I believe a lot of my long positions are worth more than their current price, doesn't mean I'm going to spend all my money buying them up to that price.
If I lock in a 20% gain today that's nice, but I might believe with high confidence that it'll rise 50% in the next year. Then Elon's bid doesn't move me that much.
That risk and upside is already priced in if you believe in market efficiency.
They’re not. You’re mixing up the market as a whole and the owners of a majority of shares.
The ask price is the lowest ask. If you buy a lot of something, you reach further into the order book and the price is going to be higher. If you want a 51% stake, then a lot higher.
Many of them are passive, and only adjust once a quarter or once a year. Additionally, big spikes by one stock match drops in other stocks, aka they're not likely to make a big sale because one stock (twitter) had a good day.
The market is large and has plenty of participants with different strategies. There are people selling at the going price, and there are people who are not. The trading price is a good reference price, but it's not the "right price" for everyone.
But it's the only price based on facts rather than opinion.
Every market participant has a buy price and a sell price for one share influenced by their personal opinions and the state of the whole market; each at a different level and trading price is only calculated on actual trades. So all the shareholders that are unwilling to sell for any of the current offers do not influence it.
Yet if you were to buy 100% of the shares then you would eventually have to climb up to their price.
I don't anyone would find your squishy confidence it's worth 50% more than current value any more credible than shorters who think it's worth 50% less. Both seem like fringe opinions without much foundation.
It's not my opinion that TWTR is worth 50% more. Please don't understand it as such. It's an example of what someone long TWTR could be thinking when they simultaneously hold their position and want to reject the Musk takeover.
I don't think it's worth continuing this thread anymore though. Have a great day.
Every time a stock trades, there’s a single price. And that price is the price one person is willing to sell at, and another is willing to buy at.
That’s how markets work.
My guess is Musk and a few key players are acting in a logical way and the rest of the price action is made up of emotional response.
It’s anyones guess what the endgame here is, but one thing is for sure, Musk muddying the waters spells trap to me. I’m swimming the other way.
If you can buy 1 share at $1, that means that yes.
But a controlling interest in something almost always requires more than 1 share. It may require millions or billions of shares.
And once folks figure out that they’re the couple percent that will block that controlling interest, their own prices tend to change.
That volume of shares also means you can't just buy from the person who is happy to sell right now, you need to convince folks who don't plan to sell ever, or aren't in a hurry, or don't need money right now. Their prices tend to be different too.
And just like buying a tank of gas is different than buying an oil field, the value propositions and likely price discussions are different.
If you can buy an oil field of gas one tank at a time, more power to you - but you’ll likely quickly discover it doesn’t scale the way you want.
A dollar in the hand is worth a LOT of imaginary gambling dollars.
This can only be described as political/ideological or a huge gamble that Musk would come back with an even bigger offer rather than walk away. Neither of these seem to be in the best interest of shareholders.
In my opinion, the real reason behind the board's decision is ideological. If Someone with their ideology made the same offer, I'd bet big that they'd be announcing their acceptance and talking about the bright future for the company.
Screwing your shareholders over for ideology would not sit well with a jury. I'd love for them to go to discovery over this and see what the board REALLY said.
- Tesla loses money on every car. They make money from regulatory credit trading.
- SpaceX's Starlink satellites are involved in about 1,600 close encounters between two spacecraft every week, ~50 % of all such
- Hyperloop is impossible
- The Boring Company tunnels are deathtraps
Absolute hogwash. In 2021, Tesla made 43B revenue in automotive sales and only 1.5B in regulatory credits, which is less than net income of over 5B.
That is including massive short term hit by continuing investments in new factories and new products.
Good luck spinning.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017022...
Sensationalist garbage. Starlink satellites have automated collision avoidance.
No, it's legacy auto who's losing money on every EV they make. Tesla's profit margin insane:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=tesla+p...
> The company had an income of $438 million, including a $101 million "positive impact" from the sale of Bitcoin, and $518 million from selling zero-emission regulatory credits to other automakers. That means Tesla continues to lose money making and selling vehicles.
They made over 5 billion in GAAP income last year. 1.5 billion of that was regulatory credits. They currently make money making and selling vehicles.
-Space access is leading the world. Satellites bring freedom, access, and peace.
-Cars are the safest, fastest, and smartest you can drive.
-Tunnels solve waaaay more problems than they create. Hyperloop isn't so much an 'active' project, see tunnels.
-Robots are extension of AI work for self driving.
-Brain project will help those with physical disabilities, and learning.
-Solar roof and battery at home is wicked cool and useful.
I'm leaving stuff out. Don't know if they take a loss on their cars, but if so that's very common for hardware manufacturers.
I'm not an Elon apologist by any stretch, but you have objectively bad takes here. I can only imagine you just don't like his personality.
Are his companies not leading in Space access? Clean energy? Transportation? Maximizing life? Fun.
The guy is a workhorse He innovates at every turn. He hires the best, and expects the best. He has done a marvelous job incentivizing great engineering, science, and research. Their goals are lofty. He thinks long-term. His teams are largely motivated for the right reasons, and he helps make many of his employees very wealthy.
His intentions are good. He's an environmentalist. He loves Earth. He loves people. He's positive and optimistic for the future. He can be abstract, artistic, and goofy.
From our perspective, he's rarely wrong, and when he is, he owns it. Is he perfect? Hell no. But he accepts responsibility. He engages with the public, and his fans.... and his haters.
One thing is for sure so far, people who bet on him win.
We'd be so lucky to have Elon lead a communication/social platform.
This is a little silly. I returned a Model 3 after they told me I'd have to wait months to get body defects repaired. These were defects that were apparent within 2 days of having it. They refused to simply swap the car out. For a little while it seemed unclear that they were going to repair it at all... just abysmal service.
> I'm not an Elon apologist by any stretch
I'm sorry, but you really really are (and that's fine, people like what they like). You're practically fawning over him in this comment.
I think the opposite. He is in fact an excellent physicist. Like Nikola Tesla if Nikola Tesla both cared more about money, though he did a lot; and was better at getting money; and critically, if he had a predecessor who got fucked he could learn from (hence the name of the company, and why I say "Nikola Tesla" instead of "Tesla", because at this point the brand is bigger than its eponym). Only 99% sure about these statements, not absolute. And people remember Nikola Tesla because of the electricity, well he also designed the Tesla valve, a valve with no moving parts. Who knows what else.
So keep in mind while Elon Musk has a lot of monetary capital ie rich, and sure he's also still in the game of pushing the boundaries, he's not better than anyone. He's not better than you. So for there to be things he's that good at, to get to that level of success by the metrics most people are obsessed with, he has to be bad at other things. Well not exactly, it's not like skill points. In fact physics is highly analog, so that limits how good you can be at digital. They just naturally compete for neural resources.
So in fact, he's vulnerable to ML, he's been getting hacked by its promises for the longest time, Achilles heel. But you realize it cannot be any other way? You can't have an Iliad with no Achilles heel, it doesn't work as a story, like Superman without kryptonite, you can tell the story of Popeye without spinach but not Superman without kryptonite.
Like he sees demos and he's like "finally shit that actually works" and then it's like no, this is more shit that doesn't actually work, one-trick ponies, not even, one-trick PhD's disguised as ponies. Like he believes he needs PhDs because at some level he believes in credentials, when what he obviously needs are dropouts like him. Day one dropouts ideally. I mean if he wants inventors. If he wants to prove something is impossible, then yeah a PhD is the best. I don't know what the hell it is, maybe it's a recent thing, I believe in the idea of a PhD, I like people with PhDs.
I think it's because they're intelligent, they're not stupid enough to try to fly by flapping their arms. They don't do one single flap. No idea what happens if you flap your arms. Sounds stupid right? That's how aviation came into existence, guys would try flying off the Eiffel tower with a bird costume, splat. But then less stupid guys said, OK you can't use your arms, you need wings in a stronger structure, and that's why airplane wings are called wings. They're not actually wings, that's a really weird metaphor for birds' arms. And it was strictly necessary for guys to go splat for there to be gliders and all the rest.
Because the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
It would be stupid to buy a stock even if there was a 100 % guarantee for a stock to increase 2 % in 1 year as there are other basically risk free options available.
So it is possible and common for a stock to be lower then what people expect it to be worth. A really good example of this is when you have a powerful CEO or a person with more voting rights who might hold up a deal for their personal ambition. Think about Shari Redstone at Viacom. Most people think the company is worth more but difficult to sell because she wants to run it awhile to show she can.
Twitter is worth a lot but difficult to sell for all the reasons this deal is showing. Supposedly Disney thought about buying it but realized it would be very controversial. When it takes a long time for the right buyer to show up investors trade the stock at a discount. It happens all the time in media stocks. (Full disclosure: I have Twitter stock)
Even if the optimal price that's some supernatural being will suggest is lower than current price, it is still the decision of the share holders.
Optimism and hopes are worth a price, you are in ycombinator.com, a major buyer of optimism and hopes.
One can easily imagine how useful it's for such a country like Saudi Arabia to control the #1 worldwide media platform without being too exposed on the frontline (i.e. as a large, but not too much, shareholder).
Which clearly isn't how things work.
If the shareholders are rational and believe the true value is greater than current price, why aren't people buying until it asymptotically approaches that price?
Optimism and hopes for future gains aren't priced in because they are fantasy and not yet material.