Official Twitter Thread (1 Viewer)

[Joey Wright]

FInally back for me!

 

[Wingnut]

It's Back for me...for now anyway

 

[Joe Bryant]

Was up and down. Now back up.

Shows the power of how it drives so much NFL content.

 

[fatness]

It's Back for me...for now anyway

I was able to get to one link to one post, and since then it's down again for me.
https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/x

Thankfully there are so many other media sources.

 

[Riffraff]

Elon Musk sells X to his own xAI for $33 billion in all-stock deal​

 

[Max Power]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

 

[MTskibum]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

From a business perspective it is a win. But the total amount of the sale leads me to believe he is trying to spread twitter debt amongst more investors.

He sold it for more than it was valued for and the other investors of xai just have to suck it up. Or maybe they will try to IPO and meme stock it. Who knows.

edit: from my understanding the twitter debt could force a sell of musk's tesla stock if tesla's stock price goes too low. This is probably mostly to do with moving the debt around to prevent him from selling tesla stock.

Fidelity's stake in X is now worth about $4.19 million, an estimate that values X at $9.4 billion, according to recent disclosures from Fidelity. Fidelity's initial $19.6 million holding from before Musk purchased X in October 2022 has been reduced by nearly 79% as of the end of August, the company said.

Fidelity Values Elon Musk’s X At $9 Billion—Almost A Fifth Of What He Paid

Fidelity has repeatedly cut the value of its stake in the social media firm since Musk’s acquisition.

www.forbes.com

 

[Sparky Polastri]

He sold it for more than it was valued for and the other investors of xai just have to suck it up.

This is correct. He's in bad shape on his agreement with Tesla. Twitter is already full of AI content. Many would say that's what it is mostly. If they have 600M users, probably 1/3 of them are actually active and its anyone's guess as to how many of those are unique. The most logical reason for this action is necessity.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

It's terrible for xAI shareholders who just took on a ton of debt for a revenueless company whose best asset was that it had built a product with very little debt.

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

It's terrible for xAI shareholders who just took on a ton of debt for a revenueless company whose best asset was that it had built a product with very little debt.

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

Isn’t it pretty strange that their agreements allow this or is he just (once again) demonstrating his complete disregard for legal exposure?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

I don't own any xAI stock.

Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

 

[belljr]

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

I don't own any xAI stock.

Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

And that has zero to do with the new "acquisition"

 

[bigbottom]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

It's terrible for xAI shareholders who just took on a ton of debt for a revenueless company whose best asset was that it had built a product with very little debt.

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

Isn’t it pretty strange that their agreements allow this or is he just (once again) demonstrating his complete disregard for legal exposure?

Clearly a related party transaction, and a major conflict of interest if he as the controlling shareholder did so to the detriment of the minority shareholders without their consent. Whether it is ultimately to their detriment or was done without their consent I do not know.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Seems like a win win to me. Adding AI to a massive user base is probably great for both entities.

It's terrible for xAI shareholders who just took on a ton of debt for a revenueless company whose best asset was that it had built a product with very little debt.

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

Isn’t it pretty strange that their agreements allow this or is he just (once again) demonstrating his complete disregard for legal exposure?

Clearly a related party transaction, and a major conflict of interest if he as the controlling shareholder did so to the detriment of the minority shareholders without their consent. Whether it is ultimately to their detriment or was done without their consent I do not know.

25 years ago I remember a great discussion on my corporate law class about executive compensation. How Corp Boards police compensation and how the market will ensure executive performance and compensation will be tied thus shareholders are protected.

My experience since then has shattered that belief. Musk more than any other CEO in my lifetime has proven that they’re often little more than extremely over compensated figureheads and Boards have next to zero control over their performance and/or work commitments.

 

[rockaction]

Clearly a related party transaction, and a major conflict of interest if he as the controlling shareholder did so to the detriment of the minority shareholders without their consent. Whether it is ultimately to their detriment or was done without their consent I do not know.

I'm sure the federal government will investigate him right away and if they find wrongdoing they will punish him to the full extent that the law allows.

 

[massraider]

My experience since then has shattered that belief. Musk more than any other CEO in my lifetime has proven that they’re often little more than extremely over compensated figureheads and Boards have next to zero control over their performance and/or work commitments.

I will say that Musk has made money for his shareholders. No denying it.

Those valuations are laughable, but the market can stay irrational longer than a person can stay liquid, so even tho Tesla is wildly overvalued, you won't catch me shorting it.

As @MTskibum pointed out, Musk no longer needs to sell Tesla stock to pay off the massive debt from the Twitter purchase. That's the headline, full stop.

There's now 12 billion in debt added to xAi, a company that did what, 100 mill in revenue last year? That's some sweet action there. I wish my company could be valued at 120 years of revenue

Normally I would say that shareholders would be outraged, but true believers don't abandon ship. So I dunno if there's any losers here. So yeah, win win for everyone, I guess

 

[Sammy3469]

My experience since then has shattered that belief. Musk more than any other CEO in my lifetime has proven that they’re often little more than extremely over compensated figureheads and Boards have next to zero control over their performance and/or work commitments.

I will say that Musk has made money for his shareholders. No denying it.

Those valuations are laughable, but the market can stay irrational longer than a person can stay liquid, so even tho Tesla is wildly overvalued, you won't catch me shorting it.

As @MTskibum pointed out, Musk no longer needs to sell Tesla stock to pay off the massive debt from the Twitter purchase. That's the headline, full stop.

There's now 12 billion in debt added to xAi, a company that did what, 100 mill in revenue last year? That's some sweet action there. I wish my company could be valued at 120 years of revenue

Normally I would say that shareholders would be outraged, but true believers don't abandon ship. So I dunno if there's any losers here. So yeah, win win for everyone, I guess

I’m sure a lot of this is just financial engineering. What purposefully isn’t being disclosed is what the consideration can is paying X. It could be one of those deals where xAI is giving next to nothing and X has a large earnout (especially with the debt load). These non-public market deals can be structured in some pretty funky ways with preferred, common, warrants, and converts where 33 billion isn’t really much unless the combined company is worth say 250 billion (pick your number) at IPO

 

[fatness]

What purposefully isn’t being disclosed is what the consideration can is paying X. It could be one of those deals where xAI is giving next to nothing and X has a large earnout (especially with the debt load). These non-public market deals can be structured in some pretty funky ways with preferred, common, warrants, and converts where 33 billion isn’t really much unless the combined company is worth say 250 billion (pick your number) at IPO

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. It sounds like you're guessing here that that might be the case?

 

[Ilov80s]

What purposefully isn’t being disclosed is what the consideration can is paying X. It could be one of those deals where xAI is giving next to nothing and X has a large earnout (especially with the debt load). These non-public market deals can be structured in some pretty funky ways with preferred, common, warrants, and converts where 33 billion isn’t really much unless the combined company is worth say 250 billion (pick your number) at IPO

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. It sounds like you're guessing here that that might be the case?

It reads much more like he is speculating and being clear about it.

 

[Sammy3469]

What purposefully isn’t being disclosed is what the consideration can is paying X. It could be one of those deals where xAI is giving next to nothing and X has a large earnout (especially with the debt load). These non-public market deals can be structured in some pretty funky ways with preferred, common, warrants, and converts where 33 billion isn’t really much unless the combined company is worth say 250 billion (pick your number) at IPO

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. It sounds like you're guessing here that that might be the case?

Those were more possibilities. I think the only thing you can say for certain is xAI didn't pay X shareholders $33 billion in cash and probably didn't get $33 billion of equity securities from the latest round. After that, how they get to the $33 billion valuation for the consideration is basically smoke and mirrors in any scenario given that xAI and X are a private companies. My guess is there some combination of a current equity, new series equity (least likely in my mind), some convert/warrant that has $Y value today built on volatility and xAI IPO price (i.e. these could be worth nothing if xAI flounders), and some earn out where X shareholders get more shares based on X's performance.

I'd add that any of these consideration packages (even if its not truly $33 billion) have a ton of value for Musk and the other institutional X holders. If it is mostly warrants or earn outs into the next round, its a way for Musk to not get diluted as he's effectively prepaid his share of the new round with X.

 

[massraider]

I think the only thing you can say for certain is xAI didn't pay X shareholders $33 billion in cash and probably didn't get $33 billion of equity securities from the latest round

There was zero cash involved. All stock deal, and I am sure the xAI stock was based on the valuation from the last round of funding they did, where they valued themselves at 50 billion, or whatever it was.

It'll be a fine deal as longas xAI maintains that valuation. A coinflip at best

 

[massraider]

Matt Levine, Bloomberg on the deal:

Elon Musk said his xAI artificial intelligence startup has acquired the X platform, which he also controls, at a valuation of $33 billion, marking a surprise twist for the social network formerly known as Twitter.

“The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion,” the billionaire wrote Friday in a post on X. The value of X is $45 billion when including $12 billion of debt, he said, describing the purchase as an all-stock transaction.

The deal gives the new combined entity, called XAI Holdings, a value of more than $100 billion, not including the debt, according to a person familiar with the arrangement, who asked not to be identified because the terms weren’t public. Morgan Stanley was the sole banker on the deal, representing both sides, other people said.

For Musk, the deal streamlines his businesses and solidifies the relationship between the former Twitter and xAI, which has used information from the social network to hone its chatbot. The deal also offers a resolution to X’s other backers following months of uncertainty over the state of their investment as Musk’s changes led to an exodus of users and advertisers.

I mean!

1. This is the biggest mergers-and-acquisitions deal in the world so far in 2025, which has so far been a rough year for M&A.[1]
2. There is an obvious symbiosis between modern artificial intelligence companies, with their demand for real-world training data, and social media companies, with their consumer distribution and huge corpora of natural-language posts.[2] So we’ve seen social media companies striking licensing deals with AI companies, and of course Meta Platforms Inc. is building its own AI models. But this seems to be the first large-scale acquisition of a big social platform by a big AI competitor.[3] You could imagine it setting a precedent, launching a rush of acquisitions, being a valuation benchmark, that sort of thing.
3. Elon Musk is a famous guy who has done a lot of weird M&A stuff, and this is weird Elon Musk M&A stuff.

 

[massraider]

1. In particular, there is an obvious conflict of interest: Musk owns most of X, he owns most of xAI, there is a lot of overlap among the other shareholders, but the overlap is not total. There is surely some xAI shareholder who does not own any X, and some X shareholder who does not own any xAI.[4] If you are, say, an xAI shareholder who thinks that xAI is a promising world-changing company and X is a broken social media company, you might be aggrieved to see the company you own wasting $45 billion to bail out another company just because Musk owns it. You might be annoyed that Musk was on both sides of the deal, that he controls both companies, that he used the same bankers on both sides, that no one negotiated independently on behalf of xAI’s shareholders. (Or X’s. William Cohan asks: “Will Linda Yaccarino be the C.E.O. of the combined entity? Did she even know it was happening?”) You might draw parallels to the time when Tesla Inc. bought SolarCity Corp. and Tesla shareholders sued, objecting that Musk was using Tesla’s money to bail out his investment in SolarCity. They lost that lawsuit but at least they tried.
2. If you’re an X shareholder you are surely elated, but I suppose you are theoretically allowed to be aggrieved that your company took the first deal that Musk offered. What if X is really worth more than $45 billion? Cohan asks: “Did anyone know X was for sale? Was the company shopped around before deciding to sell out to xAI?” Absolutely not. Imagine!
3. Just as like an M&A mechanics matter, what exactly does it mean that Musk tweeted “xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction”? The deal signed? It closed? Often when two companies agree to a $45 billion merger, there is some delay between signing and closing. The typical main causes of delay — getting a target shareholder vote, lining up financing — are probably not relevant here, because (1) Musk controls the vote at both companies[5] and (2) it’s an all-stock deal so it doesn’t require any money.[6] Still you might expect some time between the announcement of the deal and closing. Big acquisitions normally have to wait for antitrust clearance from US and foreign regulators, for one thing.

But my heart isn’t in any of this. Nobody cares. Musk has absolute control of (1) xAI, (2) X and (3) US government regulators. If he wants to smush X and xAI together, no one will complain, and it doesn’t mean anything. Surely Musk isn’t required to file forms or get regulatory approvals anymore. He is not required to abide by merger best practices or zealously protect the interests of minority shareholders, in part because all his companies have left Delaware, but in larger part because none of the shareholders of his private companies complain about anything he does. If you are giving money to a private Musk venture, it’s because you trust Musk to make decisions, not because you care about corporate formalities.

 

[massraider]

X/xAI is the largest M&A deal so far in 2025 in the sense that it values X at, you know, 33/80 of the value of xAI, and Musk announced that xAI is worth $80 billion, and all of that is reasonably plausible though not clearly validated by arm’s-length transactions with economically motivated counterparties. xAI last raised money in December at a $51 billion valuation; it was reportedly looking to raise more at a $75 billion valuation last month. X raised money at a $33 billion equity valuation earlier this month, but (1) some of that money came from Musk and (2) I wonder if this deal was already in the works at the time? In hindsight, X’s funding round looks a little like it might have been designed to validate a merger price.

In any case, it’s barely an M&A deal? Two companies that were owned by the same person (and some slightly non-overlapping friends) and shared employees and data and revenue and, you know, a name, are now one company. They were informally one company before, and they are formally one company now, and no money changed hands. It feels like a silly technicality to call this a big M&A deal.

It is perhaps more interesting that they were ever separate. Elon Musk bought Twitter (and renamed it X) with a plan to do some AI to it. He then spun up a separate company called xAI, raising new money from investors to fund it but promising to give some of it to X. The companies were closely linked. Why start a new one? Why not just do the AI stuff within X?

I don’t know, but when Musk closed the Twitter deal, Twitter looked to be a bit of a shambles. He had just fought a lawsuit calling it a big fraud, advertisers were fleeing, he was getting rid of all the employees and his bankers were having a tough time selling the debt he used to finance it. It was possibly not the most auspicious vehicle for ambitious AI hiring and fundraising. Just start a new one, free of the Twitter baggage. Investors and employees wanted AI, so put AI right in the name. It is sort of remarkable that an AI startup that Musk spun out of the damaged husk of Twitter — two years ago! — has gotten big enough to come back and be the acquirer in the latest Musk reshuffling.

Those are, I suppose, the two critical elements of the Musk Mars Conglomerate:

1. Every new idea gets its own company: Each new Musk company can present a clean investment case to investors,[7] can incentivize employees with direct ownership of their work, and can give Musk full control and upside in the project.
2. Nothing is permanent, and if one of the companies succeeds while another one has some temporary struggles, the winner can subsidize — or buy — the loser.

 

[Ilov80s]

X/xAI is the largest M&A deal so far in 2025 in the sense that it values X at, you know, 33/80 of the value of xAI, and Musk announced that xAI is worth $80 billion, and all of that is reasonably plausible though not clearly validated by arm’s-length transactions with economically motivated counterparties. xAI last raised money in December at a $51 billion valuation; it was reportedly looking to raise more at a $75 billion valuation last month. X raised money at a $33 billion equity valuation earlier this month, but (1) some of that money came from Musk and (2) I wonder if this deal was already in the works at the time? In hindsight, X’s funding round looks a little like it might have been designed to validate a merger price.

In any case, it’s barely an M&A deal? Two companies that were owned by the same person (and some slightly non-overlapping friends) and shared employees and data and revenue and, you know, a name, are now one company. They were informally one company before, and they are formally one company now, and no money changed hands. It feels like a silly technicality to call this a big M&A deal.

It is perhaps more interesting that they were ever separate. Elon Musk bought Twitter (and renamed it X) with a plan to do some AI to it. He then spun up a separate company called xAI, raising new money from investors to fund it but promising to give some of it to X. The companies were closely linked. Why start a new one? Why not just do the AI stuff within X?

I don’t know, but when Musk closed the Twitter deal, Twitter looked to be a bit of a shambles. He had just fought a lawsuit calling it a big fraud, advertisers were fleeing, he was getting rid of all the employees and his bankers were having a tough time selling the debt he used to finance it. It was possibly not the most auspicious vehicle for ambitious AI hiring and fundraising. Just start a new one, free of the Twitter baggage. Investors and employees wanted AI, so put AI right in the name. It is sort of remarkable that an AI startup that Musk spun out of the damaged husk of Twitter — two years ago! — has gotten big enough to come back and be the acquirer in the latest Musk reshuffling.

Those are, I suppose, the two critical elements of the Musk Mars Conglomerate:

1. Every new idea gets its own company: Each new Musk company can present a clean investment case to investors,[7] can incentivize employees with direct ownership of their work, and can give Musk full control and upside in the project.
2. Nothing is permanent, and if one of the companies succeeds while another one has some temporary struggles, the winner can subsidize — or buy — the loser.

Sure sounds like a never ending scam because as far as I can tell none of his ventures have done anything to ever warrant the valuations they get. People and the government just keep throwing momey at him.

 

[rockaction]

People and the government just keep throwing momey at him.

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

It’s quite a story how Perot came to accumulate his wealth and pushed to be a major player in politics; a man who built the Reform party into a nationally-scaled party—so big and appealing to the politically-minded who were outside of the establishment that none other than our 47th President, one Donald J. Trump, was once a registered member and power broker within it.

 

[Ilov80s]

People and the government just keep throwing momey at him.

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

It’s quite a story how Perot came to accumulate his wealth and pushed to be a major player in politics; a man who built the Reform party into a nationally-scaled party—so big and appealing to the politically-minded who were outside of the establishment that none other than our 47th President, one Donald J. Trump, was once a registered member and power broker within it.

I hadn’t realized that about Perot, it is ironic and interesting. I am surprised so many people don’t see all the scams and constantly over promising Musk does. He said demand was off the charts for the new truck and a million people made reservations for them. Meanwhile they have actually sold less than 50,000.Stuff like this seems to happen over and over again with him and his companies. X certainly hasn’t become any of the things he said it would be when purchasing it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

I don't own any xAI stock.

Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

And that has zero to do with the new "acquisition"

Of course it does. This recent deal happened in the last 12 months.

 

[rockaction]

I hadn’t realized that about Perot, it is ironic and interesting.

Thanks. I wasn't aware how he made his money until I read John Ganz's excellent When the Clock Broke. I forget whether it was a formal audit or what it was but Ganz claimed (and sourced) how Perot made his money. It was all government contracts. The company was Electronic Data Systems, or EDS. This is long, but here's Ganz on how it got started:

"In 1964, Perot had to moonlight (in addition to owning EDS, a low-revenue, low-profit company) at the Texas Blue Cross and Blue Shield office that shared the same building as EDS. On July 30, 1965, as part of his Great Society expansion . . . Lyndon B. Johnson [created the government programs] Medicare and Medicaid. Suddenly fifty million Americans were entitled to government-supported health benefits. This would become a massive feat of administration . . . And there was Perot and EDS ready to help. Or ready to help themselves . . . In 1966, Texas Blue Shield signed a deal with EDS to obtain computer processing time for Medicare claims. The people at the Social Security Administration, not informed at the time, were alarmed when when they learned the details a year later; there was no competitive bidding and no record of any contract negotiations. There was no provision for the government to inspect EDS's books to ensure that no profiteering was going on. The SSA scrambled a team to go down to Texas to lecture Texas Blue Cross on conflict of issues and to check out EDS's books. Perot said he would show the books to the auditors, and then, when they arrived, he decided they couldn't see them . . . When the bureaucrats finally got to review the contract, they were horrified. Government analysts estimate that the cost of processing each claim was $0.36 and that a fair profit for a provider would be $0.55, a 50 percent gross margin. EDS charged $1.06 a claim, a 200 percent margin. EDS also appeared to be double-counting claims . . . [and] EDS was selling the program state by state at a considerable profit. Between 1966 and 1971 the federal government paid EDS $36 million. In 1971 alone, $20.2 million of the $23.2 million paid to Medicare subcontractors went to EDS. The company's profits went from an emaciated 1 percent to a chubby 40 percent . . . EDS's new windfall brought Wall Street calling . . . Ken Langone offered to underwrite the public offering of EDS at $16.50 a share, around 118 times earnings. The prospectus to investors didn't mention the company's reliance on Medicare and Medicaid or that federal auditors were sniffing around, even refusing to reimburse some claims. Perot placed only 650,000 of the 11.5 milion outstanding shares on the market; they climbed to $38 on operning day and reached $160 by the next year. Perot was a billionaire." Ganz 138-142, When The Clock Broke

He then goes on to explain how Perot insinuated himself into Nixon's campaign and picked up even more contracts along the way. He lost most of the value of the billion he had in EDS stock but Perot parlayed his connections with the U.S. government into $90 million worth of contracts with the Iranian government. By 1984, General Motors bought EDS for 2.5 billion dollars and later bought out the rest of Perot's shares to the tune of 750 million dollars. So Perot parlayed his company, almost solely based upon government contracts from state Medicaid and Medicare funds block granted by the federal government, to about 3.25 billion dollars by 1986. He later went on to found Perot Systems, which was acquired by Dell, Inc.

eta* Of course, we know about Perot's 1992 run for the presidency. The book I quoted from is a wildly brilliant book with a better story and neater tie-ups and tie-ins than most fiction books. It shows how Donald J. Trump rode a particular strain of conservative thought and praxis—a strain started by David Duke of Louisiana, Samuel Francis of the Washington Times, Murray Rothbard of the CATO and then Von Mises Institute, and Pat Buchanan of intellectual and punditry fame—that was derived from the sum of all of their platforms that they proffered in various ways and manifested in their 1991 and 1992 gubernatorial and presidential elections for later use by Trump, who eventually became the president of the United States as a Republican running on their platforms and with their social concerns and solutions in 2016.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

 

[Desert_Power]

I wasn't aware how he made his money until I John Ganz's excellent When the Clock Broke.

History does a little more than rhyme sometimes. Thanks for sharing.

 

[rockaction]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

Posted right upthread. From a book I read this summer. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party was cut short before he could see it through. It lasted from September of 1999 through February 14, 2000, when he withdrew and was subsequently barred by the party from running in 2004.

There’s a great Wikipedia page on it.

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joe Bryant]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

Posted right upthread. From a book I read this summer. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party was cut short before he could see it through. It lasted from September of 1999 through February 14, when he withdrew and was subsequently barred by the party from running in 2004.

There’s a great Wikipedia page on it.

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. Saw it was from a book. Was looking for a link. Thanks for the Wikipedia page.

Quick google for me found:

Perot built fortune on government contracts

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune...

www.tampabay.com

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune, into the largest data processing company in the world.

While that tale is largely true, it contains another element that Perot and his business associates do not always mention: The spectacular financial success of the would-be presidential candidate, who presents himself as a Washington outsider and a private-sector entrepreneur, began in the mid-1960s with the help of lucrative contracts to administer the government's medical insurance program for the elderly.

In addition, questions were raised then about these contracts that belie the image Perot likes to promote of himself as a businessman who "plays in the middle of the field."

An investigation by a congressional subcommittee in the early 1970s, for example, explored questions about his conduct in securing the contracts for his fledgling company, which he has since sold to General Motors Corp. The committee's investigation did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong.

Among the questions raised by the Social Security Administration _ and later dropped _ were whether Perot might have overcharged the federal government for processing Medicare claims, which were then administered by Social Security, and whether he ignored federal requirements that he provide full access to his books for government examiners who were trying to determine if his charges were reasonable.

The panel also looked into accusations that Perot used federal money to develop the system to process Medicare claims electronically and then refused, despite the objections of Social Security officials, to let the government own the system and use it elsewhere.

These questions had been the basis of a sharp dispute between Perot and the Social Security Administration during the final years of the Johnson administration. But after President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, the dispute was settled in favor of Perot, who had ties to the Nixon administration.

Although congressional investigators and critics of the contracts did not suggest that Perot broke any laws, they did say he was overly secretive, skirted federal rules and engaged in what could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

Now certainly, just because a congressional subcommittee did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong, doesn't mean he absolutely did nothing wrong. But was wondering about it.

 

[rockaction]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

Posted right upthread. From a book I read this summer. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party was cut short before he could see it through. It lasted from September of 1999 through February 14, when he withdrew and was subsequently barred by the party from running in 2004.

There’s a great Wikipedia page on it.

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. Saw it was from a book. Was looking for a link.

Quick google for me found:

Perot built fortune on government contracts

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune...

www.tampabay.com

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune, into the largest data processing company in the world.

While that tale is largely true, it contains another element that Perot and his business associates do not always mention: The spectacular financial success of the would-be presidential candidate, who presents himself as a Washington outsider and a private-sector entrepreneur, began in the mid-1960s with the help of lucrative contracts to administer the government's medical insurance program for the elderly.

In addition, questions were raised then about these contracts that belie the image Perot likes to promote of himself as a businessman who "plays in the middle of the field."

An investigation by a congressional subcommittee in the early 1970s, for example, explored questions about his conduct in securing the contracts for his fledgling company, which he has since sold to General Motors Corp. The committee's investigation did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong.

Among the questions raised by the Social Security Administration _ and later dropped _ were whether Perot might have overcharged the federal government for processing Medicare claims, which were then administered by Social Security, and whether he ignored federal requirements that he provide full access to his books for government examiners who were trying to determine if his charges were reasonable.

The panel also looked into accusations that Perot used federal money to develop the system to process Medicare claims electronically and then refused, despite the objections of Social Security officials, to let the government own the system and use it elsewhere.

These questions had been the basis of a sharp dispute between Perot and the Social Security Administration during the final years of the Johnson administration. But after President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, the dispute was settled in favor of Perot, who had ties to the Nixon administration.

Although congressional investigators and critics of the contracts did not suggest that Perot broke any laws, they did say he was overly secretive, skirted federal rules and engaged in what could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

Now certainly, just because a congressional subcommittee did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong, doesn't mean he absolutely did nothing wrong. But was wondering about it.

I didn't even know a subcommittee had investigated his dealings with the government. The book didn't see fit to bring that up. There's all sorts of Perot malfeasance in the book, and he is not portrayed in a sympathetic light whatsoever. I don't know, I mainly talked about it because it's interesting how Elon Musk is himself dependent to an extent on government contracts and that he's mind-bogglingly billionaired from contracts, credits, and market interventions.

It's almost a bit of history repeating, only what Perot was to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush with the POW issue and the quest to bring home missing soldiers being held in Vietnam (Ganz and others insist there weren't many, if any, soldiers being held, and the stories he tells about Perot are just so gobsmacking you'd think they were made up) so Musk is to Trump and Trump's quest to not only promote efficiency in government, but almost as importantly, find fraudulent uses of taxpayer money that Trump will then immediately stop, firing or prosecuting those responsible.

And we come full circle back to Twitter because Twitter today is all abuzz about the accusations made by Elon Musk that illegal migrants were getting social security numbers and benefits with those numbers under the Biden administration. The right is taking it at face value and are calling for arrests and prosecutions that they've been calling for now for quite a while—and their patience is wearing thin with government officials and the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the centrists and moderates, the center-left, and the left want proof that this sort of thing was actually going on because they don't trust unverified and unsubstantiated claims made by Musk—their trust level in him is low, so to speak.

It's a doozy out there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

Posted right upthread. From a book I read this summer. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party was cut short before he could see it through. It lasted from September of 1999 through February 14, when he withdrew and was subsequently barred by the party from running in 2004.

There’s a great Wikipedia page on it.

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. Saw it was from a book. Was looking for a link.

Quick google for me found:

Perot built fortune on government contracts

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune...

www.tampabay.com

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune, into the largest data processing company in the world.

While that tale is largely true, it contains another element that Perot and his business associates do not always mention: The spectacular financial success of the would-be presidential candidate, who presents himself as a Washington outsider and a private-sector entrepreneur, began in the mid-1960s with the help of lucrative contracts to administer the government's medical insurance program for the elderly.

In addition, questions were raised then about these contracts that belie the image Perot likes to promote of himself as a businessman who "plays in the middle of the field."

An investigation by a congressional subcommittee in the early 1970s, for example, explored questions about his conduct in securing the contracts for his fledgling company, which he has since sold to General Motors Corp. The committee's investigation did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong.

Among the questions raised by the Social Security Administration _ and later dropped _ were whether Perot might have overcharged the federal government for processing Medicare claims, which were then administered by Social Security, and whether he ignored federal requirements that he provide full access to his books for government examiners who were trying to determine if his charges were reasonable.

The panel also looked into accusations that Perot used federal money to develop the system to process Medicare claims electronically and then refused, despite the objections of Social Security officials, to let the government own the system and use it elsewhere.

These questions had been the basis of a sharp dispute between Perot and the Social Security Administration during the final years of the Johnson administration. But after President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, the dispute was settled in favor of Perot, who had ties to the Nixon administration.

Although congressional investigators and critics of the contracts did not suggest that Perot broke any laws, they did say he was overly secretive, skirted federal rules and engaged in what could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

Now certainly, just because a congressional subcommittee did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong, doesn't mean he absolutely did nothing wrong. But was wondering about it.

I didn't even know a subcommittee had investigated his dealings with the government. The book didn't see fit to bring that up. There's all sorts of Perot malfeasance in the book, and he is not portrayed in a sympathetic light whatsoever. I don't know, I mainly talked about it because it's interesting how Elon Musk is himself dependent to an extent on government contracts and that he's mind-bogglingly billionaired from contracts, credits, and market interventions.

It's almost a bit of history repeating, only what Perot was to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush with the POW issue and the quest to bring home missing soldiers being held in Vietnam (Ganz and others insist there weren't many, if any, soldiers being held, and the stories he tells about Perot are just so gobsmacking you'd think they were made up) so Musk is to Trump and Trump's quest to not only promote efficiency in government, but almost as importantly, find fraudulent uses of taxpayer money that Trump will then stop immediately and fire or prosecute those responsible.

And we come full circle back to Twitter because Twitter today is all abuzz about the accusations made by Elon Musk that illegal migrants were getting social security numbers and benefits with those numbers under the Biden administration. The right is taking it at face value and are calling for arrests and prosecutions that they've been calling for now for quite a while—and their patience is wearing thin with government officials and the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the centrists and moderates, the center-left, and the left want proof that this sort of thing was actually going on because they don't trust unverified and unsubstantiated claims made by Musk—their trust level in him is low, so to speak.

It's a doozy out there.

Thanks.

And please let us stop the political angle of it there. This thread may not be able to survive. But I'd like to try for a bit longer.

 

[rockaction]

There’s such an obvious irony there. Do you know how the budget-balancing warrior and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot made his money? No-bid contracts with the government where he charged them twice for each unit of service he provided them. This went on for five-ten years before anybody realized it. He was then filthy rich by the time an agency ran an audit and figured it out.

Thank you. I did not know this. Do you have a link?

Posted right upthread. From a book I read this summer. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party was cut short before he could see it through. It lasted from September of 1999 through February 14, when he withdrew and was subsequently barred by the party from running in 2004.

There’s a great Wikipedia page on it.

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. Saw it was from a book. Was looking for a link.

Quick google for me found:

Perot built fortune on government contracts

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune...

www.tampabay.com

In the popular folklore that surrounds him, Ross Perot started his company, Electronic Data Systems Corp., in 1962 with a $1,000 check and built it, through grit, determination and good fortune, into the largest data processing company in the world.

While that tale is largely true, it contains another element that Perot and his business associates do not always mention: The spectacular financial success of the would-be presidential candidate, who presents himself as a Washington outsider and a private-sector entrepreneur, began in the mid-1960s with the help of lucrative contracts to administer the government's medical insurance program for the elderly.

In addition, questions were raised then about these contracts that belie the image Perot likes to promote of himself as a businessman who "plays in the middle of the field."

An investigation by a congressional subcommittee in the early 1970s, for example, explored questions about his conduct in securing the contracts for his fledgling company, which he has since sold to General Motors Corp. The committee's investigation did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong.

Among the questions raised by the Social Security Administration _ and later dropped _ were whether Perot might have overcharged the federal government for processing Medicare claims, which were then administered by Social Security, and whether he ignored federal requirements that he provide full access to his books for government examiners who were trying to determine if his charges were reasonable.

The panel also looked into accusations that Perot used federal money to develop the system to process Medicare claims electronically and then refused, despite the objections of Social Security officials, to let the government own the system and use it elsewhere.

These questions had been the basis of a sharp dispute between Perot and the Social Security Administration during the final years of the Johnson administration. But after President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, the dispute was settled in favor of Perot, who had ties to the Nixon administration.

Although congressional investigators and critics of the contracts did not suggest that Perot broke any laws, they did say he was overly secretive, skirted federal rules and engaged in what could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

Now certainly, just because a congressional subcommittee did not find that Perot or his company did anything wrong, doesn't mean he absolutely did nothing wrong. But was wondering about it.

I didn't even know a subcommittee had investigated his dealings with the government. The book didn't see fit to bring that up. There's all sorts of Perot malfeasance in the book, and he is not portrayed in a sympathetic light whatsoever. I don't know, I mainly talked about it because it's interesting how Elon Musk is himself dependent to an extent on government contracts and that he's mind-bogglingly billionaired from contracts, credits, and market interventions.

It's almost a bit of history repeating, only what Perot was to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush with the POW issue and the quest to bring home missing soldiers being held in Vietnam (Ganz and others insist there weren't many, if any, soldiers being held, and the stories he tells about Perot are just so gobsmacking you'd think they were made up) so Musk is to Trump and Trump's quest to not only promote efficiency in government, but almost as importantly, find fraudulent uses of taxpayer money that Trump will then stop immediately and fire or prosecute those responsible.

And we come full circle back to Twitter because Twitter today is all abuzz about the accusations made by Elon Musk that illegal migrants were getting social security numbers and benefits with those numbers under the Biden administration. The right is taking it at face value and are calling for arrests and prosecutions that they've been calling for now for quite a while—and their patience is wearing thin with government officials and the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the centrists and moderates, the center-left, and the left want proof that this sort of thing was actually going on because they don't trust unverified and unsubstantiated claims made by Musk—their trust level in him is low, so to speak.

It's a doozy out there.

Thanks.

And please let us stop the political angle of it there. This thread may not be able to survive. But I'd like to try for a bit longer.

Sure thing about the politics. That last bit was me trying to stop talking about the government and government contracts aspect of it and get it back to Twitter by using a segue. That’s all that was.

 

[Mitchie]

Well, terrible for xAI shareholders except one. I'll let you guess which one.

I don't own any xAI stock.

Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

And that has zero to do with the new "acquisition"

Of course it does. This recent deal happened in the last 12 months.

Musk essentially sold Twitter to himself, this was mainly for accounting purposes, he can take take a tax write off on the loss, the valuation of xAI was not important.

 

[Joe Bryant]

the valuation of xAI was not important.

I think xAI shareholders might beg to differ.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Someone has to help me connect the dots on why this valuation matters in relation to the two companies. xAI acquired twitter. Both are/were held under the entity X.AI Holdings Corp.

 

[Nugget]

the valuation of xAI was not important.

I think xAI shareholders might beg to differ.

I'd imagine their stockholders could be frustrated depending on what their percieved value of X is. There was similar sentiment when Tesla swallowed Solar City, but those companies were public. It is Musk moving money from his left pocket to his right pocket to restructure his debt. No shareholder will complain as there is no beneift. The SEC isn't going to investigate.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's an interesting turn in how platforms are views. Recently read a blurb by Paul Williams Harmon talking about data-rich platforms will be valued as AI training assets. Not just for ad revenue.

Will be interesting.

 

[Mitchie]

the valuation of xAI was not important.

I think xAI shareholders might beg to differ.

I guess I'm not quite following. The initial comment was that the sale of Twitter was not good for the xAI shareholders. I was replying that the valuation of xAI was not an important part of the deal. I'm not sure what the increase of the valuation of xAI over the last 12 months has to do with those discussion points.

 

[Joe Bryant]

the valuation of xAI was not important.

I think xAI shareholders might beg to differ.

I guess I'm not quite following. The initial comment was that the sale of Twitter was not good for the xAI shareholders. I was replying that the valuation of xAI was not an important part of the deal. I'm not sure what the increase of the valuation of xAI over the last 12 months has to do with those discussion points.

I asked the question, "Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?"

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

I'm sure not everyone sees it the same way, but I think an increase or decrease in valuation affects how happy some investors are.

 

[Mitchie]

the valuation of xAI was not important.

I think xAI shareholders might beg to differ.

I guess I'm not quite following. The initial comment was that the sale of Twitter was not good for the xAI shareholders. I was replying that the valuation of xAI was not an important part of the deal. I'm not sure what the increase of the valuation of xAI over the last 12 months has to do with those discussion points.

I asked the question, "Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?"

The valuation of the company was 40 billion on December last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-40-billion-after-6-billion-funding-round/

I'm sure not everyone sees it the same way, but I think an increase or decrease in valuation affects how happy some investors are.

Ok fair enough, I think we may be discussing different things, I'm sure the investors of xAI are very happy over their return over the last 12 months but that's a different discussion from the impact of the acquisition of X.

 

[TennesseeJed]

I'm sure not everyone sees it the same way, but I think an increase or decrease in valuation affects how happy some investors are.

These are institutional investors who probably don’t consider the current valuation, and have no way to directly monetize said investment (I.e. there is no market to sell these shares, nor to validate any arbitrary valuation Musk places on the company.)

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm sure not everyone sees it the same way, but I think an increase or decrease in valuation affects how happy some investors are.

These are institutional investors who probably don’t consider the current valuation, and have no way to directly monetize said investment (I.e. there is no market to sell these shares, nor to validate any arbitrary valuation Musk places on the company.)

Thanks. I think some investors do consider the valuation.

 

[bigbottom]

Speaking theoretically, as a minority investor, I can be extremely happy with historical investment growth, and still extremely unhappy with a self-dealing transaction by the majority investor that harms the minority investors. Not saying that is what happened here, but it seems possible.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Speaking theoretically, as a minority investor, I can be extremely happy with historical investment growth, and still extremely unhappy with a self-dealing transaction by the majority investor that harms the minority investors. Not saying that is what happened here, but it seems possible.

Of course. Both will factor in the question I asked, "Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?"

 

[Nugget]

Speaking theoretically, as a minority investor, I can be extremely happy with historical investment growth, and still extremely unhappy with a self-dealing transaction by the majority investor that harms the minority investors. Not saying that is what happened here, but it seems possible.

I think this is the likely case for many. If I had 10% of an AI company, and now I have 5% of an AI company and Twitter, I'd be pissed.

 

[Dezbelief]

Speaking theoretically, as a minority investor, I can be extremely happy with historical investment growth, and still extremely unhappy with a self-dealing transaction by the majority investor that harms the minority investors. Not saying that is what happened here, but it seems possible.

Of course. Both will factor in the question I asked, "Do you think xAI shareholders are unhappy with the last 12 months?"

They are now.