Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

My impression was that he bought Twitter for the reasons you say, but failed to predict the dip in the market that followed it.

If Twitter stock hadn't sunken immediately like a stone, he probably would have pulled it off, too, even after the signing the agreement.

If indeed the Twitter deal was manipulation to leave poorer investors holding the Tesla bag, it's hard to feel sorry for him.




It seems like loading Twitter up with debt servicing was always a bad idea, stock dip or not, considering what its revenues were like. It wasn't in great shape before but the amount of money it now has to spend servicing debt is a nightmare for anyone trying to make that company profitable. His strategy for buying it simply doesn't make sense.


Not if the endgoal is to arrive at a profitable version of Twitter, no.

So maybe that's not the goal. Or maybe it is but the CEO is vastly more incompetent than those underwriting his bid anticipated.


I think the influence is more important than revenue




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: