this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
706 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

59572 readers
3219 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
706
Musk's new idea (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by BlackRose@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anlumo@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, the reason it’s not going to break him is that Twitter took on the loan, not himself.

[–] valkyre09@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

Yes

I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Not the same, a house can't be a legal person, the owner is the legal person of the house. The money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. To do the same with a house, you need to do it through a company.

That is possible because companies can have limited financial responsibility, meaning the money they owe are not owed by their owners.

It's a pretty nifty arrangement, to help the rich stay rich no matter what happens.

Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

We are stupid for not being rich enough, and still allowing the rich unfair advantages.

[–] zaph@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

There's a type of insurance for everything.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Only if it was destroyed intentionally.

Of course, it could be argued that Musk is destroying Twitter intentionally, but that's for a court to decide.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's what bankruptcy is for. Twitter files bankruptcy, and they can officially tell the banks to stuff it.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not quite. The the $33 Billion of equity Elon Musk put up junior to the $13 Billion loan.

That means that if the company starts at $44 Billion then falls to $15 Billion, then Twitter still owes $13 Billion, but Elon Musk only has $2 Billion now.

Leveraged buyouts are... well... levered. It grossly increases the risk of losing everything.