Ugh… it drives me nuts!
Musk had to borrow around $13 billion for his doomed $44 billion acquisition.
Had he spent that
$57$44 billion on developing space hardware instead of going insane and squandering it on social media bullshit, he might have done something worthwhile. I mean… fifty seven billion! What even is that much money? He could have had his own space station for that much money! He could fly up there for weekends, just for funzies.That $13 billion is part of the $44 billion, you don’t add them together.
He spent $31 billion of his own capital, and borrowed $13 billion to cover the rest.
Oh great, I added all the numbers in your comment together and now it’s $101 billion?? When will this madness end???
This a beautiful story. Bankers get shafted lending money to apex capitalist.
🤌
No one has ever explained how bankers are losing. They say they’ve lost money. Yet the only details are Musk has to make payments and put up Tesla stock as collateral. That a no lose for the banks. They don’t care if Tesla stock crashes, they are making money from selling it.
It’s because when banks make loans, they sell of the debt, but nobody has wanted to buy the debt for Musk’s loans. My understanding of this is essentially, if someone takes out a loan of $100 million, the bank will sell that debt to an investor for $101 million, and the investor will make back $102 million once the loan is paid off due to interest. But no investors are confident enough that Musk will pay back his loan so no one is ponying up the dough to buy it.
If Tesla’s stock crashes, then the value the banks could get from selling it is much lower.
If Twitter and Tesla go bankrupt, the banks will have loaned out billions to own something worthless.
At least I would assume that’s how it works.
Careful there, bud, you’re singing the siren song of bank bailouts.
The proletariat is still sore about the ones in 2008. They revealed plan the stratified economic system.
The bankruptcy scenario is correct but the first part isn’t: you don’t have X shares as collateral that you can liquidate. Instead, you have collateral to cover sum Y.
As long as the collateral contract covers enough stock positions the bank won’t lose.
That said all of this is assuming standard contracts. If y bank wrote “0% interest and instead 50% of the revenue growth of Twitter” then this would be an easy way to lose money.
Haven’t heard of a stupid banker yet, though, so what would the chances be?
I mean, the 2008 housing market was done by greedy and stupid bankers.
Ah! Thank you for the explanation
I remember reading that the banks who loaned him the money haven’t been able to sell off the debt.
please just put the interesting part in the title.
But then there would be no title.
explain exactly what you mean.
The fact that this tweet caused their stock price to dive really shows what a joke the stock market is .
