Elon Musk's X is now worth less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to a new estimate from investor Fidelity. The asset manager, Elon Musk's X is now valued at less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to Fidelity.
“Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion”
it’s just that he could take big risks (not even a smart one) in investment because he didn’t care about the money, he has so much that he can never lose it all, so of course if you can invest blindly you’ll for sure win at some point
yes, that is definitely part of his success. and since this strategy got him to position of richest person in the world, it is pretty clear that “genius at losing money” is not really accurate description of situation.
as for twitter, he clearly is not in it for the money, otherwise he wouldn’t be there to begin with. he originally hoped to buy position of cheered and admired hero and when he failed, he settled for a position of hated douchebag. infamous still means people know you, i guess 🤷♂️
It would appear that he didn’t want to buy Twitter and was literally forced to do so. I think for him Twitter is a temper tantrum. He didn’t get what he wanted so he’s destroying everything around him as a result.
More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal (with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash).
I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money. I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal
I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money.
your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).
with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash
that’s how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash
I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
that doesn’t make sense, destroying twitter doesn’t absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.
This is just conjecture though. I do think he originally did not intend to buy Twitter. I do think he was essentially forced to buy it. I know from news articles around the time of the sale that he gave significant pushback when relevant parties forced the issue. Things may very well have changed after he became the owner (and what deals he made to be able to afford it may never be known).
he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.
If I take out a loan to buy a home, I don’t own the home outright. The creditor owns the home until I pay off the debt. I’m likening the situations because I want to make it clear that he didn’t put in his own money to buy it.
it’s just that he could take big risks (not even a smart one) in investment because he didn’t care about the money, he has so much that he can never lose it all, so of course if you can invest blindly you’ll for sure win at some point
yes, that is definitely part of his success. and since this strategy got him to position of richest person in the world, it is pretty clear that “genius at losing money” is not really accurate description of situation.
as for twitter, he clearly is not in it for the money, otherwise he wouldn’t be there to begin with. he originally hoped to buy position of cheered and admired hero and when he failed, he settled for a position of hated douchebag. infamous still means people know you, i guess 🤷♂️
It would appear that he didn’t want to buy Twitter and was literally forced to do so. I think for him Twitter is a temper tantrum. He didn’t get what he wanted so he’s destroying everything around him as a result.
More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal (with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash).
I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money. I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).
that’s how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash
that doesn’t make sense, destroying twitter doesn’t absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.
This is just conjecture though. I do think he originally did not intend to buy Twitter. I do think he was essentially forced to buy it. I know from news articles around the time of the sale that he gave significant pushback when relevant parties forced the issue. Things may very well have changed after he became the owner (and what deals he made to be able to afford it may never be known).
he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.
Yeah, but he didn’t pay $44Bn out of his own pocket.
he did. the fact he had to borrow the cash is irrelevant, he now owes someone 44B.
If I take out a loan to buy a home, I don’t own the home outright. The creditor owns the home until I pay off the debt. I’m likening the situations because I want to make it clear that he didn’t put in his own money to buy it.