However, legally Elon is past that point. He decided he didn't want to do a surveryor's report, and "signed on the dotted line", and gave his price. As far as I understand, he's on the hook now, unless he can show serious Twitter's numbers are wrong enough to cause a "Material Adverse Effect" on the company, which is super difficult and this bot thing probably isn't enough.

Especially when you have him repeatedly on the record talking about the bot problem prior to the sale. There’s zero compelling evidence at this stage that he was in anyway unaware of it or it’s scale.

I keep seeing people say this, but where did you all read that he agreed to the deal without any due dillegence?

I read someone calling Musk the idiot and confidently stating twitter would run their bot checks against the entire userbase because they're competent. Then Musk tweeted their internal check is literally from a sample size of 100. Next twitter called him to say he violated NDA by publicly disclosing that fact.

Twitter does not come off as an honest company. They don't use a standard measurement for DAU, they admitted to inflating the numbers on top of that, and now we know their bot check for what, 100MM+ accounts was from n=100?? I honestly hope he tanks their stock price when he backs out and buys them for $10b or something.

> I keep seeing people say this, but where did you all read that he agreed to the deal without any due dillegence?

Literally every single news outlet -- just search online for "musk twitter due diligence"

Some selected sources:

- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/twitter-t...

- https://www.ft.com/content/f60b6385-eef6-461e-9fcc-b3cb999a7...

- https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-44-billion-twit...

- https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musks-pause-on-twitter-takeo...

The bloomberg article provides no source for the claim. It even says neither twitter nor Musk's camp commented. Your second link is paywalled. And the last two only mention it as though it is fact but also provide zero sources.

I don't care if every news outlet is saying it, where is the source of this? Sadaam also had WMD's according to every news outlet. I know Musk moves quick and frantically sometimes, but it's hard to believe he waived DD. And if he did, why would he be doing any DD now?

You asked "where did you all read that he agreed to the deal without any due dillegence", and I showed you where.

Given that the deal has been agreed upon and the requisite SEC filings are in place, it's reasonable to assume that either the due diligence was fully completed by rockstar 10x financiers in this ridiculously short period of time, or some extreme shortcuts were taken. I tend to lean towards the latter reasoning from some experience in this space, so it's not much of a leap for me to believe the news sources that I linked above, Saddam's non-existent WMDs notwithstanding.

> I don't care if every news outlet is saying it, where is the source of this?

Some quotes from the FT paywalled link:

>> As one person involved in the debt financing explained, the due diligence “was easy. There was none. Not in the classic sense.”

>> [Musk's] wealth eased concerns for many lenders, which accelerated due diligence processes at the behest of Morgan Stanley, Musk’s financial adviser and one of the biggest lenders on the deal.

> And if he did, why would he be doing any DD now?

My speculation is a combination of sticker shock and buyers' remorse.

> You can offer to buy a house knowing full well there are going to be problems which will show up in the surveyor's report. You can then adjust your offer accordingly.

I think you mean home inspector, not surveyor?

Problems:

1) The home inspection contingency has to be in the offer.

2) The buyer has to hire a professional, independent home inspector. You can't just send in anyone and make up stuff.

3) The seller has the opportunity to remedy any problems that arise in the inspection report. So in this case, by analogy, Twitter could do a mass purge of accounts under looser criteria than usual, taking out a bunch of spammers and likely a bunch of innocent accounts at the same time. Then the deal would still have to go through at the original price.

In home buying, I've never heard of anyone taking this strategy you're suggesting. It would be reckless and probably not work as you hoped. Once an offer is accepted by the seller, it's very hard to get out. If you suspect there are significant problems with the house that need repair, and the seller knows there are significant problems, it would be extremely extremely dumb to make a higher offer than you'd pay, hoping the home inspection will save you.

I am in the UK, where my analogy would be valid, you do get a surveyor's report and you can back out. I accept your system is different and, likely, a whole lot better.

> I accept your system is different and, likely, a whole lot better.

Haha, no, our system is likely worse.

why are you two taking about home buying? Mergers and Acquisitions cant be done by analogy.

This is rather bizarre reply to me, because I myself was replying to someone who made the analogy with home buying, and I was trying to explain how the analogy didn't even work.

To make an analogy, it's like if I asked you why you're talking about home buying. ;-)

I think he was replying to both of us. And yes, maybe, the analogy wasn't great.

Two words: inspection contingency. You can offer a contract to buy a house with or without one.