Right. people don't seem to get that. there's this narrative about how Elon Musk overpaid for Twitter, as if there were a vibrant market of buyers and sellers of Twitter. there's only one Twitter, and it's worth whatever someone wants to pay for it.
Say somebody comes up to you and says hey, nice jacket. Would you like to sell it to me for $5,000? You bought the jacket for $500, and it was mass produced and you can just buy another one with that money. sounds like a great deal! But if I add that we're in Boston and it's winter and we're outside, miles from shelter, and it's snowing. Suddenly, sellling your winter coat is a way worse idea and not worth making $4,950.
Americans have long held this belief that prices are prices. If I buy a can of beans, it should be the same price if you buy the can of beans instead of me. But in reality, prices are totally made up. Hopefully the price of something is greater than it cost to make it, along with all the other expenses, so the business can remain open and continue, but businesses that go out of business have to sell their items at a loss. Which makes their inventory worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay, usually at a discount.
Sure, he wanted a better deal, but there's only one Twitter, and it's his (plus a bunch of investors and Fidelity). He didn't overpay for anything, he gets to run it how he wants, now that it's his.
If you have to sue the person offering you 5K for your jacket to ensure they fulfil the deal, it's fair to speculate that even they thought they'd paid too much.
fair, but I mean, money is money, if I could see a way to potentially weasel out of paying what I said I would, in those kind of amounts, is probably give that a shot too.
He's doing his damndest (while self fellating himself on it) to destroy that non market-cap value.