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.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you think for one minute I like Elon Musk, I invite you to check out all the negative articles, including this one, that I’ve posted about that piece of shit. I’d love for him to lose every red cent he’s got. I’ve hated him since before it was cool.

    • Laser
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You don’t really understand the point I think, whether it’s correct or not I don’t know. His theoretical wealth is derived from the price of the last share sold. He probably can’t just sell ($13bn/current share price) shares and get $13bn out of that, there aren’t enough buy orders at that price, and you risk a panic sell by other holders. These other holders possible also include the banks were talking about, or at least related businesses and their clients.

      Long story short, if banks had him liquidate shares worth $13bn, his net worth would fall (not the banks direct problem, bit probably wouldn’t make future client acquisition easier); but it might be that they lose more money indirectly. All this calculation with a stock’s market cap is a bit like a house of cards; it’s really high, but don’t shake it too much. At least that’s an issue with overvalued stocks; sound businesses where the stock price reflects the company’s actual value, maybe even pays dividend, don’t have that problem.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        He said it perfectly. There are sell off plans.

        If not only Musk but also the banks are stuck in this problem, it’s their own fault and incovenience. Not sure why you ignored his completely verbose explanation of how this problem is only Musk’s (and maybe the banks he made the deal with).

        Talking about individuals/market makers and their bots panic selling the stock is ridiculous, and subverts the idea of a free market. And as you say, the company’s value barely reflects it’s output, so it should happen, and it is odd that it didn’t.

        • Laser
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If not only Musk but also the banks are stuck in this problem, it’s their own fault and incovenience. Not sure why you ignored his completely verbose explanation of how this problem is only Musk’s (and maybe the banks he made the deal with).

          That’s the thing, the banks fear it will be their problem. They don’t care about Tesla as a third party, but themselves.

          I’d love Musk to get fucked by this whole ordeal. This was rather about if the creditors allow it or of they’re afraid of the fallout.

          And you’re right, it won’t be all instantly sold, but it is a large amount of shares and I’d think it would have a negative impact on share price.

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I guess it’s possible. But to me it sounds too much like an extra conspiracy. The banks could just sell off the stock (give zero fucks about other banks), and then force Musk to liquidate.

          • Sway@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            So, if his divestment of such a large amount shares in either company would have a negative impact on stock price, wouldn’t the other share holders have a say in the matter? They typically frown upon someone acting in a manner that will devalue their share prices. I’m honestly asking bc I don’t know the ins and outs, but I would assume that if Elon were to just try and sell shares to pay off his problem the pitch forks are going to come out from other share holders.

            Also, wouldn’t the banks potentially be in a conflict of interest? Presumably those institutions who gave him the loans have invested clients money into those stocks potentially? Again, just asking the question, bc this seems like a major boondoggle that could really fuck over a lot of people in a variety of ways.