their accounts. Some have reestablished in other social media platforms. Others have just allowed themselves to have one less social media obligation.
In the way of the world of high stakes investment, of course, Musk isn’t the one who stands to lose the most. As the largest shareholder in the company he only holds a 9.2% stake in the company. There are plenty of institutional investors who have a lot of money invested in the company. Among the company’s largest investors are Vanguard Group, BlackRock Fund Advisors, SSgA Funds Management and Fidelity Management & Research. Individual investors who participate in the funds managed by any of those companies also stand to loose on their investments even if they didn’t know that they had any money invested in Twitter.
I really know nothing about all of this beyond what I have read from popular news websites. It seems possible to me, however, that a company that relies on the expertise of engineers and programmers simply to operate, could fall below the critical number of skilled workers for the company to be able to operate. According the the Washington Post, Elon Musk has summoned engineers to Twitter HQ in an attempt to lead the company through adjustments to the hundreds of resignations this week.
I guess that the gyrations of the company since Musk bought enough shares to be considered to be in charge are interesting enough to me that I have read a few of the news stories. But the topic will soon lose my interest. I really don’t care if the company fails and we lose twitter. Certainly the site has been responsible for the distribution of a great deal of false information and has misled millions of people through the short statements of fakers and scam artists. It never was a reliable source of news, but there were a few people who became nearly addicted to the posts by famous people, even when they were overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, and blatantly untrue. As the saying goes, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time.”
I am wondering if the collapse of Twitter might be a sign that things are improving. Maybe we won’t be as easy to mislead if we decided to read a few more words than a short social media post. Maybe some people will consider longer and better researched articles. Maybe a few journalists will continue to practice their craft responsibly, checking facts, and taking enough time to tell the story of complex situations and circumstances.
Still, however, there will be plenty of people who respond to the simplest of slogans, even when they know that the slogans are meant to mislead. I’m not sure where laziness became entertaining, but there are plenty of people who are lazy in their pursuit of information and as long as they are entertained will believe almost anything.
I suspect that there will be none for me to invest much energy in following the story of Twitter. The topic, however, did inspire a journal entry. I guess I can’t clam to not be affected by the fortunes of the company.
There are a few details about the company and its recent decline that I have noticed, however.
Elon Musk is reported to have paid $44 billion to acquire the company. That is a healthy chunk of change, even for a rich guy, but one that reportedly, Musk can afford. It was estimated that he was worth $193.8 billion when he paid the amount that he said was ‘obviously overpaying” for the company. But here is the strange part. While Musk used some of his personal assets and investment funds, he also obtained bank loans to pay the amount. I’m no billionaire, but it raises the question, “If you have the money, why are you borrowing the money?” I think the answer is that he was hedging his bet. He knew that there was a substantial risk that the investment might end up in a loss and he wanted to share that loss with others and the banks seemed to be the candidates. At least I assume that if the company goes belly up, the banks will incur losses in the form of loans that will not be repaid.
I guess that one of the things about being fantastically rich is that your net worth tends to bounce around a lot. It hasn’t been a good year for the stock market in general and one news source reported that Musk’s net worth had gone down to $181 billion following the purchase of the social media company. To be sure, I have no idea what a billion is and it certainly seems like $181 billion is enough to cover rent and groceries with enough left over for a new car from time to time, especially for the owner of a car company. I don’t think the man is hurting financially.
It looks like Musk intended to lose the money he invested in twitter. Since his takeover his attempt to have investors pay $8 per month for verification backfired with a lot of people willing to pay $8 for verification of a completely fake account. Then they backed off of that deal. Meanwhile the company was losing employees left and right. Some of the company’s best talent, engineers and programmers, left the company. That was already in process before the company announced massive layoffs and instituted a loyalty pledge that required employees to commit to long work days and weeks with little time off. The talent is departing from the company. Users, too are fleeing, with a lot of them downloading their tweets and then cancelling their accounts. Some have reestablished in other social media platforms. Others have just allowed themselves to have one less social media obligation.
In the way of the world of high stakes investment, of course, Musk isn’t the one who stands to lose the most. As the largest shareholder in the company he only holds a 9.2% stake in the company. There are plenty of institutional investors who have a lot of money invested in the company. Among the company’s largest investors are Vanguard Group, BlackRock Fund Advisors, SSgA Funds Management and Fidelity Management & Research. Individual investors who participate in the funds managed by any of those companies also stand to loose on their investments even if they didn’t know that they had any money invested in Twitter.
I really know nothing about all of this beyond what I have read from popular news websites. It seems possible to me, however, that a company that relies on the expertise of engineers and programmers simply to operate, could fall below the critical number of skilled workers for the company to be able to operate. According the the Washington Post, Elon Musk has summoned engineers to Twitter HQ in an attempt to lead the company through adjustments to the hundreds of resignations this week.
I guess that the gyrations of the company since Musk bought enough shares to be considered to be in charge are interesting enough to me that I have read a few of the news stories. But the topic will soon lose my interest. I really don’t care if the company fails and we lose twitter. Certainly the site has been responsible for the distribution of a great deal of false information and has misled millions of people through the short statements of fakers and scam artists. It never was a reliable source of news, but there were a few people who became nearly addicted to the posts by famous people, even when they were overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, and blatantly untrue. As the saying goes, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time.”
I am wondering if the collapse of Twitter might be a sign that things are improving. Maybe we won’t be as easy to mislead if we decided to read a few more words than a short social media post. Maybe some people will consider longer and better researched articles. Maybe a few journalists will continue to practice their craft responsibly, checking facts, and taking enough time to tell the story of complex situations and circumstances.
Still, however, there will be plenty of people who respond to the simplest of slogans, even when they know that the slogans are meant to mislead. I’m not sure where laziness became entertaining, but there are plenty of people who are lazy in their pursuit of information and as long as they are entertained will believe almost anything.
I suspect that there will be none for me to invest much energy in following the story of Twitter. The topic, however, did inspire a journal entry. I guess I can’t clam to not be affected by the fortunes of the company.
