Fidelity has long been known to be one of the owners of X; their markdowns on the value of their X holdings have long been the most common citation of how far X's value has plummeted under Musk's stewardship.
Is it any less of a "blue chip" stock than other holdings in that fund, which include securities like like Skyryse, Inc. Series B, MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings LLC Series 3, and Alif Semiconductor Series C?
> The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes.
...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1].
Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law.
No, the point is that if the fund hasn't been sued for the past few decades of its existence for holding non-well known companies (or whatever your definition of "blue chip is"), they're probably not going to get sued for holding x holdings, inc.
I think that could be the point if the question was "Will the fund be sued for [...]?" but the question was "Can the fund be sued for [...]?", which likely was intended to ask if such a lawsuit could reasonably be expected to win.
It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
>It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
From the prospectus:
>Principal Investment Strategies
> [...]
> Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations.
Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
No. Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic. "Why are you wasting time on A when B is so much more important?"
The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case."
(If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
I mean, any competent lawyer suing Fidelity for misrepresenting the "Blue-Chip-ness" of the fund's holdings is going to list holdings like that as well.
Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
IMO it was a pretty good gamble. Even if his mental decline seemed obvious, it wasn't obvious they would be prying X from his cold dead hands at all or nearly this late.
Yeah how does owning private stock work for those funds? Kind of interesting. For most funds don’t they constantly sell and buy each stock to rebalance it
There is vast number of different types of funds that invest in nearly anything you can imagine. Real estate, land(farmland and forrest), public stocks, bonds. Also why not private stocks.
ETFs traded on exchanges and index funds is just very special setups. Which don't prevent other forms of funds that is essentially piles of money given out for them to manage often with limitations of pulling it out.
there are two jokes to be had, it depends on how you see Twitter. One is, as you mentioned, how certain aspects of Twitter don't align with Puritanical beliefs. The other is how Twitter's far-right following adheres to certain Puritanical beliefs.
I'm still convinced that Elon took a deal to deliberately burn twitter to the ground. I'm unsure how we'd prove it but his behaviour makes little sense otherwise.
My favorite pet theory is that Musk taking over Twitter is to disentangle the bureaucratic and journalistic class from the direct Tumblr/4chan content pipeline they've all been drinking from for years. The only way he could make it work was to make the space as distasteful as possible. I'm giving him way too much credit, of course, but I can dream.
I assure you the 4chan content pipeline has increased an order of magnitude since the Musk takeover. A comment thread on an Elon post will consistently have multiple posts with >100k views containing slurs or "jews bad Hitler good" accounts.
Clearly yes; my point was that the taste and decision makers that previously might've taken stronger cues from Twitter are now much less likely to see it as a venue for worthwhile discussions. I'm probably overvaluing that vs the harm of broadcasting puerile content, but I recognize this is fundamentally an unserious take.
He offered to buy an unprofitable company for 10 times what Disney paid for Lucasfilm because "funny number", tried to back out of the deal any way he could, and in the end was forced by a court. What are you talking about?
Right. people don't seem to get that. there's this narrative about how Elon Musk overpaid for Twitter, as if there were a vibrant market of buyers and sellers of Twitter. there's only one Twitter, and it's worth whatever someone wants to pay for it.
Say somebody comes up to you and says hey, nice jacket. Would you like to sell it to me for $5,000? You bought the jacket for $500, and it was mass produced and you can just buy another one with that money. sounds like a great deal! But if I add that we're in Boston and it's winter and we're outside, miles from shelter, and it's snowing. Suddenly, sellling your winter coat is a way worse idea and not worth making $4,950.
Americans have long held this belief that prices are prices. If I buy a can of beans, it should be the same price if you buy the can of beans instead of me. But in reality, prices are totally made up. Hopefully the price of something is greater than it cost to make it, along with all the other expenses, so the business can remain open and continue, but businesses that go out of business have to sell their items at a loss. Which makes their inventory worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay, usually at a discount.
Sure, he wanted a better deal, but there's only one Twitter, and it's his (plus a bunch of investors and Fidelity). He didn't overpay for anything, he gets to run it how he wants, now that it's his.
If you have to sue the person offering you 5K for your jacket to ensure they fulfil the deal, it's fair to speculate that even they thought they'd paid too much.
fair, but I mean, money is money, if I could see a way to potentially weasel out of paying what I said I would, in those kind of amounts, is probably give that a shot too.
When Musk says X is all about freedom of speech, remind him that one of its biggest owners is intimately tied to a government that executes people for mild criticism.
If one owner bans speech he doesn't like (@Elonjet), other owners will ask to do the same. Having control of speech on Twitter was likely a factor in the "investment".
X is a megaphone for Musk and a tool to get political favours. X was already used to silence the opposition in Turkey and India during elections. A Saudi prince having a minority stake is a drop in a bucket of free speech violations.
Unfortunately for Musk the US Constitution doesn't apply everywhere.
Lately I've been thinking that the Chinese had a good point with their great firewall. The EU is already banning Russian media perhaps we should ad Americans to the list.
Agreed, and btw I'm suspecting GFW could be a funny one: have you seen a Chinese neckbeard on the Internet? I mean, don't you find suspiciously large fractions of them PLL locked solid on Western values above everything?
> Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-15 and Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent X Corp. as successor in interest to named Respondent Twitter, Inc., by and through its counsel, certifies that Twitter, Inc. has been merged into X Corp. and no longer exists. Respondent X Holdings Corp., as successor in interest to named Respondent X Holdings I, Inc., by and through its counsel, certifies that X Holdings I, Inc. has been merged into X Holdings Corp. and no longer exists. X Corp. is wholly owned by X Holdings Corp. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of X Corp.’s or X Holdings Corp.’s stock.
8VC Opportunities Fund II, L.P.
ADREM X LLC
ADREM Y LLC
Afshar Partners, LP
Andrea Stroppa
Andreessen Horowitz LSV Fund III, L.P.
Anthem Ventures, LLC
ARK Venture Private Holdings LLC
BAMCO, Inc.
Bandera Fund LLC
Baron Opportunity Fund
Baron Partners Fund
Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd
Brookfield Project X L.P.•CCM 2020 Investments LLC
Cheng and Chen Family Trust
CNK Fund IV, L.P.
Danilo Kawasaki
Dayton Family Enterprises, LLC
Dayton Family Investments, LLC
DFJ GROWTH IV, L.P.
DFJ GROWTH IV PARALLEL FUND, LLC
DFJ GROWTH X-I, L.P.
Eden Relationship Capital L.P.
Elon Musk as Trustee of the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003
FIAM Target Date Blue Chip Growth Commingled Pool By: Fidelity InstitutionalAsset Management Trust Company as Trustee
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Commingled Pool By: Fidelity Management TrustCompany, as Trustee
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Institutional Trust By its manager Fidelity InvestmentsCanada ULC
Fidelity Canadian Growth Company Fund by its manager Fidelity InvestmentsCanada ULC
Fidelity Central Investment Portfolios LLC: Fidelity U.S. Equity Central Fund -Communication Services Sub
Fidelity Contrafund: Fidelity Advisor New Insights Fund – Sub A
Fidelity Contrafund: Fidelity Advisor New Insights Fund – Sub B
Fidelity Contrafund: Fidelity Contrafund•Fidelity Contrafund: Fidelity Contrafund K6
Fidelity Contrafund: Fidelity Series Opportunistic Insights Fund
Fidelity Contrafund Commingled Pool By: Fidelity Management Trust Company,as Trustee
Fidelity Destiny Portfolios: Fidelity Advisor Diversified Stock Fund
Fidelity Global Growth and Value Investment Trust – Sub A By its manager Fidelity Investments Canada
Fidelity Global Innovators Investment Trust by its manager Fidelity InvestmentsCanada ULC
Fidelity Growth Company Commingled Pool By: Fidelity Management TrustCompany, as Trustee
Fidelity Insights Investment Trust By its manager Fidelity Investments CanadaULC
Fidelity Mt. Vernon Street Trust: Fidelity Growth Company Fund
Fidelity Mt. Vernon Street Trust : Fidelity Growth Company K6 Fund
Fidelity Mt. Vernon Street Trust: Fidelity Series Growth Company Fund
Fidelity OTC Commingled Pool By: Fidelity Management Trust Company, as Trustee
Fidelity Puritan Trust: Fidelity Puritan Fund – Equity Sub B
Fidelity Puritan Trust: Puritan K6 Fund – Equity Subportfolio•Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity Blue Chip Growth K6 Fund
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity OTC K6 Portfolio
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity OTC Portfolio
Fidelity Select Portfolios : Select Communication Services Portfolio•G64 Ventures LLC
Gerber Kawasaki Inc.
GFNCI LLC
Gigafund 0.21, LP
Glacier Ventures LLC
Go Mav, LLC
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
IMG US, LLC
Jack Dorsey Remainder LLC
Jack Dorsey Tr Ua 12/08/2010 Jack Dorsey Revocable Trust
Kingdom Holding Company
Lawrence J. Ellison Revocable Trust
Linda Ye and Robin Ren Family Foundation
Litani Ventures•Luchi Fiduciaria SR POS. 365
Manhattan Venture Partners X LLC
Mirae Asset Innovation X ONE, LLC
Mirae Asset Project X Fund I, LP•Olivier Janssens
Q Tetris Holding LLC
Ross Gerber
Santo Lira LLC
SC CDA1 LLC
SCGE Fund, L.P.•SCGGF III – U.S./India Management, L.P.
SCHF (M) PV, L.P.
Scott Nolan
SC US/E Expansion Fund I Management, L.P.
Sean Combs Capital, LLC
Sequent (Schweiz) AG as Trustee of the Debala Trust
Sequioa Capital Fund, L.P.
Series N Dis, a series of Atreides Special Circumstances Fund, LLC
Shahidi Tactic Group, LLC
Steve Davis
T. One Holdings LLC
The Pershing Square Foundation
TM33 Partner Holdings
Tresser Blvd 402 LL...
I can understand the surprise so I'm not sure why you're downvoted. Companies like Coinbase and Binance, who never stole a cent from their users (as opposed to crooks like Alameda/FTX/SBF), are extremely successful.
Whether or not one appreciate cryptocurrencies, these companies are worth tens of billions. It's not a surprise that they invest in other companies.
I am not familiar with US politics but Musk has of course done lots of political things in the past and now with the Trump interview, this feels slightly like a target list. Could it serve as one?
There are a lot of people out there who can make a lot of money flow, (and more importantly not flow), in any direction they want.
There are a lot of people out there who can, say, go through all of your tax returns and make sure that every i was dotted and every t was crossed.
Own a business that needed government licensing? There are a lot of people that take action to hold up that process.
And on, and on, and on.
There are a million ways in a society as complex as ours that you can be targeted. I always say that our society has so many laws, regulations, and so on that there is no one who can claim to be law-abiding and have that claim hold up to three letter agency level scrutiny. Or even Halliburton corporate legal level scrutiny for that matter.
You ask for what they could be targeted? I think it was Cardinal Richelieu who wrote about needing only a small amount of work done by a supposed honest man, and in that corpus being able to find something for which that supposed honest man could be hung. It's been 400 years and our technologies are now so good that you probably don't even need a small amount.
When Ukraine war started for example, there were many lists of oligarchs, "Putin's circle" cieculating around. These would lead to, even when there were no sanctions, activism against these names and avoidance of doing business with these names.
Divide & Conquer: (1) Put list of your enemies names on a wall, making then more vulnerable. When they are unable to appear neutral or allied to someone else than your enemy again, they will become socially isolated. (2) Cause some reason why everyone should be scared of being an ally of your enemy. (3) Take down your enemy, knowing no one will come in defense of them.
Note that my first example does not refer to the assasinations of Russian oligarchs, and I only speak of targeting as a tactic of Divide & Conquer strategy.
Do I really need to do an anthology of Elon Musk shift to the right, the right obsession with child trafficking circa the Q era, and the irony of having Sean "Diddy" Combs on your cap table?
What I'm seeing here is pretty typical of what I normally see with showdead turned on when on a topic that is vaguely political in nature (anything with Musk in the headline counts).
The reason I would expect is that they think the teachers are showing their kids explicit sexual content, encouraging them to be transgender, and telling them about how they should hate America and white people. Is that not accurate?
Just my take: Some parents are having growing concerns about the quality of basic education (reading, math, history) that their kids are receiving. Apparently questioning the effectiveness of how their tax dollars are spent makes them a homophobe and a racist. Oh, and probably "weird" too.
This is one of those posts that just tries to throw in as many rage baiting concepts at once in to maximize angry engagement.
Bait aside, nobody calls you homophobic for asking good faith questions about how the schools budget is spent. But it would be absurd to imply the 12 hours a year kids are taught about sexuality is somehow derailing the entire curriculum. When talking about revamping education, only people that have fully drank Kool aid would think "it's because all of that money is used to turn my kids gay".
Well, the reason, if I understand the critics' arguments correctly, is that compulsory public education was instituted a century ago (a) quickly, without serious policy discussion or any experimental evidence and (b) with the goal of solving a very specific social problem that existed a hundred years ago (poor families migrating en masse from the countryside to cities to work in the factory, and their bored young children wandering around city streets engaging in mischief while both parents were busy instead of learning useful skills like milking cows or reading the Bible, which would have been the case back in the countryside) - and it's not quite clear whether in today's social conditions it's still worth it.
People seems to like X. The far-left tries to make it looks like X is far-right but the truth is: anyone can use X, even the far left (and oh boy do they use it) and censorship there is now highly uncommon. Many accounts wrongfully closed have been reinstated.
Wasn't there numbers posted recently showing that X now has more active users than it used to?
It may or may not be profitable as a company, but the public certainly seems to still be using X.
I find it strange that details of the owners of a private company isn't publicly available information in the first place (speaking as someone from a country – the UK – where this is publicly available information).
In the UK (and I'd assume many other countries), you can see the owners of private companies on the Companies House website[0], along with those with 'significant control' and financial statements. It's pretty interesting and useful to look at sometimes.
Without taking from your point, I believe you can have a UK limited company owned by an entity in a different jurisdiction that's less good than the UK.
Same in Estonia. You can see the owners / shareholders of every private company and also all the financial / tax information per financial quarter (and year).
Why is it strange? I do not see why there would be an expectation that details of company's investor relationships would be known to people that have nothing to do with company's business. "Pretty interesting" doesn't sound like a good justification.
Companies run the world. Many are as large as entire countries, and have huge influence over large aspects of peoples lives - from media, to food, to medicine, etc. That makes it in the publics interest to have insights into how they are controlled. Follow the money.
Controlling and investing are completely different things. Control is exercised by the board and the management, and these are pretty much universally public for a large company. However, investment does not have to come with a seat on the board - a large one can, and then, again, it would be public, but it doesn't have to. You seem to confuse entirely different things.
It's useful to know who owns a company or know a company's financial state for anyone who wants to do business with that company.
It adds a level of transparency that makes it easier if you're at the beginning of a relationship with a company (i.e. there may not be a large amount of trust at the start of the relationship; knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals).
It may be "useful" for me to inspect your private bank accounts (maybe you are a good investor and I can learn something!) but it's no justification for me to violate your privacy. It may be very "useful" for me to know the business plans of my competitor, but gaining access to them is usually qualified as criminal. "Useful" is not something that authomatically gives access to private information just because somebody wants to.
> knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals
That makes no sense. Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense. Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.
> It may be "useful" for me to inspect your private bank accounts (maybe you are a good investor and I can learn something!) but it's no justification for me to violate your privacy.
Right, that's why that's not a thing. We're talking about limited liability companies, not people. They're separate entities.
> It may be very "useful" for me to know the business plans of my competitor, but gaining access to them is usually qualified as criminal. "Useful" is not something that authomatically gives access to private information just because somebody wants to.
The information available is very basic stuff – the company's registered address, its officers, its shareholders and how much they own, insolvency information, and yearly accounts.
My point in it being 'useful' is that it's useful to know who you're going into business with; a cursory look at the company's very basic information can help in that, before, for example, you sign a contract with them.
> Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense.
Sure, some companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities. A lot are owned by one or two or five people. Either way, it's useful to know who owns the company, and who owns more than others (i.e. controls more than others).
> Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about 'useful' to investors (which it definitely is). I'm talking about 'useful' to people doing business with that company. Knowing exactly who you're doing business with, and how financially secure the company is, is very useful. You don't want to go in to business with a company that's about to go under.
> We're talking about limited liability companies, not people. They're separate entities.
I know, but this still doesn't validate the logic "I am curious about it therefore I must be given rights to access any information I want".
> I'm talking about 'useful' to people doing business with that company.
This makes even less sense. Nobody checks the list of shareholders of Walmart each time they go to buy milk. And you definitely are not "doing business with" the investors - you're at most are doing business with the management and the line workers. Surely, for mom-and-pop shops those are the same people, but for any company of decent size, and for pretty much any startup company out there, you never "doing business with" the investors - they at most advise the management, but they do not actually run things.
> You don't want to go in to business with a company that's about to go under.
That has nothing to do with the list of investors. The same investors could invest in a wildly successful and completely failing businesses, at the same time, and knowing the list of investors gives you zero information about whether or not the company is about to go under.
One reason Musk didn't want this revealed is that this includes some of Putin's oligarchs who are sanctioned by the US government (Petr Aven and Vadim Moshkovich).
> Petr Aven is a Russian billionaire, founder of Alfa Group, one of the main wallets for Putin. Aven is one of Putin's oldest friends. Putin would be in prison instead of becoming president without him. Aven covered for Vladimir Putin in 1992, when he organized an illegal trade in export licenses; he was also present at a meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022, in the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. He did not express any protest against "SVO" and supported Putin. By the way, he, together with Fridman, is trying to lift sanctions from himself, just yesterday he received another refusal in this matter.
In the purchase of Twitter he is represented by the company "8VC Opportunities Fund II, LP", where his son Denis works.
> Vadim Moshkovich is a sanctioned Russian agricultural billionaire who was a member of the "Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation." In other words, he was officially part of Putin's inner circle. Moshkovich owns Russia's largest agricultural holding, Rusagro. Naturally, he was also present at the meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022, and, like Aven, did not express any protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
In the purchase of Twitter he is represented by the company "8VC Opportunities Fund II, LP", where his son Jack (Eugene) works.
> Knowing all this, we now understand Elon Musk's bias. Everyone was wondering how it was possible that Twitter shares (X) were falling, advertisers were breaking contracts, and no one was doing anything. This was direct damage to investors. But everyone failed to take into account the fact that investors needed a platform to promote their narratives, such as: support for Putin and Russia; lobbying for freezing the war in Ukraine; removing the Ukrainian agenda from the top news etc.
They also aren’t investors. This person is claiming that relatives of some rich Russians are working at some financial firm that invested some amount into Twitter. There isn’t even any evidence their money is in Twitter as far as I can tell.
It feels weird knowing that user counts of Twitter by regions is like that[1], with content fractions occasionally mentioned to be even less generally palatable, and seeing nothing recognizably related to the second one on the list. Talk about free lunches...
129 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 185 ms ] threadWhy?
...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1].
Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law.
[1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpre...
It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
From the prospectus:
>Principal Investment Strategies
> [...]
> Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations.
Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case."
(If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
It’s “blue chip” but it’s also “growth”. Words which can mean anything depending on how they’re defined in the prospectus.
They have a piece of almost every pie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms
For example - DFJ (2010), the Al Saud family (2011), and Fidelity (2011).
In this case, these are minority investors restoring their ownership stake.
ETFs traded on exchanges and index funds is just very special setups. Which don't prevent other forms of funds that is essentially piles of money given out for them to manage often with limitations of pulling it out.
Edit: my Karma been flapping on this one (bot-monitor, and I'm on vacation).
Is the joke because of Puritanical ideals and Twitter don't get along?
Really, as others have said, Fidelity is in like everything. And, loads of big companies have all kinds of trusts. I don't see the perfect fit.
But if there is a joke I can share with my friends that work at Fidelity I'd like to know - more than just "haha bad investment"
I'm still convinced that Elon took a deal to deliberately burn twitter to the ground. I'm unsure how we'd prove it but his behaviour makes little sense otherwise.
He's doing his damndest (while self fellating himself on it) to destroy that non market-cap value.
Say somebody comes up to you and says hey, nice jacket. Would you like to sell it to me for $5,000? You bought the jacket for $500, and it was mass produced and you can just buy another one with that money. sounds like a great deal! But if I add that we're in Boston and it's winter and we're outside, miles from shelter, and it's snowing. Suddenly, sellling your winter coat is a way worse idea and not worth making $4,950.
Americans have long held this belief that prices are prices. If I buy a can of beans, it should be the same price if you buy the can of beans instead of me. But in reality, prices are totally made up. Hopefully the price of something is greater than it cost to make it, along with all the other expenses, so the business can remain open and continue, but businesses that go out of business have to sell their items at a loss. Which makes their inventory worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay, usually at a discount.
Sure, he wanted a better deal, but there's only one Twitter, and it's his (plus a bunch of investors and Fidelity). He didn't overpay for anything, he gets to run it how he wants, now that it's his.
ps. Alwaleed has also invested $400 million into xAI
Lately I've been thinking that the Chinese had a good point with their great firewall. The EU is already banning Russian media perhaps we should ad Americans to the list.
> Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-15 and Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent X Corp. as successor in interest to named Respondent Twitter, Inc., by and through its counsel, certifies that Twitter, Inc. has been merged into X Corp. and no longer exists. Respondent X Holdings Corp., as successor in interest to named Respondent X Holdings I, Inc., by and through its counsel, certifies that X Holdings I, Inc. has been merged into X Holdings Corp. and no longer exists. X Corp. is wholly owned by X Holdings Corp. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of X Corp.’s or X Holdings Corp.’s stock.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/2a00ce74-6d58-4f8e-...
Wait, what?!
Whether or not one appreciate cryptocurrencies, these companies are worth tens of billions. It's not a surprise that they invest in other companies.
There are a lot of people out there who can, say, go through all of your tax returns and make sure that every i was dotted and every t was crossed.
Own a business that needed government licensing? There are a lot of people that take action to hold up that process.
And on, and on, and on.
There are a million ways in a society as complex as ours that you can be targeted. I always say that our society has so many laws, regulations, and so on that there is no one who can claim to be law-abiding and have that claim hold up to three letter agency level scrutiny. Or even Halliburton corporate legal level scrutiny for that matter.
You ask for what they could be targeted? I think it was Cardinal Richelieu who wrote about needing only a small amount of work done by a supposed honest man, and in that corpus being able to find something for which that supposed honest man could be hung. It's been 400 years and our technologies are now so good that you probably don't even need a small amount.
Divide & Conquer: (1) Put list of your enemies names on a wall, making then more vulnerable. When they are unable to appear neutral or allied to someone else than your enemy again, they will become socially isolated. (2) Cause some reason why everyone should be scared of being an ally of your enemy. (3) Take down your enemy, knowing no one will come in defense of them.
Note that my first example does not refer to the assasinations of Russian oligarchs, and I only speak of targeting as a tactic of Divide & Conquer strategy.
I know it's an election year in the US so my experience is that there's more nonsense than normal in online spaces but it's surprising here.
Any post with musk as well.
And for some reason education posts?
Bait aside, nobody calls you homophobic for asking good faith questions about how the schools budget is spent. But it would be absurd to imply the 12 hours a year kids are taught about sexuality is somehow derailing the entire curriculum. When talking about revamping education, only people that have fully drank Kool aid would think "it's because all of that money is used to turn my kids gay".
Well, the reason, if I understand the critics' arguments correctly, is that compulsory public education was instituted a century ago (a) quickly, without serious policy discussion or any experimental evidence and (b) with the goal of solving a very specific social problem that existed a hundred years ago (poor families migrating en masse from the countryside to cities to work in the factory, and their bored young children wandering around city streets engaging in mischief while both parents were busy instead of learning useful skills like milking cows or reading the Bible, which would have been the case back in the countryside) - and it's not quite clear whether in today's social conditions it's still worth it.
What nice company to keep.
I see the dumb money also got a seat a the table.
People seems to like X. The far-left tries to make it looks like X is far-right but the truth is: anyone can use X, even the far left (and oh boy do they use it) and censorship there is now highly uncommon. Many accounts wrongfully closed have been reinstated.
Wasn't there numbers posted recently showing that X now has more active users than it used to?
It may or may not be profitable as a company, but the public certainly seems to still be using X.
For the right, censorship on twitter is uncommon. For the left it is common, especially if you dare criticize whats his face.
In the UK (and I'd assume many other countries), you can see the owners of private companies on the Companies House website[0], along with those with 'significant control' and financial statements. It's pretty interesting and useful to look at sometimes.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company
It adds a level of transparency that makes it easier if you're at the beginning of a relationship with a company (i.e. there may not be a large amount of trust at the start of the relationship; knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals).
> knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals
That makes no sense. Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense. Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.
Right, that's why that's not a thing. We're talking about limited liability companies, not people. They're separate entities.
> It may be very "useful" for me to know the business plans of my competitor, but gaining access to them is usually qualified as criminal. "Useful" is not something that authomatically gives access to private information just because somebody wants to.
The information available is very basic stuff – the company's registered address, its officers, its shareholders and how much they own, insolvency information, and yearly accounts.
My point in it being 'useful' is that it's useful to know who you're going into business with; a cursory look at the company's very basic information can help in that, before, for example, you sign a contract with them.
> Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense.
Sure, some companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities. A lot are owned by one or two or five people. Either way, it's useful to know who owns the company, and who owns more than others (i.e. controls more than others).
> Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about 'useful' to investors (which it definitely is). I'm talking about 'useful' to people doing business with that company. Knowing exactly who you're doing business with, and how financially secure the company is, is very useful. You don't want to go in to business with a company that's about to go under.
I know, but this still doesn't validate the logic "I am curious about it therefore I must be given rights to access any information I want".
> I'm talking about 'useful' to people doing business with that company.
This makes even less sense. Nobody checks the list of shareholders of Walmart each time they go to buy milk. And you definitely are not "doing business with" the investors - you're at most are doing business with the management and the line workers. Surely, for mom-and-pop shops those are the same people, but for any company of decent size, and for pretty much any startup company out there, you never "doing business with" the investors - they at most advise the management, but they do not actually run things.
> You don't want to go in to business with a company that's about to go under.
That has nothing to do with the list of investors. The same investors could invest in a wildly successful and completely failing businesses, at the same time, and knowing the list of investors gives you zero information about whether or not the company is about to go under.
More details:
https://x.com/HeatherBurgundy/status/1827303361106108789
> Petr Aven is a Russian billionaire, founder of Alfa Group, one of the main wallets for Putin. Aven is one of Putin's oldest friends. Putin would be in prison instead of becoming president without him. Aven covered for Vladimir Putin in 1992, when he organized an illegal trade in export licenses; he was also present at a meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022, in the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. He did not express any protest against "SVO" and supported Putin. By the way, he, together with Fridman, is trying to lift sanctions from himself, just yesterday he received another refusal in this matter. In the purchase of Twitter he is represented by the company "8VC Opportunities Fund II, LP", where his son Denis works.
> Vadim Moshkovich is a sanctioned Russian agricultural billionaire who was a member of the "Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation." In other words, he was officially part of Putin's inner circle. Moshkovich owns Russia's largest agricultural holding, Rusagro. Naturally, he was also present at the meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022, and, like Aven, did not express any protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In the purchase of Twitter he is represented by the company "8VC Opportunities Fund II, LP", where his son Jack (Eugene) works.
> Knowing all this, we now understand Elon Musk's bias. Everyone was wondering how it was possible that Twitter shares (X) were falling, advertisers were breaking contracts, and no one was doing anything. This was direct damage to investors. But everyone failed to take into account the fact that investors needed a platform to promote their narratives, such as: support for Putin and Russia; lobbying for freezing the war in Ukraine; removing the Ukrainian agenda from the top news etc.
They must be passive investors, as everybody else. Their ownership is unlikely to have any influence.
It also seems to be just a "status" investment. They are not getting much back, let alone a 1000% ROI.
1: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0840/8370/3830/articles/Nu...