Disney's disastrous year

[Zardnaar]

The only person who overvalued it was Elon Musk.

A little bit of history. Twitter shares traded at under $40 before Musk publicly announced his large ownership stake. Then he announced he would purchase Twitter outright for $54.20 a share. Why that amount?

Because he's a child, and he had to put "420" in the public announcement (the exact same reason that the first three Tesla models were ... S ... 3 ... X ... get it?). And because he was annoyed that Twitter wasn't putting him on the board. He didn't actually expect anyone would take him seriously!

Oh, but they did. Because any company would be a fool to not accept that offer. So when you say that twitter was overvalued, you're right! But not by Wall Street at the time. By Elon Musk.

I sure hope the 420 joke was worth it!

Couldn't hr make the sane joke at $44.20?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I never followed or indeed follow Musk's career. My issue is, if he was as bad as the MSM are currently says he is (current = since his acquisition of Twitter), logically he would have been terrible before. So, my question would be, why was he propped up/celebrated before his Twitter acquisition by the media? Why wasn't this supposed ineloquent buffoon outed much earlier?

A story.

Some time ago, I was on a website. There was a person who was posting the most inane stuff. Just utter garbage. And I knew it was garbage, because he was posting on a topic that I knew about.

I later learned that this person was a professor that I had a lot of respect for, who was incredibly knowledgeable about a specific topic. But he was posting about something that he didn't actually know about. Just because you're really good at one thing, doesn't mean you're good at every other thing.

Take from that what you will.

 

[payn]

I never followed or indeed follow Musk's career. My issue is, if he was as bad as the MSM are currently saying he is (current = since his acquisition of Twitter), logically he would have been terrible before. So, my question would be, why was he propped up/celebrated before his Twitter acquisition by the media? Why wasn't this supposed ineloquent buffoon outed much earlier?

See, the media did start turning on Musk when they discovered his proclivities for the awful. Well, except the part of the MSM folks dont think exists. That part of the media flocked to Musk as a free speech hero celebrity. That attention has really fueled the awful part of Musk to the point he is turning Twitter into Parler+ and nobody is shocked its losing money.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I never followed or indeed follow Musk's career. My issue is, if he was as bad as the MSM are currently saying he is (current = since his acquisition of Twitter), logically he would have been terrible before. So, my question would be, why was he propped up/celebrated before his Twitter acquisition by the media? Why wasn't this supposed ineloquent buffoon outed much earlier?

The main requirement for business success is being too stupid to understand the risks. Most crash and burn, and no one hears about them, but a few succeed through dumb luck and become famous.

 

[Ryujin]

The only person who overvalued it was Elon Musk.

A little bit of history. Twitter shares traded at under $40 before Musk publicly announced his large ownership stake. Then he announced he would purchase Twitter outright for $54.20 a share. Why that amount?

Because he's a child, and he had to put "420" in the public announcement (the exact same reason that the first three Tesla models were ... S ... 3 ... X ... get it?). And because he was annoyed that Twitter wasn't putting him on the board. He didn't actually expect anyone would take him seriously!

Oh, but they did. Because any company would be a fool to not accept that offer. So when you say that twitter was overvalued, you're right! But not by Wall Street at the time. By Elon Musk.

I sure hope the 420 joke was worth it!

Much like the guy in the UK who wanted to be the first to pay US$100.00 per barrel for oil, so he did, driving up the price for everyone.

 

[nevin]

I never followed or indeed follow Musk's career. My issue is, if he was as bad as the MSM are currently saying he is (current = since his acquisition of Twitter), logically he would have been terrible before. So, my question would be, why was he propped up/celebrated before his Twitter acquisition by the media? Why wasn't this supposed ineloquent buffoon outed much earlier?

Musk has an almost cultlike following. He was the founder of Paypal, sold it for 1.5 billion and then went on to Hyperloop and tesla, and his followers seem to love the fact that he has no filter. He was the Nerd's Nerd in Silicon valley for a long time. But twitter is a media company. Medial companies require communication skills and he has always been at least partially defined by refusing to play nice and make friends. It was simply never going to work.

 

[nevin]

Much like the guy in the UK who wanted to be the first to pay US$100.00 per barrel for oil, so he did, driving up the price for everyone.

I think he thought when he announced that he was going to buy it that the price would go up just because he Elon had bid for it. As the founder of Tesla living in his bubble of people that think he can do no wrong, I think he just started to believe all the Hype he was hearing, and then because he'd made the offer he was stuck. Prices didn't go up, no one else tried to bid it away from him. I'm not even sure he really wanted it. It alwasy seemed like he was a cat playing with a ball and then seemed surprised none of the other cats wanted it.

 

[nevin]

The main requirement for business success is being too stupid to understand the risks. Most crash and burn, and no one hears about them, but a few succeed through dumb luck and become famous.

you hit close. Most studies they do these days on successful people all indicated that most success in life is from things beyond our control. Most successful people were extremelylucky in some way at just the right time. Even if it's just as Warren Buffet put's it, "they won the Ovarian Lottery".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Much like the guy in the UK who wanted to be the first to pay US$100.00 per barrel for oil, so he did, driving up the price for everyone.

One of my favorite "rich guys are smart until they're not" stories involves the Hunt Brothers.

Convinced that fiat currency was on the way out (history may not repeat, but it does rhyme!) they decided to corner the silver market. Which worked great! Using the inherited wealth of their father (a billionaire), along with aggressive margin positions, they managed to acquire a decent portion of the world's supply of silver ... I think it was over 1/4 ... driving the price up nearly eightfold in a year.

Unfortunately, it didn't last. And fiat currency managed to stick around. The price started to collapse, and the Hunts were wiped out. Contrary to the old saying, the bankruptcy happened quickly, and all at once.

 

[Willie the Duck]

There is way too much Elon Musk talk in this thread, and it is gross.

What's the thread supposed to be about? OP wasn't exactly subtle (not even bothering to formulate all their points in complete sentences). There was no point to the thread in the first place except dropping dog whistles I seriously hope everyone that they signal knows everyone else can spot as well.

Did Musk aggravate the Corporatocracy, all good guys I'm sure, and they took a dump on him? Sure, agreed.

Personally, I am fascinated by the notion that Musk somehow isn't the Corporatocracy somehow. Child of wealth gets business/economics education from prestigious schools. Helps found company that they sell to fund further purchases. Continue chain of successful sales for profit and new acquisitions (buoyed by incredible grasp of both getting public financing and to also make ones' products indispensable, but then also by connections and being buzzworthy). Direct success was all in straightforward tech and finance startups, with the out-there companies like electric cars and rockets being purchases. Musk is mainstream corporate plutocracy. To the point where I'd say he's most comparable to last century's notorious figure who started out with a huge amount of money, turned it (through questionable or at least selective genius) into an even huger amount of money, and then went off the rails in many ways -- Howard Hughs.