nuff said
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
52 points (90.6% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
2103 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The heavy debt load was caused by his purchase... He paid $26 bn, a couple other investors (including a Saudi prince) together paid $5 bn, the remaining $13 bn is a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on Musk's behalf.
The purchase was always a financial death sentence. Either Twitter steps into line and becomes the propaganda tool he and his old friend Peter Thiel want, then it can have some extra investment, or Twitter dies.
I still don't get how it's legal for Twitter to take out a loan on itself on Musk's behalf.
It's a common trick the wealthy have. The idea is, if the business was under the control of its new owners, they could direct the business to get the loan. It's what happened to Toys R Us and many other businesses.
Somewhat similarly, the UK have a way of turning a business into an "Employee Owned business". Basically, if the business has enough cash, it can buy itself from its owners. The real shady part, though, is that the owners don't pay any capital gains tax on the sale whatsoever. They get all their money out of the business, tax free. But yay, employee owned businesses (that are still run the same as before).
And if you try to read the financial regulations to understand it all, you'll very quickly lose the will to live. Reading law is one thing, financial regulations are a completely different ball game.
That's the part which is the most absurd. Extending a hypothetical to justify a 13 billion dollar loan is bonkers.
I wonder if there's a study of how many companies this has happened to, and how many have come away from it not bankrupt after 5 years. I assume the only reason this is still legal is because the original shareholders get their payday when the company is sold, the new CEO gives themselves a great salary, bleeding the company dry and it's just the employees who suffer when their jobs are cut, which is valued less than the shareholders and CEOs in America.