[minsc_and_boo]

Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.

More than one person has pointed out that Musk likely wanted to sell his Twitter stock, and was using the official-looking, low-ball buy offer to pump it. Twitter board smartly called his bluff, and now Musk is trying to weasel his way out of paying anything.

[gzer0]

> Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.

Could you point me to those instances?

His offer wasn't a lowball offer at all considering the tech stock bloodbath we have seen as of late, and especially so because the offer was made just right before the massive downturn we have witnessed. I think it's quite the contrary; 44 billion is way higher than its worth imo.

> Musk is trying to weasel his way out of paying anything.

He would need to pay a $1 billion break up fee. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

[minsc_and_boo]

The Twitter offer came before the stock market drop, making it both a low-ball offer and making the Twitter board smart to call his bluff.

Musk only needs to pay the $1B breakup fee if he can't procure enough financing, among other strings. Musk has definitely has enough financing, he just doesn't want to pay it, so he's trying to weasel out of it by laying the ground work for a settlement to walk away.

Either way, Twitter's board is getting Musk's money, either selling at a now-premium or settling for wanting to break, due to Musk's errors.

[jen20]

> Could you point me to those instances?

Here's one [1].

[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/08/the-sec-wants-tesla-to-exp...

[labcomputer]

You mean the instance where he did have a verbal agreement with an able buyer? A buyer who admitted to such in private text messages that came to light in court proceedings, and who later bought a different electric car startup?

[minsc_and_boo]

"Verbal agreement" that has no stipulations about price or anything concrete that a U.S. Judge could find.

You asked for an example, and received one. No True Scotsman'ing the violation doesn't change the fact that Musk pumped the stock on Twitter with false and misleading statements.

Another example includes crypto: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-05-13/money-...

[gzer0]

> Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.

The example you linked does not showcase nor prove your original point.

[minsc_and_boo]

Only if you don't read it.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder what your burden of proof is for Musk doing anything that could be considered wrong.

[blitzar]

> His offer wasn't a lowball offer at all considering the tech stock bloodbath we have seen as of late

The real bloodbath came after he bought it, at the time it was a modest premium.

> He would need to pay a $1 billion break up fee.

He is laying out the case at the moment to walk away and pay no break up fee.

[mlindner]

> Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.

No he does not. He has no history of that what so ever.

[Ancalagon]

Wasn’t Bitcoin one of these?

[mlindner]

No it wasn't. As he hasn't sold any of the coins he bought. Tesla still has them.

[minsc_and_boo]

(I think their comment was satire)