nuff said

  • bamboo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still don’t get how it’s legal for Twitter to take out a loan on itself on Musk’s behalf.

      • bamboo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • sndrtj@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      This practice destroyed several century old retail chains in my country. Got sold to some American investment fund, via a loan placed on those company’s account. Then immediately sold the real estate in prime locations these chains held, so the companies became tenants in buildings they previously owned (and had paid off 80 years ago). Waif a few years, then they die even with decent revenue.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not really that different from buying a house or car. The money Musk put forward is the down payment, the loan is the mortgage, the company assets are the collateral. Where it’s sketchy is that a house or vehicle is generally worth repossessing and selling if you default, but by the time Musk is done with Twitter, it’ll be worthless.

      Think of him like a crackhead who strips the plumbing and wiring from the house he has a mortgage on, before skipping town