this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
576 points (98.2% liked)

News

37495 readers
1803 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nearly two years after Elon Musk’s acquisition, X’s business is still struggling to climb out of the deep hole it fell into under his ownership.

The $13 billion that Elon Musk borrowed to buy Twitter has turned into the worst merger-finance deal for banks since the 2008-09 financial crisis.

The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 173 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The losses on banks’ balance sheets from the deal are also biting into potential bonuses for some bankers, the report said.

They should just be fired. This wasn't a deal that looked like it had good potential but didn't pan out. It was obviously a bad buy right from the start and the guy who was going to run the private enterprise was both spread too thin to run it well, was increasingly erratic in his behavior, and wasn't any good at the business he was taking over. Everyone knew it was a bad deal at the time.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years ago

Yes, but have you considered: Tesla line go up. Elon CEO. When Elon CEO, Twitter line go up. Logic.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 136 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Good fuck em. As if they totally havent made back any loss in recent years

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 127 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At the time, Musk himself had complained that the price for Twitter was too high, but he decided to go ahead with the deal after waffling over it for a while.

Mmmmmmmmm that’s not how I’d describe it, Marketwatch.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 51 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, he did have to decide if he wanted to pay the money and take the company, or just pay the money, as he’d signed a solid agreement. So there was a choice.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In retrospect, paying the money and not taking the company might actually have been the more sound financial decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)
[–] Mikelius@lemmy.world 83 points 2 years ago (5 children)

We were due for our yearly billionaire offering to Poseidon.

[–] Osito@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

May the god of water take mercy on us with this wealthy sacrifice and place a harvest in our nets

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I don't think one is enough to placate Poseidon.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Either that or Jörmungandr has aquired a taste for richness. As a man who likes cheesecake I can respect it.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 27 points 2 years ago

I like this new tradition

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 years ago
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sounds like sacrificed a few billionaires this time.

I hope our watery god is satisfied, if not. I guess we have sacrifice a few more billionaires.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I think we should advertise small boat sailing to Elon, combined with the beauty of the Gibraltar strait area and the manliness of doing it alone.

We can give Poseidon a break and let the orcas have one.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Ah yea you’re right. Chairman but what’s the difference

[–] GunValkyrie@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sounds like he found out what's behind the implications.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] confused_code_monkey@lemm.ee 69 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"since the financial crisis" - You'll have to be more specific than that 🥲

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Circa 1177 BCE. Sea Peoples ruin everything.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Now now... I agree that the Peleset are all awful, but what have the Weshesh ever done to you?

[–] bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 years ago

Burning olive oil can't melt copper bars! The attack on the twin ziggurats was an inside job masterminded by the King of Uruk, Gilga W Mesh!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 68 points 2 years ago

Bank of America and Morgan Stanley commanded the top two spots in the U.S. leveraged-finance investment banking league tables in 2021 and 2022 during some quarters before Musk bought Twitter, according to data from Dealogic. In 2023 and 2024, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs—which didn’t finance the Twitter deal—have held the top spots.

He's so toxic that being involved with him can unseat you from being the top two in your industry. This will make people a bit more hesitant to get into bed with him (gross) in the future.

Barclays’s top investment bankers on the mergers and acquisitions team were told at a New York dinner early last year that compensation for everyone in the room would be cut by at least 40% from the prior year. The bank had several hung deals hurting its performance but X was by far the largest, according to people familiar with the situation.

When you're slashing compensation for your people, especially the ones who bring in real money, you know it's serious. I'm happy to see X crash and burn and pull down bankers with it. Dumbass mf.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 56 points 2 years ago

No single human should have this much control over our economy.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Sounds like a they problem.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 13 points 2 years ago

A problem partially funded by my mortgage 🙃

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Isn't the difference here that Musk has a tremendous amount of assets in the form of Tesla stock that can be used to repay the debt? It's not like he can declare bankruptcy and stiff them on the bill.

[–] Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (7 children)

The thing is, selling off the amount of Tesla stock that he’d need to to pay off the debt would cause Tesla stock to plummet, leaving him significantly less wealthy and putting Tesla in danger. So even though he technically has the money to pay them, he functionally doesn’t.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

He both technically and functionally does have the ability to repay them, which he will find out soon if he doesn't restructure the debt, and implying this is in anyway similar to the financial crisis is absurd clickbait.

It could possibly tank Tesla and make Elon less rich if he had to pay his debt. Oh no. As if Tesla being valued at more than 9 major other automakers combined isn't outlandish in the first place.

But won't someone please think of the oligarch and his shareholders! 🙄

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

This is so spot on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

No debt holder is obliged to consider the reprecussions of collecting their debt, just look at house foreclosure. The wellbeing of a thrid party company has no bearing on the ability to pay back a debt, and there are stock sell off plans that facilitate large liquidation over a period of time to ameliorate the stock price drop and prevent it from a full crash. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply licking billionaire boots.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

The person you're responding to is literally arguing that Elon can't "functionally" pay the debt because it would make him less rich and lower Tesla's share price.

Their breath smells like Italian leather.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

My understanding is the money he used to pay for Twitter was from loans by banks, where they got mostly Tesla stock as collateral. Musk can pay back the loan to get the stock back, or the banks can sell it. This is done because loans aren't taxed, but selling the stock would be. Now the banks are stuck with stocks that are worth less than the loans they gave out, so they are at a loss.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago
[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can see a very real scenario where Drump gets elected, appoints Moron Musk as treasury secretary, and magically wipes off his Xitter debt never to be heard again

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

I'd say he can't do that (the debt part) but apparently the US supreme court thinks a president can do whatever the fuck they want, so who knows at this point.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

okay but he blames advertisers for ruining the company

[–] Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

Narcissists will never blame themselves for their screw ups.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

that is awesome

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

OP did you forget to link the article?

[–] Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Huh, that’s strange. Let me put it up now; thanks!

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Cheers!

Needed to unpaywall it, so here's an archive link for anyone who needs the same: https://archive.is/hokvj

Edit: hmm there isn't actually much more there

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Morgan Stanley and BOA will find ever bigger suckers to sell those loans to once they've had a chance to repackage them.

It is long past time we got over our child-like worship of billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] marx2k@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

This is why I stick with credit unions.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 8 points 2 years ago

This makes me happy.

load more comments
view more: next ›