Elon Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value

from the great-job-everybody dept

For months, Elon Musk has been promising the rapidly dwindling workforce at Twitter that he’d give them stock grants. He’d promised that those grants would come on March 24th, and I can tell you that when normal business hours ended on the 24th with no details, some of those remaining employees were pissed off. However, it was just Musk in typical fashion, being late. Late at night an email was sent to employees on “the state of Twitter 20” which also included the details of the grants.

The details, as laid out in the Wall St. Journal, are that employees will get grants that vest over a period of four years, with a 6 month cliff (i.e., nothing vests for the first six months, so try not to anger him or he’ll fire you and you’ll get nothing) and there will be regular opportunities to cash out.

But the key part is that Musk says the equity grants will be doled out with a company valuation of $20 billion. Remember, just five months ago he paid $44 billion for it, meaning he’s admitting that he more or less set $24 billion on fire in five months. That’s impressive.

Elon Musk said Twitter Inc. employees will receive stock awards based on a roughly $20 billion valuation, less than half of the $44 billion price he acquired the company for last year, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Being the master of spin, hype, and marketing that he is, Musk concocted a story about how the valuation of Twitter may go up to $250 billion in a few years:

Mr. Musk in the note to staff said he was optimistic about the social-media company’s future. “I see a clear, but difficult, path to a >$250B valuation,” meaning stock granted now would be worth 10 times more, he said.

I mean, at this point, all of these valuations are just in Musk’s head. The only way you know for sure is when the shares are either available on the public market, or there’s some sort of outside investment that values the company. So, these numbers are somewhat meaningless. The company could be worth $10 billion or $1 billion or $50 billion.

But the fact that Musk is effectively admitting that he thinks the valuation is around $20 billion is a pretty huge admission of failure. He took an asset that he (perhaps stupidly) valued at $44 billion and knocked off more than half the value. And given that he’s prone to overhyping his own works, he’s almost certainly over-estimating the value. Great job.

Also, I’m curious how the other equity holders feel about all of this. Now, all of them have more money than they could ever use, so maybe they don’t care one bit about this, but I remember hearing from some people how Musk had the “Midas touch” and they seemed confident that he’d take their $500 million to $2 billion contributions and turn it into much more. And here he is, just five months later, admitting he’s basically set fire to that money.

As for the claim that he’ll get it up to a $250 billion valuation, well, anything is possible. But to date, given that he’s driven away many advertisers, made the site much more fragile, made it significantly less welcoming in terms of inviting back the most abusive users and filling everyone’s feed with about 5 times more ads than before, bet big on the Twitter Blue program that very few people seem interested in… it’s reasonable to wonder just how he thinks the site will be valued at $250 billion outside of his head.

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 Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
143 Comments
OGquaker says:

Re: Say My Name

Count our blessings. Can Anyone here put a face or name on Yahoo?

“In February 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to acquire Yahoo for $44.6 billion.[37][38] Yahoo rejected the bid, claiming that it “substantially undervalues” the company and was not in the interest of its shareholders.” WIKI

In 2008, we received an offer for $160k for this house. In 2020, we received an offer of $800k for this house “as-is”. The “market” is an intoxicated ass

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:

Re: Re: Re:4

Since Masknick has already shown why you’re lying(again)

Not only did Masnick not show that, it’s literally sad he convinced you he did. I would have thought his cherry-picked data was too transparent to fool anyone.

Twitter has lost $221M since 2012. 2020 and 2021 were particularly disastrous. See above.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Twitter has lost $221M since 2012.

Jesus christ, you can’t read even your own source.

According to the very first table in your link, they lost $221M in 2021, not since 2012. If they had only lost 221 million in nine years, that wouldn’t be that bad.

But if we take the net income numbers from the same table and add them up(something you’re clearly incapable of), we’ll see that since 2012, Twitter has had a combined net loss of ~$52M.

Technically a lack of profit overall, but not even close to being enough to put them out of business, as you suggested.

So I implore you, once again: Stop. Fucking. Lying.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I don’t have time for this, nor care enough about what you think.

https://www.netcials.com/financial-net-profit-year-quarter-usa/1418091-TWITTER-INC/

Oh, no, I believed the top number with doing arithmetic.

They actually lost $1.07 Billion. (not $52M, you seemed smart for a half second there. You do know that’s worse, right? Losing 1.07 billion is worse than losing 221 million?

So I implore you, once again: Stop. Fucking. Lying.

About what, undercounting how much money they lost? OK.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Holy shit, Matthew. You’re actually right about the total losses. I apologise for my mistake. Evidently, my spreadsheeting skills aren’t up to snuff anymore.

With that being said, there was still no indication Twitter was sinking into debt on a scale that would’ve necessitated going bankrupt a few years down the line.

So while your premise is correct, your conclusion is not.

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: Re:8

no indication Twitter was sinking into debt on a scale

Holy goal shifting, batman. I have no idea what their cash reserves looked like (probably googleble) but they were losing money fast enough they couldn’t have lasted that long. I really don’t feel the need to “prove” what year they’d go under…they’d either find a new revenue stream, cut costs, or lose. This was pretty well known at the time Musk made his offer.

I think I’ll just take my win and move on.

Suprised you even know what a spreadsheet is tho.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Strawb,

Bennett just hoisted himself on his own petard, by saying that Twitter won’t be around in a few years…. not the normal sewage that comes out of his Elmo-loving mouth, I’m sure we’ll agree.

But to answer your question, Elmo is busy assuring everyone that he’s in control of the largest NPO ever made in the history of mankind. Non Profit Oganization. As in, doesn’t make any money, or what it does make, it reinvests back into itself. That’s his schtick, and he’s gonna stick to it.

As required by law, every prospectus you see when thinking about investing in something has these words: Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Words to live by, and for once, Bennett has correctly stated the case – Twitter is quickly heading towards “Also Ran” status. Or maybe even “DNF”, if Elmo has his way about it.

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

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Nah, he’s speed running failure. Just in the last few weeks, he’s announced that he’s removing the old verification checkmark (something many consider to be one of the “killer features” for Twitter as it encouraged engagement and discouraged fraud at very little cost), he’s introducing a new checkmark feature for businesses (priced at $1k/month, something most small/non-profit businesses won’t be able to afford even if it gives them some advantage), and charging insane amounts of money for APIs (which drove a lot of traffic when they were free, and no hobbyist/small business would be able to pay even if they were doing it with the expectation of any income).

Add that the the general stability and other problems the site is increasingly experienced and the haemorrhaging of staff and institutional knowledge over the last few months, I’d be surprised if it were worth anything like as much.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'And a free pony for all employees in year five!'

The details, as laid out in the Wall St. Journal, are that employees will get grants that vest over a period of four years, with a 6 month cliff (i.e., nothing vests for the first six months, so try not to anger him or he’ll fire you and you’ll get nothing) and there will be regular opportunities to cash out.

Bold of him to think that the company will still exist in four years, at this rate I’d be highly skeptical that it will last even one and were I an employee being offered stock in a company that the boss is burning down around me would probably not serve as a great motivator.

I wonder if he realizes that while he may have bought himself six months with some people he also just gave them the perfect time to finally bail and find a new job…

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

All valuations are just in somebodies head

This is more silly gossip shit from you over Musk.

“….so try not to anger him or he’ll fire you and you’ll get nothing”

Cute.

Making money was never the point. The point was to stop the hideous ideological based censorship. That was before we knew about the hideous government directed censorship (some of it based on ideology).

$44B was a highball designed to make it happen fast, and it turned out to be probably worth less than that. And the valuations equity grants have only a vague relation to what a companies actual worth is. Which you all admit to.

So really this is just you throwing shade at Musk over…nothing, really.

Y’know how much Twitter was likely to be worth in 5 years as it was going? Zero, most likely.

But now it might be worth something, and we know that there was an organized effort to circumvent the 1st amendment.

And you’re big mad about it, aren’t you?

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

Re:

All your concerns have been addressed in the past, please stop huffing glue, your friends are worried.

There was no ideological based censorship if significant scale on twitter, people just looked at twitter employees being mostly left leaning and assumed that must mean they were censoring conservatives.

This was untrue, no matter how desperate you are to pretend otherwise.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

This is actual nonsense. Just because you were ONLY banned from twitter doesn’t make it NOT censorship (even when the government wasn’t involved). Free speech still matters within an individual, large SM platform.

No one said Twitter was all the internet.

I may have found it, the one guy dumber than Strawb.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Free speech still matters within an individual, large SM platform.

No, from a societal point of view, it actually doesn’t even if you think it should. You will never have the unfettered, uncontrolled, free speech anarchy you so desperately crave on any privately-owned platform, because every single one eventually learns you need to have effective moderation in place or the whole place will be ruined by assholes. And it will always be the site owners that get to decide what speech they will and won’t allow based on their own priorities, not yours. My house, my rules, there’s the door.

Matty responds: OMG you so fucken dumb!

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Re:4 My house, my rules, there’s the door.

So last millennium.
At least since RFC 1174, every Joe & Jill’s node has throughput, or at least since Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Bush the USA PATRIOT Act with “sneak and peek” search warrants: search a home & seize material without the knowledge or consent of the owner or occupant…… everyone is required to leave their front and back door open. Here in South Central LA, we have no back door since it was torn off, and the front door has been unlocked for twenty years
See Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’ https://youtu.be/nSQ5EsbT4cE

P.S. Want more? https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No, from a societal point of view, it actually doesn’t even if you think it should.

So, first of all hard disagree and secondly, I think you missed the point where I was refuting the idea that it couldn’t be “censorship” if it was just on one platform. Which is not what the word means but some leftist retards seem to want to pretend that it does.

So,

OMG you so fucken dumb!

yes, actually. Exactly that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Making money was never the point

So thanks for confirming that all the claims made by Musk fans like you that Twitter was eventually going to break even were complete horseshit.

I mean, that much was already clear given how all you guys do is troll harder than China’s 50 cent army and make it a point of pride, but thanks for admitting it anyway.

And you’re big mad about it

Not as mad as you.

Enjoy your new existence surrounded by enbies and BBCs, you straight white waste of space.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

So thanks for confirming that all the claims made by Musk fans like you that Twitter was eventually going to break even were complete horseshit.

How? Why? How does that fucking make sense to you? Making money can not be the point, but it can still make money. How dumb do you have to be to think those are contradictory?

Not as mad as you.

Honestly, that legitimately seems unlikely. He spends hours finding the most pathetic excuses to trash talk Musk and then spends hours writing sometimes PAGES about it. (this blog was mercifully short)

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

Re: Re: Re:

He spends hours finding the most pathetic excuses to trash talk Musk and then spends hours writing sometimes PAGES about it.

And you spend hours trolling the comments. Do you not realize what your obsessive behavior over a blog you clearly despise indicates about you?

“Who’s the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?”

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

foamy says:

Re:

“Making money was never the point. The point was to stop the hideous ideological based censorship. That was before we knew about the hideous government directed censorship (some of it based on ideology).

Y’know how much Twitter was likely to be worth in 5 years as it was going? Zero, most likely.”

So you’re saying Musk blew fifty billion to ‘solve’ a ‘problem’ you think was going to solve itself in five years time?

Like this revisionist history where Musk is nobly riding to the rescue of various assholes like yourself, and damn the cost, this isn’t about business it’s about principle, is laughable. Musk had to be sued by Twitter to compel him to follow through on his offer, and he tried desperately to weasel out of it until it became very clear that he was going to get his ass handed to him in court.

You might think Mr. Musk blew 44billion to unban a fifth-rate ‘satire’ site from a single social media system. You’re certainly credulous and silly enough. But I think you’re just lying and frantically looking for any means to-hand to prop up your ‘Elon was right and you’re all too dumb to smell his greatness’ silliness.

The shift between ‘You’re all idiots who can’t run a business like Elon!’ to ‘You’re all idiots who don’t realize it wasn’t about the money’ works better when you don’t attempt both plays in the same post.

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

GregSJ (profile) says:

I'm not angry I'm just disappointed

Mike,
I expected better of you than this lazy reporting. As other have mentioned what Elon paid doesn’t mean it is what he thought the present market value was at that time. Potential data points of real market value:
Twitter’s market cap on January 28th, 2022 (right before Elon reportedly started buying shares): $28.2B
April 1st, 2022 (right before Elon announced he acquired 9.2% of Twitter): $31.47B
September 30th, 2022 (right before Elon announced he would go through with the acquisition): $33.55B
Similarly it has been reported that, Elon tried to negotiate for $31B as the purchase price during the lawsuit.
If I’m steel manning the argument, the best valid market price we have is the one prior to him acquiring a large number of shares ($28.2B on January 28th, 2022). Using that date and the $20B “valuation” Twitter has lost 29% of it’s value.
In comparison over that same time period (January 28th, 2022 to today):
Facebook has lost 37%
Amzn has lost 34%
Goog has lost 25%
Netflix has lost 14%
Apple has lost 12%

So while I’m happy the 29% loss is his and not mine, Twitter appears to be performing in the middle of the pack when compared to FAANG making it very hard to claim he set fire to the value of the company.

David says:

Re: Re:

Hey, he put up a few enterprises that grew larger than they started.

It’s just in recent years that it appears King Mierdas has touched himself a bit too thoroughly and now seems to be a lot more full of it than one would have imagined previously.

Say what you will, but his track record with Twitter is quite stellar. A shooting star. A trajectory pointing exclusively down.

seattle startup says:

Startups sometimes lowball valuations to reward employees

It’s a shady practice but sometimes tech startups lowball their valuation / stock price to be able to issue options at low valuations to their employees and management. Cheap options = free money. I’ve even seen options issued at one value while a much higher value was pitched to the VC at the same time.

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.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Why are you so concerned with how other people spend their own money?

Apparently you’re concerned with other people concerned with how other people spend their own money.

When someone makes a decision that affects the livelihoods of thousands of other people, criticism tends to occur.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“Why are you so concerned with how other people spend their own money? Sour grapes?”

Because the money has impact on thousand of jobs directly, both at Twitter and other companies related to Musk and/or the ecosystem that built up around Twitter, plus the various implications on bullying, abuse and human rights as well as how new itself is understood, disseminated and reported.

This article is just noting that even if Musk is willing to sacrifice all these things on the altar of profit, he’s also failing at that.

“If he decided to buy Twitter then shut it down, he could: he owns it. It’s his choice.”

It is. Then, the rest of us have the right to discuss how stupid that is.

“Let me know when you have billions of dollars”

Only money-obsessed morons like yourself, willing to endless spend your time defending a person whose only notable quality appears to be his bank account, would care. If I earned $1 billion tomorrow that wouldn’t change the validity of my opinion when commenting.

JMT (profile) says:

Re:

Why are you so concerned with how other people spend their own money?

There are weird, pathetic attempts to defend Elon, and then there’s… this.

Tons of Techdirt stories are about how people/companies spend their money. Tons of media stories are about how people/companies spend their money. Human beings are concerned about or interested in how other people spend their money all the time.

And also, how Musk spent his money directly affected the lives of 7,500 employees and millions of users, so that’s gonna get discussed whether you like it or not.

Canuck says:

“I see a clear, but difficult, path to a >$250B valuation”

Musk’s “predictions” are almost always lies. Years ago, he claimed that a Tesla could make its owner $30k per year as an autonomous taxi. That buying any other vehicle was foolish. That claim never panned out. There have been many similar bogus claims (like high speed hyperloops, living on Mars “in a few years”, etc.)

The $250B claim is just him blowing smoke up his employees’ (and investors’) asses.

Erik says:

So Musk owns Twitter, but he has to borrow substantial sums of money to pay for it. Is there a point at which those lenders can wrest control from Musk so as to not see him completely incinerate their investment? I imagine that, while they probably believed in his Midas touch, they really wanted their investment to go up, not down or away.

Anonymous Coward says:

you can apply this theory to twitter,

https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/

quote;This is enshittification: Surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they’re locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they’re locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit. From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle.

platforms become worse as they demand more money from users

eg buy this badge pay to get verified

major Advertisers are leaving twitter as it seems to be in a state of chaos after laying off much of its staff

the only hope i can see is if elon decides to sell it
we are at the end of a tech boom
theres no more free money from investors
even tech companys are expected to make a profit

Scott says:

Setting value for Options does not mean Twitter lost value

I think you are being a bit harsh with your judgement declaring that Musk has lost half of the value of twitter. Going from a public to private entity lowers the value of a stock….there is no more any daily trading value for it. Furthermore, you want staff to have the lowest value for options possible, so maybe give him a bit of credit for providing a more realistic value.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Values

I was going to reply to the OP, but your post more handily lends itself to the following:

A publicly traded stock is worth whatever the market will bear. A private stock, not subject to trades on the open market, can be valued at the desire of the issuer. From the previous year’s worth of “information”, I’ll trust that Musk ‘issued’ stock to his fellow investors, at what they considered to be a fair value, i.e. a valued return on their investment(s).

If Musk wishes to issue stocks or options to his employees, then he gets to value them at the outset. But his valuation presumes that the stocks have value where they can be traded on the open market. If not, then they are as worthless as the paper they are printed on. In this statement, I make the point that if a bank won’t lend money on the presumed value of a stock, given as collateral, then the stock is essentially worthless.

Now to the point: if employees receive stocks or options, then someone is either thinning the pool of available stocks (Musk is divvying out from his own horde), or the issuer has received permission from the SEC to enlarge the number of available stocks. Oh, wait…. the SEC only has a very limited control over private stocks. Some, but not much worth talking about for this discussion.

I’ll be brief – I believe that Musk will find himself in deep kimchee no matter how he handles anything like ’employee benefits/compensation’. Even if not from the SEC, then almost surely from the IRS. Employees are not going to be happy when they learn that they owe a tax on something their employer said was worth $XXX (and the IRS says ‘good enough for us’), but the piece of paper is non-negotiable beyond use as a beer coaster.

Quite the conundrum, eh?

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

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

Re: Re: Re:

Now, by his own admission, it’s worth $20bn.

No, actually.

Don’t you ever get tired of just lying all the time?

The article you’re posting this comment on literally has him quoted as saying that Twitter has a $20bn valuation.

It’s not simple at all

For those of us who actually understand kindergarten mathematics, it is.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The article you’re posting this comment on literally has him quoted as saying that Twitter has a $20bn valuation.

No, it doesn’t actually.

I am trying to explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you, too.

For those of us who actually understand kindergarten mathematics, it is.

Yes….that’s why people with doctorates in physics and mathematics work on wall street as “Quants”. — I’m joking, that mostly involves arbitrage and hedging but the point is you only think this is “simple” because you don’t understand any of it and Masnick lied to you and told you it was 44-20= which, no, it isn’t that at all actually.

Nimrod (profile) says:

It’s been clear to me since Day One that Musk’s ultimate intent was to kill Twitter. Isn’t that the usual goal in any corporate takeover? You load it with debt, then swoop in and take over. Next, you strip it all down and sell anything you can, then cast aside the empty carcass.
Why he’s doing this is anyone’s guess. It doesn’t appear to be a wise financial move, but who cares about the motivations of a narcissistic jackass, particulary when said jackass is the wealthiest man on the planet? As with mass shooters, we should be concerned with the outcome, not the motive. The why is largely irrelevant…
Elon Musk is on a very short list of people we would all be far better off WITHOUT.

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

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

He came in, saddled the company with billions in debt it can never repay, emptied out the cash reserves making the first interest payment, fired the people with the expertise to keep things stable, pissed off users, drove off advertisers, alienated the verified users who were the by selling point for the platform for the benefit of Nazis, opened up the company to a slew of lawsuitd from employees, governments, landlords and business partners and used his reputation and that of twitter to wipe the toilet seat because he fired all the cleaners… And here he is, claiming twitter is worth what it might have been as a functional company, you know, what it was before he worked his magic. Nah, just nah.

He likely wants to try and use stock in the dying husk he created to pay the staff he couldn’t fire the bonuses he can’t get out of paying so has made up a BS value for something he can use as company scrip in the short term.

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

When you slash your company’s worth by $24 billion (based on the valuation you placed on said company when you bought it), normally you’d come to wonder what you’re doing wrong and try to unscrew everything you did to screw up the company. Elon’s mind isn’t wired that way.

Then again, the going conspiracy theory is that he’s been screwing things up on purpose, ‘cause he was backed into a corner once he realized his leveraging of Tesla stock to help pay for the purchase wound up dragging down that company’s stock price, likely why he tried to back out of buying Twitter in the first place and got sued by Twitter shareholders as a result.

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...