> “Regarding Twitter’s reduction in force, unfortunately there is no choice when the company is losing over $4M/day,” Musk tweeted on Friday.
The real question here is probably why anyone would pay 44 billion dollars for a company losing 4 million dollars per day. I mean, it's not some promising startup, it's a company that's been around for a while and has only managed to be profitable for 2 years out of the last 12 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/274563/annual-net-income...)?
Why other investors allow the buyer to assign the debt to the company being bought rather than the buyer alludes me, as I’d assume this weakens the collateral securing the debt.
The real question here is probably why anyone would pay 44 billion dollars for a company losing 4 million dollars per day. I mean, it's not some promising startup, it's a company that's been around for a while and has only managed to be profitable for 2 years out of the last 12 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/274563/annual-net-income...)?