“Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion”

I found this funny.

  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal

    I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money.

    your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).

    with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash

    that’s how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash

    I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.

    that doesn’t make sense, destroying twitter doesn’t absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This is just conjecture though. I do think he originally did not intend to buy Twitter. I do think he was essentially forced to buy it. I know from news articles around the time of the sale that he gave significant pushback when relevant parties forced the issue. Things may very well have changed after he became the owner (and what deals he made to be able to afford it may never be known).

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I do think he was essentially forced to buy it.

        he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.