Elon Appears To Admit That He’s Driven Away 40% Of Twitter’s Advertisers

from the how-not-to-run-a-business dept

Elon Musk keeps trying to tell people that he’s saving Twitter. But, he may have just accidentally admitted how much he’s screwed it up. In yet another Twitter Spaces where he spoke about things happening at the site, he actually provided some numerical details, as covered by the Financial Times.

He said that the platform had been on course to spend about $5bn in 2023. Overall costs at Twitter in 2021, the last annual period that the company reported before being taken private, were $5.6bn, during which time it made a pre-tax loss of $221,409.

Musk predicted that Twitter’s net cash outflow, “if you didn’t make any changes”, would be about $6bn to $6.5bn next year. This is partly because the company has been loaded with $12.5bn of debt to help to fund his acquisition, requiring about $1.5bn a year in annual debt servicing payments amid rising interest rates, he said. 

“Not good since Twitter has $1bn in cash,” he said. “So that’s why I spent the last five weeks cutting costs like crazy.” 

His remarks suggested the company was on track to make about $3bn in annual revenues next year. That would suggest Twitter was on course for revenues as much as $2bn lower in 2023 than the $5bn it achieved in 2021 – which mainly came from advertising. Many marketers have pulled out of the platform since Musk’s takeover over moderation concerns.

So, if we break that down… the company had been at around breakeven before he took it over, bringing in around $5 billion in revenue, while spending a similar amount. Elon, by leveraging the takeover with high interest loans added another $1.5 billion to the annual costs. That was obviously problematic if he wanted to make money (we’ll ignore the fact that when he first announced the takeover he insisted he wasn’t doing it for the money). So it was no surprise that he’d cut costs.

Still, the normal way one does this (especially if you end up taking over a company that you desperately spent months trying not to takeover, effectively giving you just a couple days to learn about how the actual business works before being in charge) would be to try to understand the overall business, how things work, and then draw up a plan to cut the actual fat in a manner that doesn’t disturb the inbound cash flow. Maybe you take a short term hit by dealing with a few months of extra burn, but you avoid doing overall damage to the site.

Instead, as everyone has seen, Musk did the full slash and burn, while somewhat chaotically making a bunch of decisions that were seen as quite questionable for advertiser brand safety. Which is an issue since 90% of the revenue is from advertising. Even if Musk’s eventual goal is to cut advertising significantly, maybe don’t piss off advertisers right from the start.

Now, there had been speculation about just how many advertisers had bailed, and what that meant for the bottom line. And here, Musk seems to reveal the details: revenue is going to drop from $5 billion a year to $3 billion a year — suggesting approximately 40% of the ad spend is just gone. Poof.

He seems okay with it because he’s cut costs to an even greater degree, but it sure raises serious questions about the overall sustainability of the business. Advertisers tend to go where the hot new thing is, not the old thing. And scaring away that much advertising is a big deal. It’s hard to see how you bring that back.

And, yes, Musk has said he wants to move more to subscription revenue, but the early numbers on that looked absolutely pitiful, and likely are not doing much to replace departing ad revenue.

So, yes, in theory you could argue that the company could survive just at a much lower revenue tier, but again that leaves out the factor of time and trajectory (and the wildcard of their unpredictable CEO). Killing the momentum of a social media network seems like a good way to drive it into a downward spiral. And that seems to be how Musk has done things.

He had other options. He could have figured out how to make cuts more strategically. He could have chosen not to leverage the deal so much. But he went in the other direction instead and scared off tons of advertisers. A corporate disaster that will be spoken about for years.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Elon Appears To Admit That He’s Driven Away 40% Of Twitter’s Advertisers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
155 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

No Elon, it doesn’t depend on who you are. But successfully pointing out a logical fallacy requires you have the ability to recognize logical fallacies. As well as an understanding of logical fallacies and an ability to communicate that understanding when pointing out logical fallacies.

Thus far you have failed to point out a single logical fallacy, nor have you demonstrated the above prerequisites for doing so.

Regardless of who you are or are not, you are habitually incorrect. Go have some fruitcake or something, it’s delicious.

David says:

Re: Re:

I would say that “Elon Musk syndrome” would be that the more successful someone is, the more likely they are to overestimate their own competence.

I know it’s popular to attribute everything under the sun to Musk, but there’s been some prior art researched by Socrates and documented in Platon’s “Apologia” in the quest for the wisest man.

You might as well call automobilists Musketeers in order to honor Musk’s fabulous invention of the wheel.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Re:

There are people with the technical and business knowhow. The problem is that even if they were willing to work for him (and keep in mind that he just fired most of the people who would fit the bill), it would take a lot more than just competent management to undo the damage he’s done to Twitter’s, and his own, reputation among advertisers, employees, users, and the general public.

I don’t think Twitter can earn back the trust it’s lost unless Musk sells the company. And maybe not even then.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re:

He would have to contractually obligate himself not to involve himself in any actual decision-making, and frankly to stay off the premises of any and all Twitter locations. As well as grant the authority for his replacement to rescind all of his mistakes.

I think profusely apologizing to the world and crawling in the streets of San Francisco while wearing nothing but his tighty-whities might be the right level of groveling for someone out there with the very low level of competence required to fix this, to step in.

That might just be my requirements, though. I do actually hate the man.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

While you can indeed run virtual servers on physical servers hosted on prem, what I really meant and what the term usually refers to is virtual severs on a cloud service like AWS.

Anyway no, there’s probably no servers hosted at the downtown offices. Even if twitter owns its servers they’d be in a server farm in the desert or something.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

I just come here to see if you've said something dumb about twitter

I’m never disappointed.

It was losing money before, it will be making money now. You want to spin that as bad. SUPER HOT TAKE

Never mind that Musk’s main goal was to stop the awful censorship.

Again:

It’s been proven that Twitter engaged in extremely biased, ideological censorship.

It’s been proven that Twitter engaged in censorship based on political goals.

Worst of all, it’s been proven that twitter engaged in censorship based upon government request. No, it doesn’t matter how much you lie (“explain”) about that and try to pretend otherwise. No, it doesn’t matter that the FBI ban lists were like “but you really don’t have to”, either legally or practically.

Since this hard, direct evidence directly contradicts what you’ve been saying, you’ve taken to lying and gaslighting about it, and just generally sucking the FBI’s cock to defend the Old Twitter.

Stopping all that was of course Musk’s goal, not turning a profit, nor did anyone think that profit was his goal, but you will spin things in whatever way you can to shit on Musk. –Presumably because you’re a hardcore partisan and Musk rejects progressive orthodoxies. Or maybe you just hate free speech. Who cares? You were very, very wrong, there’s direct proof refuting what you’ve said, and…..your response is just to pretend facts don’t exist anymore, I guess?– Musk does want twitter to continue existing, and this way it will, and on it’s prior course it will not.

Stop writing about twitter, you’re unqualified, you statist shill. (I’m aware you think of yourself as the opposite, that’s why it’s sad)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

again, Twitter is making money where it was not before, and I’m not sure whether it’s business success has much to do his personage.

Really this is just people freaking out about a cultural change. Twitter used to have lots of censorship, now will much less, and some people REALLY liked the censorship.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Still waiting for you to answer the question as to what were the consequences for Twitter in ignoring 60% of the accounts flagged for review?

You seem to be adamant that the FBI had given Twitter an implied threat, I just want to know from you what they did to Twitter for ignoring their request.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. The FBI gave a ban list. Even the attempt was a 1st amendment violation

Ummmm yes it does matter. Just because the FBI gave a “ban list” to Twitter, Twitter was under ZERO obligation to actually follow through.

So where is the 1st amendment violation?

What threat of state action was forcing Twitter to do the bidding of the FBI and what were the consequences if Twitter didn’t follow through with 60% of the requests?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

In order for there to be coercion, there either must be an explicit threat or command, the perception of coercion by the target, or actual consequences imposed by the government for failing to follow the instructions (or at least evidence of an actual attempt to do so). While not everything that fulfills one or more of those conditions constitutes coercion, anything that would be considered to be coercion under the law does fulfill at least one of them. (And yes, for the first condition, the threat or command must be explicit, not implied. As for your example of a protection racket, that would fulfill the other two conditions, so there is no problem there.)

The list absolutely did not contain explicit threat or command (again, neither the word “ban” nor any variant thereof appear anywhere in there, nor was there anything about consequences mentioned even vaguely in it). As Twitter received no consequences for the 60% of accounts it didn’t take down, we can say there were no consequences in practice. There is also no evidence that the FBI even tried to impose consequences.

That leaves whether there was a perception of coercion by Twitter. Nothing in the Twitter Files suggests that Twitter felt coerced, and the fact that they only took action on 40% of the listed accounts suggests they didn’t perceive the list as coercive.

Given that none of the conditions were met, we can safely say that, under the current law, there is no evidence that this constitutes even an attempt by the FBI to coerce Twitter to ban those listed. As such, there is no 1A violation.

Also, while you keep calling it a ban list, it is not actually a ban list. Again, neither “ban” nor any similar words appear anywhere at all in anything sent by the FBI.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

….that was actually a citation.

That someone like you can then try to be smug absolutely amazes me. Don’t really owe you citation (those asking for such never accept it when given, because asking for evidence that might sway them has nothing to do with the challenge) but I actually gave you a citation.

You do know those aren’t always URLs, right?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Real talk "A corporate disaster that will be spoken about for years."

Going to leave aside your lies about proof of censorship, you get that that’s a silly thing to say, right? For one thing, Twitter is making money where before it was not.

For another, Twitter was always going to lose advertisers for all the same cancel-culture reasons that made taking it over necessary a very small but very woke minority is going to scream that Musk is a nazi (cuz that’s what you guys do, now) for daring to allow people to acknowledge that a transwoman is still, biologically a man, or whatever. Or that maybe the RNA vaccines don’t work that well. They LIKED the censorship. They’re mad it’s gone. And companies that are also woke or just (much more often) extremely responsive to any kind of protest will step away from the controversy.

Then after awhile people will see everything is fine (which it is) and things will go back to normal, plus other improvements, it’s all good.

But of course YOU hate the idea of that Masnick, YOU like the censorship. SO you, too, have to shit on Musk to keep up the perception that whole thing is going poorly, which it pretty clearly is not.

Guess what? 75% of Old Twitters employees were useless. Gadde is a monster. And this is actually going pretty well, and exposing a lot of past corruption to boot. You and most of the liberal media trying to gaslight on it is just expected, at this point.

A post-truth society, I guess.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re:

You’re such a coward, Mattie. I specifically called Trump a Nazi. You’re a Nazi too.

It’s not my fault you think the same way fans of Hitler do, and it’s not my fault that Elon Musk thinks like a Hitler fan too. You should know better, but you don’t because you’re both fascist losers who don’t know a single thing and are unwilling to get a clue.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Key words: 'So far'

Now, there had been speculation about just how many advertisers had bailed, and what that meant for the bottom line. And here, Musk seems to reveal the details: revenue is going to drop from $5 billion a year to $3 billion a year — suggesting approximately 40% of the ad spend is just gone. Poof.

Worthwhile to point out that he’s been running the company for what, two months at this point? Losing near half of your main source of revenue in that short of a time period with no indication that he’s realized why probably does not bode well for the future of the company or his ability to keep the remaining 60% around long term.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

….and also for the US, every year? You realize that was talking about people moving to Canada cuz their favored candidate lost the election and immigration in general, right? Like people say they’re going to do that and never do.

Did you feel smart, posting a link that only showed you can’t grasp subtext?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’m sorry, is it somehow, in your mind, mutually exclusive for people to be moving to both the United States and Canada?

(I mean, for any individual person, it probably is, but we’re talking here about groups)

As for your whinging about the context of your ritual phrase and its meanings, I have much better grounds to be annoyed about it than you do. Every four years people use my country as some kind of totemic sloppy-seconds thing to express their displeasure about American nonsense, and far more of them talk about it than ever do anything, because — and this comes as a surprise to some people! — it’s actually rather difficult to move between countries, even when they’re as similar as the U.S. and Canada are.

But, and this is the reason why your original comment is ridiculously dumb, it’s a helluva lot easier to uninstall Twitter than change your country of residence. So people’re gonna, unless Musk bails out first. It’ll be an interesting race between their patience and how many billions of dollars of Tesla market capitalization Musk can evaporate every week.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re:

Let’s be real: in a sense the ad revenue is 100% gone even if he doesn’t realize it. Even saying he’s hired enough people to handle the ad campaigns (he fired them) again, there’s little indication that even niche* advertisers will want to replace the more mainstream revenue that’s slipping away.

He’s never been totally honest in this endeavor or any other, his entire persona is built on decades of repeated lies including regarding his degrees. Let’s say he’s inflating what revenue he’s actually expecting by 3x since that’s not very much for one of his exaggerations.

The remaining 1 billion he thinks exists probably will not by the time the 2023 fiscal year ends even if a fraction (or all) of it does now.

*Alt-right associated ads companies

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: brand protection

there’s little indication that even niche* advertisers will want to replace the more mainstream revenue that’s slipping away

An interesting question. It is said that some major brands have cut their advertising on Twitter so as to avoid their ads showing up next to what you term the ``niche” advertisers.

But the next question is, how many users will cut their use of Twitter so as to reduce the risk that their twits do not wind up next to these ``niche” adverts.

*alt-right

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re:

As a conservative, I do not claim you.

You get flagged by nearly everyone because you say incorrect things based on your lack of reading comprehension and call anyone who tries to relieve your ignorance, a ‘moron’. You really love saying that and even if it wasn’t a slur, I’m sure people are tired of you endlessly repeating it.

You can ignore what I’m say, but in the end everything you say is tiresome and pointless, and no matter how many times you say nothing, it will still be nothing. Maybe this is just a game to you, though. In which case you’re a loser no matter how you score it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It’s always amusing when trolls like Hyman pathetically try to gaslight about what’s on the very page they’re posting on.

To wit — any reader can uncollapse any or all of the troll posts here to see not a one has a single truth – “uncomfortable” or otherwise in them at all – and trust their own eyes over Hyman’s lies.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

It is a homonym. And it’s … nothing. I think one or two commenters here have deliberately misspelled my name, I suppose assuming it’s some highly clever insult instead of childishness. Plenty of people have misspelled my name accidentally. Whatever. My name is an anglicized version of the Hebrew חיים (Chaim), and lots of people have it, some as given name, some as surname.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Nah, I’m trying to imply Hyman Rosen is an idiot who doesn’t want to keep up with psychology, sociology and society, instead choosing to promote a worldview that excludes minorities of all sorts, starting with trans people.

No one is refuting biology. Even less think that biology determines gender. That is the scientific consensus. Gender dysphoria is a real, observable mental condition in the DSMV and can be treated in many, many ways, and gender reassignment surgery is usually done after much consideration, observation and advice from a team of doctors from various fields of medicine when done right, and is usually done as a last resort.

I do apologize for going on that rant, though.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Whatever, it’s not a new rant. I don’t give a shit about people’s physiology though, that’s their own business to do with as they please and everyone aught to have agency over it. It’s not a big deal.

None of these rants on anyone’s part is new whether it’s by (or on behalf of) trans people who ought just to be left alone by bigots and helped like any other person (including unique consideration for the things you rant about) without having to justify their existence to anyone; or whether it’s by bigots who stubbornly refuse to give a shit about anything besides how someone else’s mere existence discomforts them.

I recall that members of my own family were killed by Nazis, who thought the existence of Jews was so awful we had to be tracked down with IBM machines and killed in a literally-industrial way. And other members of my family fought Nazis as it’s everyone’s duty to fight fascists until fascists are only ever a memory we hold as a warning to never allow them to arise yet again.

And yet those same Nazis burned research that had already been done on and for transgender people, and then killed transgender people too. If those trans people had not been murdered, if that research had not been destroyed… would we even be talking about the science of gender at this point?

Or would trans people simply be accepted and integrated into society without bigots showing up to harass them? That’s the kind of thing I was reminded to always remember.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Or would trans people simply be accepted and integrated into society without bigots showing up to harass them? That’s the kind of thing I was reminded to always remember.

Harass the bigots. Remind everyone that disagreeing with sexual minorities is homophobia, transphobia, and letting it slide is the equivalent of genocide. There can be no middle ground when it comes to dealing with those incapable of being fabulous.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Given that we respond to your comments even after they are hidden, there is no reason to believe that you are being flagged because you can’t be beaten in an argument.

Also, you don’t even seem to understand what “woke ideologues” claim, only attacking strawmen you call “woke ideologues”. That suggests that you recognize that you can’t win an argument against what people actually believe or claim and so make up fictional positions to argue against instead, pretending that you’re making an actual point. You’re not stating uncomfortable truths; you’re stating falsehoods or things no one actually disputes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

For example, I think you claim to believe that people don’t think they can change their sex, despite the fact that people have themselves medically and surgically mutilated to try to resemble the sex that you think they don’t believe they can transform into. So I think you’re wrong, or dissembling, as woke ideologues tend to do when exposed to the light of day.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Before, you responded to the well-known fact that Black people commit crimes in numbers far higher than their share of the population with a Wikipedia brush-off. Woke ideologues cannot even abide plain, easily looked-up facts that point out problems with their favored victim groups.

https://heyjackass.com/

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3

And now, do the statistics of the systematic racism against black people and how crime is related to income inequality. Or is that topic too difficult for a simpleton like you since you seem to have zero understanding of cause and effect.

If you want to complain about crime rates and black people look no further than to your mirror and you’ll see one of the reasons it happens – racist assholes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Even if your attempts to excuse criminals by nattering about systemic racism, as woke ideologues do, were correct, which they are not, you cannot fix crime now by changing causes; the criminals who have already been created, whether by systemic racism or by the failure of their parents to form stable families or some other reason, aren’t going to stop criming just because you try to institute social justice reform. In any case, the woke ideologue response to crime by their favored victim groups is to define crime down (e.g., misdemeanor charges for “it’s just an iPhone” robberies under $1000) and release arrested repeat offenders from jail.

But by all means, blame the victims of crime for the creation of criminals. Make sure to teach the schoolchildren not to report crimes to the police if the criminals are Black. That will win you lots of elections.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Even if your attempts to excuse criminals by nattering about systemic racism, as woke ideologues do, were correct, which they are not, you cannot fix crime now by changing causes; the criminals who have already been created, whether by systemic racism or by the failure of their parents to form stable families or some other reason, aren’t going to stop criming just because you try to institute social justice reform.

I don’t excuse criminals but I can understand the root cause for why they turned to crime in the first place which is something you are entirely incapable of and that root cause is racism and people like you. As I’ve said on occasion, the world would be a better place without you and other racists in it.

You don’t get the whole concept of cause and effect – instead you consistently blame the victims (because even a criminal can be a victim) for a situation that the racists created in the first place. If someone wrecks your life and your only option to survive is to steal, whose fault is it then when everyone declares you to be a criminal and throws you in jail? It can’t be those who wrecked your life, can it?

The solution to systemic racism and inequality is first to take people like you and other racists and make you totally irrelevant since you have proven that you rather persist in a behavior that is detrimental to society as a whole in the long run.

In any case, the woke ideologue response to crime by their favored victim groups is to define crime down (e.g., misdemeanor charges for “it’s just an iPhone” robberies under $1000) and release arrested repeat offenders from jail.

I deal in facts and not your anecdotal fantasies so I’ll just leave this here: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing

But by all means, blame the victims of crime for the creation of criminals. Make sure to teach the schoolchildren not to report crimes to the police if the criminals are Black. That will win you lots of elections.

You just can’t stop making up stupid straw men, can you? Well, I suppose it’s expected of a stupid racist like you. Anyway, I’ll just teach the children by pointing at you and your fellow racists telling them that you drove black people to it by persistently depriving them of equal rights. Children are particularly perceptive to some things when you explain the chain of causation and they invariably identify the bad guys quite accurate.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

But have noticed only conservatives are EVER “flagged” here?

I know of at least one person who got flagged for heterophobic, cisphobic, anti-white, and anti-male speech. There are also people who are generally liberal who had posts hidden here, often for suggesting someone should off themselves or for going too far in other ways. And one person who is often flagged is actually a liberal who is opposed to having privacy in restrooms and locker rooms at all.

So no, I have not noticed that only conservatives ever get flagged here. Furthermore, several conservatives have never been flagged here. You’re once again seeing patterns that don’t actually exist.

Synonymous Scaredycat (profile) says:

But it’s better, right? Because he can just replace it with blockchains. Maybe even some brick stitch.

In the end he should have just enough of Twitter left for the two users who will still be on it: him and his mother Maye.

He will be able to tweet that he needs more peanut butter. And since she won’t be massively in debt like he is, he won’t starve to death on the streets of whatever the next place he moves his companies ends up being after Texas kicks him out.

Pretty sure he’s going to be evicted from Twitter headquarters for lack bill payments there before long, so that won’t be an option. Why won’t this tech billionaire just. stop. hitting. himself?

Valis (profile) says:

Elon's brain perceives reality differently

I don’t think at this level of wealth, especially being nouveau riche, that money means anything to him any more. I can’t even begin to comprehend what it must be like to have such enormous wealth, what must it be doing to his brain? Human brains are very plastic and malleable, his perceptions and thinking have become alien to us average beings. Here’s hoping he doesn’t take us over a cliff.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well, he is doing the one thing that is difficult to do at his level of wealth, and that is reduce his wealth by accident, rather than by deliberately giving it away. His wealth is well into the regime that buying jets and yachts, and running them, does not even dent his income, and the only thing to do with excess income is reinvest it, or give it away to charity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...