D&D General Elon Musk Wants To Know 'How Much Is Hasbro?'

Following the richest man in the world's attack on Wizards of the Coast for two paragraphs in the 500-page celebration of D&D, The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons 1970-1977, Elon Musk--who bought Twitter not that long ago--wants to know how much D&D's owner Hasbro would cost.

After the public sharing on Twitter of Jason Tondro's (who wrote the book’s foreword) private Facebook posts, Musk replied "How much is Hasbro?"

Hasbro's estimated capitalization is currently $8.71 billion, with $3.95 billion of debt.

It was on 21st December 2017 when Musk similarly enquired "How much is it?" before proceeding to make a bid for Twitter. He later tried to back out of the deal, but was forced to buy the platform for $44 billion in June 2022. Current estimates by investment firm Fidelity put the platform at a value 80% less than when he bought it, with a worth of only about $9.4 billion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

All I need to do is buy enough stocks....


There is not really much difference between offering enough for people to sell to you and a hostile takeover, is there?

A hostile takeover is done against the wishes of the company management. Offering enough for people to sell to you does not have to be a hostile takeover. If it were, then white knights would also be engaging in a hostile takeover, which is a contradiction in terms.

The term for the specific thing you're talking about--slowly gobbling up enough stock to be able to replace the existing management with new people who will agree to a takeover--is a "creeping tender offer" or, more poetically, a "dawn raid." While this is feasible, it's almost always fantastically more expensive than just going about it the usual way and avoiding the "hostile" aspect, especially because most forms of hostile takeover require you to eliminate existing management, and thus (in theory) the people with the most experience in how the company works.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Never bet against Chris Cocks' greed, if Musk is willing to spend the money the company is his.

Twitters board hated Musk with a passion.

 

[Future_Monkey]

Because of sensationalist news of course. It's more fun for consumers and more profitable for new agencies to report on Tesla fires and ignore the cars from other brands that catch fire far more often.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/

Fires are less frequent in Teslas and other EVs vs. gas vehicles

Electric vehicle fires are less frequent—although a number of factors can lead to a different (false) impression.

www.greencarreports.com

You sound like a Musk fanboy, acting like anyone would surprised by the fact that cars full of flammable liquid catch fire more often than Electric Vehicles.

 

[Horwath]

Never bet against Chris Cocks' greed, if Musk is willing to spend the money the company is his.

Twitters board hated Musk with a passion.

 

[Parmandur]

Never bet against Chris Cocks' greed, if Musk is willing to spend the money the company is his.

Twitters board hated Musk with a passion.

Don't bet on Musk's attention span.

It would have to be a big offer to get board approval to destroy the company (which is what Musk would mean).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Never bet against Chris Cocks' greed, if Musk is willing to spend the money the company is his.

Twitters board hated Musk with a passion.

In all fairness to Chris Cox, his greed is immaterial, unless he is a major shareholder in the company. His job is to do what the board tells him, which is probably along the lines of "make line go up". Nothing he has said suggest that he has any particular novel vision for Hasbro or WoTC. He interchangeable with any of the other professional or potential professional CEO types out there. He is also likely to be the first out the door in any takeover but I am sure that the golden parachute is already locked in.

 

[mamba]

A hostile takeover is done against the wishes of the company management. Offering enough for people to sell to you does not have to be a hostile takeover.

yes, it does not need to be hostile, but it is a takeover, whether hostile or not. I assume Musk's would be hostile, just look at what happened to Twitter

 

[Parmandur]

yes, it does not need to be hostile, but it is a takeover, whether hostile or not. I assume Musk's would be hostile, just look at what happened to Twitter

A hostile takeover would be one without board approval. Hasbro has been prepared to prevent that: an acquisition is possible, but only under board terms.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A hostile takeover would be one without board approval. Hasbro has been prepared to prevent that: an acquisition is possible, but only under board terms.

So was Twitter, they had poison pills prepared but in the event decide to capitulate.

 

[Maxperson]

You sound like a Musk fanboy, acting like anyone would surprised by the fact that cars full of flammable liquid catch fire more often than Electric Vehicles.

I hope you're joking with that. It's hard to tell in text form.

Anyway, it doesn't matter why it happens, only that electric, including Teslas, are FAR less likely to catch fire. The next nearest type, gas vehicles, are 60 times more likely to catch fire. Hybrids more than twice that number. Which looking at the numbers is a bit worrisome, since I drive a hybrid.