Speaker 1: We start with the disclaimer. This episode of Bloomberg Technology
Speaker 1: was taped just as the news broke that Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is terminating his deal to buy Twitter. From the heart
Speaker 1: of where Innovation, money and power CALLI in Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with Emily Jay. I'm
Speaker 1: Caroline Hyde in New York. I'm in for a many
Speaker 1: chang and this has Beenenberg Technology. Coming up over the
Speaker 1: next hour, Elon Musk's escalating battle with Twitter, the fully
Speaker 1: four million on a takeover offer, possibly in Jeopanese plus TSMC,
Speaker 1: the world's watches contract chipmaker, reported better than expected Courtney revenue,
Speaker 1: signaling that electronics demand is holding up better than investors feared.
Speaker 1: And we look at today's jobs report, the US number,
Speaker 1: and how the tech sector is faring out in the numbers.
Speaker 1: It's especially with many companies laying off employee. We had
Speaker 1: to that in but a moment, befess, let's got to
Speaker 1: check on these markets. And guys, Katie greyfa with quite
Speaker 1: a run for the mastack, quite a run, kind of
Speaker 1: a muted end to what had been you know, a
Speaker 1: week of games. You look at the SP five hundred
Speaker 1: ending down just a hair about a tenth of percent.
Speaker 1: Tech of course fared better than AZZAC one hundred, gaining
Speaker 1: about a tenth of percent. Your big outperformer was the
Speaker 1: chip stocks. You have the Philadelphia Semiconductor's Index posting a
Speaker 1: half a percent gain even with two year yields rising
Speaker 1: almost nine basis points, just on the nose after that
Speaker 1: blockbuster jobs report. We got this moment, but let's stay
Speaker 1: on the chip because they were the outperformer today, outperformer
Speaker 1: on the week. If you look at the past four
Speaker 1: days for the socks index, up six and a half percent.
Speaker 1: Most of those games came yesterday. You had Samsung come
Speaker 1: out report a bigger than expected jump in revenue. That's
Speaker 1: sort of changed the mute mood music for the space
Speaker 1: in a really good way. And as you can see,
Speaker 1: closing out with some really solid gains for an inte
Speaker 1: that has been struggling. And speaking of solid games, let's
Speaker 1: end on Bitcoin just for you, Caroline, and had a
Speaker 1: pretty good week, best week actually since October. But if
Speaker 1: you look year to date, as you can see, barely
Speaker 1: made a dent. Bitcoin still down over fifty two percent,
Speaker 1: close to fifty year to date, and as you look
Speaker 1: at this, you can see that the line went up
Speaker 1: a little bit, but again barely a scratch for what's
Speaker 1: been a really bad year for bitcoin. That has been Katie,
Speaker 1: we thank you, and we've kind of been bracing ourselves
Speaker 1: for pretty bad job support as well. If you look
Speaker 1: at the anecdotal evidence coming from some of the tech
Speaker 1: firms at least, but actually US employee has added way
Speaker 1: more jobs in June than forecast, and the unemployment rate
Speaker 1: held near a five decade low, signs of both strong
Speaker 1: demand tight labor market that will keep the federal officials
Speaker 1: pretty much tilted towards another interest rate height to the
Speaker 1: tune of fifty or seventy five basis points. Jane's our
Speaker 1: class door drives us now to discuss the current labor
Speaker 1: market and Dania. Before we dig deep into the nuances
Speaker 1: particularly affecting the tech sector, let's talk about broad rush
Speaker 1: three two thousand jobs at it. It was good. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a job market that fundamentally remains healthy. We're
Speaker 1: seeing strong job gains and even though there is rain
Speaker 1: on the forecast, we still see that skies are clear
Speaker 1: for the labor market. Where did we see any weakness
Speaker 1: of a tool? My eyes trained for example, into the
Speaker 1: participation levels that was a blemish in the report. We
Speaker 1: did see labor force participation rate comeback a little bit,
Speaker 1: and that was in large part driven by a decrease
Speaker 1: for black workers. However, I think that we shouldn't put
Speaker 1: too much stock into one month changes, and I do
Speaker 1: think that as long as the job market continues to
Speaker 1: remain tight, then we should see that labor force participation
Speaker 1: rate continue to trend upwards like it's been doing over
Speaker 1: the last year. And what keeps it tight there for
Speaker 1: Daniel for the meantime, well, we still see that employer
Speaker 1: demand is extremely high. There over eleven million job openings,
Speaker 1: almost still two job openings for unemployed worker, and so
Speaker 1: as long as that relations ship holds, than we should
Speaker 1: continue to see more workers being drawn in from off
Speaker 1: the sidelines. And yeah, I have to say to that end,
Speaker 1: I was confused when you look at the amount of
Speaker 1: women in the workforce is still well below where it
Speaker 1: was pre pandemic. As you say, black workers, Asian workers
Speaker 1: in particular, men not participating in the levels that they
Speaker 1: were previously. Is it childcare that's the issue. Is it
Speaker 1: lack of good pay benefits? What is it that's holding
Speaker 1: people back. Do you think there definitely are some pandemic
Speaker 1: related factors, So when we look at childcare and elder care,
Speaker 1: which I think is especially important to keep in mind
Speaker 1: given the context of one COVID, UH, those care factors
Speaker 1: are definitely something that are still holding people out of
Speaker 1: the economy. COVID itself is still of course going on,
Speaker 1: and that that does prevent some workers from fully engaging.
Speaker 1: But I think it's also important to remember just structurally
Speaker 1: that because of retirement, because of the aging population, we
Speaker 1: should naturally expect the way before participation rate to come
Speaker 1: down a little bit um And on top of that,
Speaker 1: we also have other factors like immigration, which has been
Speaker 1: particularly low over the last few years, holding down some
Speaker 1: potential lay before it stains. Daniel. I'm interested in therefore
Speaker 1: going sector by sector because what we do continue to
Speaker 1: see is kind of a shifting of where we've been spending.
Speaker 1: We all want to go and have experiences, we want
Speaker 1: to go out, we want to eat. We don't want
Speaker 1: to be buying things in quite the degree that we
Speaker 1: were before. Now you're seeing that born out in terms
Speaker 1: of labor still well. I actually, I think what's really
Speaker 1: interesting about today's report was that we saw a very
Speaker 1: broad based job gains. So even though there are concerns
Speaker 1: that consumer spending is rotating away from goods back to services,
Speaker 1: we actually saw healthy job gains in retail around about
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand jobs added after a job bosses last month,
Speaker 1: and so that's still an area of strength where we
Speaker 1: are still seeing job gains despite some of these anecdotes
Speaker 1: that we've been hearing from companies from earning calls of
Speaker 1: weakness and retail center. Well, I mean, let's talk about
Speaker 1: some of the anecdotal evidence, because it's not just been
Speaker 1: in retail, it's been in real estate, particularly technology driven
Speaker 1: real estate. We've seen the likes of Game Stop saying
Speaker 1: that the letting go of workers. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: these are very tiny pools of labor. But then you
Speaker 1: have a headline that comes from the information that says
Speaker 1: Oracle is discussing laying off thousands of workers as they
Speaker 1: look to cut you know, about a billion dollars in
Speaker 1: terms of costs. Are we going to brace ourselves for that?
Speaker 1: Daniel Well, I think today's jobs report is actually a
Speaker 1: little bit of a surprise because we actually saw information
Speaker 1: at twenty five thousand jobs, which was well above what
Speaker 1: you might expect given we've heard all these anecdotes, these
Speaker 1: prominent anecdotes of the layoffs, and I think what we
Speaker 1: might be seeing is that yes, there are prominent laoffs,
Speaker 1: but they might not be widespread quite yet, or at
Speaker 1: the very least many workers who are being laid off
Speaker 1: are able to get up back on their feet pretty
Speaker 1: quickly and find other roles. Certainly, what we've been hearing
Speaker 1: anecdotally is that maybe candidates have two job offers as
Speaker 1: opposed to five job offers on the table. But the
Speaker 1: fact is is that they are still finding jobs, they
Speaker 1: are still being hired, and what about the wages that
Speaker 1: they're seeking, Daniel, I mean, what was interesting is probably
Speaker 1: music to the federal reserves here is the wage inflation
Speaker 1: is actually being pretty suppressed. At the moment. Wage inflation
Speaker 1: is slowing, and I think that that is a result
Speaker 1: of the slowing labor market overall, because in that example
Speaker 1: I gave, if somebody has five job offers on the table,
Speaker 1: then certainly they have a lot more leverage than somebody
Speaker 1: who only has two or somebody who only has one.
Speaker 1: In all of those cases, that person is probably getting
Speaker 1: a new job, but their wage growth potential is very
Speaker 1: different in eutra of those scenarios. Daniel Chow, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. From Glastore. Of course, senior economists, they're talking
Speaker 1: all about some of them numbers and nuances in the numbers,
Speaker 1: particularly around the tech sector. We thank him. We start
Speaker 1: with the disclaimer. This episode of Bloomberg Technology was taped
Speaker 1: just as the news broke that Elon Musk is terminating
Speaker 1: his deal to buy Twitter. Well, let's check in on
Speaker 1: where the big deal is or isn't going. Of course,
Speaker 1: we're talking about elo Musk's escalating battle of the boats
Speaker 1: with Twitter. It's possibly threatened to walk away from that
Speaker 1: forty four billion dollar takeover. Offers Kurt Wagner, as always,
Speaker 1: is all over the story and he joins us, now,
Speaker 1: so I mean, is it about bots? I don't think
Speaker 1: it's actually about bots. I think, as we've been talking
Speaker 1: for a couple of weeks now, Caroline, I think this
Speaker 1: is probably about Ellen's hope of renegotiating this deal. Right,
Speaker 1: the market has changed dramatically since he agreed to buy
Speaker 1: Twitter for fifty four dollars and twenty cents per chair
Speaker 1: in late April. I imagine if he had waited even
Speaker 1: just a month, he probably could have gotten a company
Speaker 1: for a much lower price. And I get the sense
Speaker 1: that he's using this bod issue to try and you know,
Speaker 1: force a change there. Thus far, Twitter has said again
Speaker 1: and again we are holding him accountable for the price
Speaker 1: originally talked of. But realistically this is heading for the courts,
Speaker 1: right if if indeed he does walk away. It feels
Speaker 1: that way because as you point out, Twitter really, I
Speaker 1: guess has control here in the sense that he has
Speaker 1: agreed to buy the company for this price, right he
Speaker 1: cannot simply walk a way without some type of illegal
Speaker 1: battle on Twitter seems to be saying that they're willing
Speaker 1: to do that. Now. I don't know how beneficial that
Speaker 1: is to Twitter to go spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: and money fighting him in port. Maybe they would, you know,
Speaker 1: come to some type of settlement or agreement to lower
Speaker 1: the price without having to get there. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's in Twitter's best interest here to get the best
Speaker 1: deal for the company. And right now, that's fifty four
Speaker 1: dollars and twenty cents to share that he offered back
Speaker 1: in April. Suddenly and overall, do you think at some
Speaker 1: valley we're inspecting in a mosque to arrive. Of course
Speaker 1: Alan and Co is advising we understand on the deal.
Speaker 1: So I mean this sort of the debate is going
Speaker 1: to come up. It's going to be lifted at some point, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The question is he going to be um sharing any
Speaker 1: new information? And I think he last kind of spoke
Speaker 1: publicly at the towards the end of June maybe June,
Speaker 1: and he really just kind of said stuff that he'd
Speaker 1: already been saying before. And then there was a report
Speaker 1: yesterday he probably saw from the Washington Post that that
Speaker 1: he's unhappy still with these bought figures and what Twitter
Speaker 1: is putting out on the boat front. So it may
Speaker 1: just be re reiterating the kinds of things he's already
Speaker 1: been saying. Of course, anything he says new would be
Speaker 1: super significant, because I feel like it's been a lot
Speaker 1: of the same stuff from both sides now for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. What's the one thing you're looking for
Speaker 1: on this stale there fall. I guess I want to
Speaker 1: see if he's actually willing to walk away, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's sort of threatened it. Um. I'd say two or
Speaker 1: even three times. Now, is he really willing to say
Speaker 1: I wish I hadn't done this deal and I'm going
Speaker 1: to force Twitter's hand to sue me. Now, of course
Speaker 1: that's that's kind of like saying I'm most looking forward
Speaker 1: to the you know, the big fight scene at the
Speaker 1: end of the movie. Of course everyone is. But I
Speaker 1: do really think that that's the main hang up here,
Speaker 1: you know, is is he really going to do what
Speaker 1: he seems to be threatening to do. Tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit about how Twitter is sparing in all of this.
Speaker 1: It's been a tough It's been a tough go if
Speaker 1: you're an employee of Twitter for the last few months.
Speaker 1: Not only is this deal kind of hovering over everything,
Speaker 1: kind of creates a little bit of awkwardness around you know,
Speaker 1: what should we focus on? What should we build? Um
Speaker 1: But they have said they're going to do cost cuts,
Speaker 1: They did hiring freeze, they even rescinded some job operas,
Speaker 1: and then there was news yesterday that that they actually
Speaker 1: laid off a hundred people. It's a very small percentage
Speaker 1: of the overall workforce, but you get the idea that
Speaker 1: things just aren't really moving in the growth direction for
Speaker 1: them right now, and when you add that on top
Speaker 1: of the fact that they're waiting for this deal to
Speaker 1: possibly close but possibly not. I just think it creates
Speaker 1: a really awkward situation if you're an employee at the
Speaker 1: company today and how's it thus far in any way?
Speaker 1: You know, sometimes bad news is well, all PR is good.
Speaker 1: PR hasn't made people turned to the social media platform?
Speaker 1: Have people re engaged with it been previously before? Because
Speaker 1: it's been in the news cycle so much, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a good question. We'll actually probably find out
Speaker 1: because the second quarter just ended. Of course, Now last
Speaker 1: time they didn't do a full earnings, they didn't do
Speaker 1: a call. They just kind of released kind of a
Speaker 1: bare bones press release with some numbers. But it'll be
Speaker 1: interesting to see if the user growth is still there.
Speaker 1: But you know, is this driving people to service? Like
Speaker 1: a little skeptical only because a lot of things that
Speaker 1: drive people to Twitter are major news events, um, you know,
Speaker 1: like an election for example. I'm not sure if the
Speaker 1: idea of there being an acquisition is the kind of
Speaker 1: news event that's going to bring people to the service.
Speaker 1: Just stick with us for a moment, because we've got
Speaker 1: a thirteen d as we like to get just on
Speaker 1: a Friday when everyone's going home. But we are getting
Speaker 1: some sort of undated d coming from Elon Musk of
Speaker 1: course regarding his bid for Twitter. And understandably this is
Speaker 1: a We're going to have to read through it in
Speaker 1: real time overall, but it seems to be once again
Speaker 1: updating us previously we've had sort of how much of
Speaker 1: the deal has basically got backing from from private sources
Speaker 1: as we understand, And and amend's the schedule thirteen D
Speaker 1: initially filed by Elon Musk with the SEC on April
Speaker 1: the five. With respect to the offer, it says amended
Speaker 1: on the eleventh or fourteenth and twenty one seven. I mean,
Speaker 1: it goes on to say all the other times that
Speaker 1: it's been amended overall, but it looks as though that
Speaker 1: they are amending adding the following the information that send
Speaker 1: a letter to Twitter formally notifying Twitter that the reporting
Speaker 1: person is terminating their Murger agreement. Kurt. The foregoing description
Speaker 1: and the reporting person's letter is qualified in its entirety
Speaker 1: by reference to the full text of the letter, a
Speaker 1: copy of which is attached here to an exhibit p
Speaker 1: and incorporated here in for reference. The letter. Therefore, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be opening up. This is real time reporting
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg as well at the moment. So it does
Speaker 1: seem as though, you know, MASKU has filed an amended
Speaker 1: and as I've been saying, it looks as though they
Speaker 1: are saying that they are terminating their murder agreements. So
Speaker 1: saying on July, what do you make of it? I mean,
Speaker 1: you're hearing me really out live on on air at
Speaker 1: the moment, and we're going to be rushing for every
Speaker 1: single reporter that's currently in the building. But do tell
Speaker 1: us as to whether or not this could well have
Speaker 1: been expected overall? They say, this is actually a letter
Speaker 1: that's dated to Twitter Inc. MS Gaddin says, we refer
Speaker 1: to the agreement in section six point four. They talk
Speaker 1: about the business for any reasonable business purpose related to
Speaker 1: the consummation of the transaction. Twitter has not complied with
Speaker 1: contractual obligations. It says, for nearly two months, Mr Musk
Speaker 1: has sought the data and face information necessary to make
Speaker 1: an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam
Speaker 1: accounts on Twitter's platform. This information is fundamental to Twitter's
Speaker 1: business and financial performance, and he says, thus for thus
Speaker 1: far necessary, they say, and it's necessary to consummate the transaction.
Speaker 1: So it looks as though Mr Musk has decided that, look,
Speaker 1: we can't do it because we haven't got the right
Speaker 1: amount of information on bots. Do you see my face here?
Speaker 1: This is the base of someone who's learned, in who's learning.
Speaker 1: You know that the last three months of work and
Speaker 1: reporting that I've done is just kind of the tip
Speaker 1: of the iceberg here. It sounds like we have more
Speaker 1: to go. But am I surprised, not only because we've
Speaker 1: seen this move in this direction, right, We were just
Speaker 1: talking about that that they haven't been able to agree
Speaker 1: on this, and that you know, Elon seems very focused
Speaker 1: on reducing the cost of this deal. I will say
Speaker 1: I didn't expect or don't did not expect him to
Speaker 1: walk away from something entirely. Again, I thought that he
Speaker 1: would try to renegotiate. But you know, we need to
Speaker 1: go look at this further and figure out exactly what
Speaker 1: he's trying to do here. And maybe this is a
Speaker 1: first step towards a renegotiation. Right, but it certainly feels like, um,
Speaker 1: this thing that has been boiling for now a few
Speaker 1: weeks clearly is reaching the boiling point. Right. It says,
Speaker 1: of course, his financial advisors and Morgan Stanley have been
Speaker 1: requesting critical information from Twitter as far back as May ninth.
Speaker 1: How much have the bank has been involved in all
Speaker 1: of this? How much has you know, Musk had a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of help and backers from elsewhere. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean he's had a whole lot of advisors throughout
Speaker 1: this whole process, right, I mean, these things are not
Speaker 1: It's not just Elon Musk and Paragua from Twitter sitting
Speaker 1: around hashing us out right. There are entire teams of
Speaker 1: people that are that are passing information, that have been
Speaker 1: in contact daily about this kind of stuff. I think
Speaker 1: the debate eight has been what is Twitter giving, uh,
Speaker 1: Elen and what is is Elon demanding? I think in
Speaker 1: this case, you know, Twitter has said, hey, we're gonna
Speaker 1: give you the fire hose of tweets. We're gonna give
Speaker 1: you every public tweet on the service. Um and Ellen, clearly,
Speaker 1: as you just read, is saying that's not sufficient for
Speaker 1: for calculating what I need to calculate, which is the
Speaker 1: percentage of box. And I think the real issue here
Speaker 1: is that there they just don't see eye to eye
Speaker 1: on this body issue, and clearly that's big enough for
Speaker 1: him to pull this offer. But again, it feels like
Speaker 1: we've been building this for some time. I have to
Speaker 1: imagine he had a little buyer's remorse, given that he
Speaker 1: made his bid in April and what we've seen, what
Speaker 1: the market has been doing the last few months since then,
Speaker 1: all of this makes it feel to me that I
Speaker 1: reiterate the same sort of question before. But this is
Speaker 1: destined for the courts, right, I think so? Right, because
Speaker 1: we as we again we were just talking about Twitter
Speaker 1: has said repeatedly we planned to enforce the merger agreement. Right,
Speaker 1: they have come to an agreement. So even him saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm pulling out from this thing Twitter, my understanding is
Speaker 1: that they legally can try and force him to buy
Speaker 1: the company for the price that he agreed to. So
Speaker 1: I don't know what him. Again, need to look closer
Speaker 1: at the filing. I learned about it just as you
Speaker 1: were reading it to me on on air here. But
Speaker 1: I do think that this feels like it's headed for
Speaker 1: a court. Just remind me of the break up fee. Yes,
Speaker 1: so there is a one billion dollar break up fee,
Speaker 1: but it's not as simple as Ellen just simply, you know,
Speaker 1: paying a billion dollars and walking away. There has to
Speaker 1: be other elements of the deal that kind of fall apart,
Speaker 1: and then he would pay that as a penalty. Again,
Speaker 1: it's not a fee that you can pay just because
Speaker 1: you feel like you wish you'd got a better deal. Cut.
Speaker 1: I can't say what would do without you. Thank you
Speaker 1: for being there in real time on Telly to be
Speaker 1: able to read through filing with me. We thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Kut whacking. So as we say, you know
Speaker 1: Musk is terminating his Twitter merger agreement, we understand a
Speaker 1: new thirteen D being filed joyfully on a Friday afternoon,
Speaker 1: just everyone wants to head out for a well deserved rest.
Speaker 1: He says that the Twitter has failed to provide essential
Speaker 1: information and hasn't complied with contractual obligations. All of this,
Speaker 1: of course regarding those all important bots. He says, shares
Speaker 1: of Twitter sinking and after hours join us a more Blomberg.
Speaker 1: We start with the disclaimer. This episode of Bloomberg Technology
Speaker 1: was taped just as the news broke that Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is terminating his deal to bout Twitter. Let's get back
Speaker 1: to the breaking news. Twitter shares falling after hours after
Speaker 1: Elon Musk has filed a thirteen D amended thirteen D
Speaker 1: saying that he wants to be backing out of the
Speaker 1: offer to be buying Twitter for billion dollars. He's terminating
Speaker 1: the merger agreements, saying it's failed to provide essential information
Speaker 1: and they sometimes ignored requests for information, and pleased to
Speaker 1: say that Alex Brinka is joining us. Now you are
Speaker 1: meant to be talking about another social media platform, and
Speaker 1: we're very pleased that you're going to take some questions
Speaker 1: on this new breaking news of Cools being dumped on
Speaker 1: a Friday afternoon annex. I'm really wonderful to have you
Speaker 1: back on with me. It's been a long time since
Speaker 1: we've spoken. Talk to us about what you're making of
Speaker 1: this particular move. We'll sort of saw it coming, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I was looking at this letter here and you'll
Speaker 1: excuse me having a peek at my phone because it
Speaker 1: just hit the wire. Something that I think is super interesting.
Speaker 1: Um in this letter Elon Musk and the filing is
Speaker 1: basically trying to invoke, um, some of those requirements to
Speaker 1: break up this deal. Um. I see here he's saying,
Speaker 1: calling out the company, saying that the claim that fewer
Speaker 1: than five percent of its daily active users are false
Speaker 1: or spam accounts is dramatically understating, um, the spam accounts
Speaker 1: that are on the app. He's also, you know, there
Speaker 1: are some fighting words in here. I'm seeing him say
Speaker 1: this understatement might cause or is reasonably likely to result
Speaker 1: in a company material adverse effect in filing his terms.
Speaker 1: That means that would be some thing that would need
Speaker 1: to be disclosed to investors. But it does seem like
Speaker 1: um Ellen is fixating on that question of how many
Speaker 1: of the users on Twitter are verified users and not boughts,
Speaker 1: and he's calling in and calling out the company here,
Speaker 1: UM making an assumption with UM you know, math that
Speaker 1: I'm not sure where it's coming from, but he's saying
Speaker 1: that this claim that fear than five percent of the
Speaker 1: daily active users are false accounts is actually not true.
Speaker 1: So that's the biggest thing that's popping out to me here.
Speaker 1: UM that and UM the fact that he says he's
Speaker 1: asked for a lot of this information time and time
Speaker 1: again hasn't gotten it. And because of that kind of
Speaker 1: confluence of events, UM that I know you all have
Speaker 1: been covering very closely over the last few months. He's saying,
Speaker 1: those are the reasons why he is calling it quits
Speaker 1: on this potential deal, and as we know that ain't
Speaker 1: going to be in the end of it. An experenca,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for jumping on, for getting involved
Speaker 1: in the breaking news, for calling out when some of
Speaker 1: them prevalent parts of this particular thirteen D filing and
Speaker 1: as we know as now looks as though Eleon mask
Speaker 1: is trying to back out of his offer for Twitter
Speaker 1: breaking news for this Friday. Just to add a little
Speaker 1: spice before your weekend, that Elon Musk has indeed terminated
Speaker 1: the Twitter Murger agreement. Here is of course sending Twitter
Speaker 1: shares spiraling lower and after hours he says some of
Speaker 1: Twitter's monthly daily active user disclosures are false or indeed misleading,
Speaker 1: and he believes the spam accounts are higher than five percent.
Speaker 1: Pleased to say, Crystal ce is with us, She's still
Speaker 1: in the building, She's willing to jump on air with us,
Speaker 1: and Crystal, of course you've been looking at some of
Speaker 1: the nuances to this, because yes, he might try and
Speaker 1: terminate this deal, but as we know, this isn't going
Speaker 1: to be as easy as all that. It's not very
Speaker 1: easy because we have reported that he during it's what,
Speaker 1: first of all, one of the quickest ever M and
Speaker 1: A processes, and it was so quick because he weighs
Speaker 1: some of the due diligence processes. And now he's coming
Speaker 1: back and saying that he has requested information and Twitter
Speaker 1: hasn't really been flying with that, and Twitter has been
Speaker 1: saying otherwise. So the really interesting angle here is whether
Speaker 1: there must actually get to get out of this deal
Speaker 1: and whether Twitter is going to sue. So that's the
Speaker 1: next thing that we're really looking at. And like you said,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be it's not going to be
Speaker 1: as easy as he um as just you know, walking away.
Speaker 1: Many had anticipated that the next stop is the courts,
Speaker 1: is delaware. The problem here is who's got the financial
Speaker 1: might the world fist world man in the world to
Speaker 1: drag this through the courts or indeed a Twitter that
Speaker 1: has a fujuiciary duty to its shareholders too, Yes, get
Speaker 1: the best price deal, but also not not to spend
Speaker 1: all its money on legal fees. That's exactly right. So
Speaker 1: whether Twitter is going to fight this fight or hashort
Speaker 1: of deal with Musk that remains to be seen. Interesting
Speaker 1: to note that Sun Valley is still going on. Muss
Speaker 1: is there so as Twitter c CFO. So whether they
Speaker 1: can have some deal out during Sun Value, you know,
Speaker 1: the billionaires retreat, that could be interesting. Um. But it
Speaker 1: definitely dropped at a very unexp to time Friday afternoon,
Speaker 1: And it has to be said that to be fair
Speaker 1: to Elon Musk, yes he decided to waigh some due diligence,
Speaker 1: but he made this bet, this offer just before the
Speaker 1: market really started to hit free fall. We've actually been
Speaker 1: falling basically ever since the top of the market in January. However,
Speaker 1: we are now very much in a bear market when
Speaker 1: it comes to the now STA. We have seen tech
Speaker 1: valuations plummet, and arguably is it's just him trying to
Speaker 1: get a better deal for himself. We've actually seen this
Speaker 1: kind of scenario before, right. The market can turn very quickly,
Speaker 1: if you remember, in the beginning of COVID, Victoria's Secret
Speaker 1: was super close to get involved and the deal got
Speaker 1: reversed just because of how much the market has changed.
Speaker 1: So that could be one of musk argument here that
Speaker 1: the market has turned so much that is no longer
Speaker 1: the same price. Well, that to me sounds like a
Speaker 1: price recut, not an entire termination. So but he just
Speaker 1: entirely skipped that and just went to the termination in
Speaker 1: the third D that we saw just now. The whole
Speaker 1: story is so unfolding. Could there be a deal? Could
Speaker 1: he just actually be using this as a gesture to
Speaker 1: recut the price. We don't any of that yet. We're
Speaker 1: going to keep reporting and if we have anything more, well,
Speaker 1: you see, I don't know, woman. It is a deeply
Speaker 1: expensive game of poker. Now. We're all trying to read
Speaker 1: every single side on and overall, like the market has
Speaker 1: seen a complete drop in M and A right, Like, yes,
Speaker 1: there have been some one off enormous deals at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the year for the first half that have
Speaker 1: managed to support the overall M and A numbers coming
Speaker 1: in Microsoft Activision for example, But really we've had every
Speaker 1: deal put on ice thus far. That's true. A lot
Speaker 1: of processes that have been going on, how to you know,
Speaker 1: either scale back or just entirely was put on ice.
Speaker 1: Like you said, Um, a couple of big deals like
Speaker 1: the b M where are really holding up the M
Speaker 1: and A volume this year so far? But we are
Speaker 1: actually seeing M and A volume significantly lower than last year.
Speaker 1: That's that last year was an outlier. Everything last year
Speaker 1: was just enormous um, you know, in terms of volume.
Speaker 1: Whether it comes back and it will be extremely interesting. Also,
Speaker 1: this year's volume so far has hinged on Twitter and E,
Speaker 1: so it could just entirely reverse this year's M and
Speaker 1: A outlook. Some bankers might be cross, I'm pleased to say,
Speaker 1: also with us the Crystal Ces expertise as Kurt Wagner,
Speaker 1: of course, a man who has been following this headline
Speaker 1: by headline, blow by blow D by thirteen D and
Speaker 1: it was hilarious how many amendments that have been made
Speaker 1: since that all important April date when we first learned
Speaker 1: he was going to be making that offer. But cut
Speaker 1: anything else that you've seen within thet D this time
Speaker 1: that has caught your attention. Well, I mean, he's obviously
Speaker 1: creating a narrative here right with this letter that he
Speaker 1: sent to Twitter today day to July eight, where he
Speaker 1: says that the company did not cooperate, that he's been
Speaker 1: asking for certain data um that they you know, have
Speaker 1: made it difficult. I think the letter also included some
Speaker 1: information about Um, you know how they weren't operating under
Speaker 1: normal business conditions. We talked in the last segment, I
Speaker 1: believe about there being some hiring freezes at Twitter. They
Speaker 1: have fired some top executives out. What's interesting about him
Speaker 1: kind of claiming that maybe Twitter was making poor business
Speaker 1: decisions while we wait for this deal to close is
Speaker 1: that I got the sense, and as I was told
Speaker 1: kind of throughout the reporting, that Ellen didn't really care
Speaker 1: too much about all that stuff. He was worried that,
Speaker 1: you know, CEO Prague Agole was still kind of running
Speaker 1: the company as you would run a company, right. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's just funny that these things that didn't seem
Speaker 1: to be a problem are suddenly making their way into
Speaker 1: this narrative of why Twitter is at fault for why
Speaker 1: this deal is falling apart because certainly from the letter,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is pointing the blame to the company, not
Speaker 1: saying hey, I've changed my mind. Yeah, just going back
Speaker 1: to that Ted talk that he made just at the
Speaker 1: time that he's putting in the offer, and and it
Speaker 1: seemed to be not about profit. It was more like
Speaker 1: a move for society. He wanted to of course, this
Speaker 1: is all about free speech. This is about making this
Speaker 1: a private company rather than a public company. He was
Speaker 1: doing some sort of service. Why now does well, sort
Speaker 1: of we care about all the nuances, and it does
Speaker 1: feel ultimately he has about the price, right, And and
Speaker 1: that's what I think the answer is. I don't think
Speaker 1: that it's the nuances. I think it is that this
Speaker 1: ultimately looked and became a bad deal for him. And
Speaker 1: so then all of a sudden, all these things that
Speaker 1: didn't matter a few weeks ago suddenly do matter because
Speaker 1: they help him in his argument that hey, I try
Speaker 1: to make a good faith deal and Twitter did not. Right.
Speaker 1: That's what we're going to start hearing. That's what we're
Speaker 1: seeing in this letter, and I imagine that will be
Speaker 1: the argument moving forward. Now. The funny thing about the
Speaker 1: body issue, right, is that Elon Musk has been complaining
Speaker 1: about Twitter bought since before he bought the company. So
Speaker 1: he knew and has known that bots are a part
Speaker 1: of Twitter. He's had bad experience with them before, and
Speaker 1: now he's, you know, again, coming out and using the
Speaker 1: body issue as a reason to maybe walk away from
Speaker 1: the steal, or at least attempt to walk away from
Speaker 1: the steal. So you know, I really think we're going
Speaker 1: to be parson this for a while. But my gut
Speaker 1: initial read here is that he's really trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: set up his narrative for why he thinks Twitter is
Speaker 1: responsible for this deal falling part and not him. And
Speaker 1: obviously he's doing that because if he's the one who
Speaker 1: walks away or makes this an issue, Twitter might be
Speaker 1: able to sue him to try and force him to
Speaker 1: complete the deal. Wagner, we thank you so much for
Speaker 1: all the breaking news analysis, and Christal c as well
Speaker 1: really jumping in the share and giving us such analysis
Speaker 1: and nuance to what we are learning. Of course, that
Speaker 1: is Elon Musk is looking to terminate the deal to
Speaker 1: buy Twitter. Welcome back to Bloomberg Technology. Guess what breaking news.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, as many had predicted, has indeed started the
Speaker 1: process of trying to terminate the deal to buy Twitter.
Speaker 1: Here's a filed and amended thirt D and of course
Speaker 1: is calling out phil failure to provide essential information, ignoring
Speaker 1: of requests for information, in particular what he calls a
Speaker 1: number of bots that he thinks of far in excess
Speaker 1: of five percent. All of this has driven Twitter stopped
Speaker 1: down after hours and moving some other shares as well.
Speaker 1: kJ Greyfeld, I'm pleased to say still in the off
Speaker 1: with us and a Coles Cosset report to You've been
Speaker 1: looking at a lot of notes leading up to this
Speaker 1: about probabilities whether this deal will get done. It's been
Speaker 1: interesting to watch sort of the Wall Street community talk
Speaker 1: about this deal, and Dan Ives from One Bush put
Speaker 1: it on a note yesterday actually UH saying that there's
Speaker 1: a sixty chance that this deal even gets sun. That
Speaker 1: was yesterday, of course, fall following some Washington Post reporting.
Speaker 1: They also suggested that there could be a thirty five
Speaker 1: percent chance that must go loss away from the deal altogether,
Speaker 1: which obviously has borne out now. And obviously the bots
Speaker 1: question has been a big question regarding this deal. But
Speaker 1: there's also the share price to consider. Of course. One
Speaker 1: Musk had made this offer. It was at fifty four
Speaker 1: dollars and twenty cents a deal, UH, and that had
Speaker 1: been sort of floated in the analyst community that maybe
Speaker 1: that price is just too lofty, maybe they'll negotiate it
Speaker 1: down more. And you can see Twitter shares right now
Speaker 1: trading around thirty four dollars fifty four cents, so that
Speaker 1: premium that dis that between the two had grown and
Speaker 1: obviously growing now and now the deal is terminated. And
Speaker 1: I also want to ask you a bit about the
Speaker 1: Tesla market reaction, one that you've pointed out on Twitter itself.
Speaker 1: I don't agree as what we're using that social media
Speaker 1: platform to brighten the knees, but remind us as to
Speaker 1: why to Tesla might bounce on it. So the deal
Speaker 1: here is that obviously Musk is the CEO of Tesla,
Speaker 1: and so the bold case behind my you're probably seeing
Speaker 1: the shares move higher, and after hours I see Tesla
Speaker 1: shares up over one percent at the moment, higher than
Speaker 1: when I tweeted this. Is that perhaps Musk will now
Speaker 1: refocus his attention on Tesla, supposedly, you know, his main company,
Speaker 1: but as we know, I mean, Musk has always been
Speaker 1: sort of a part time CEO of Tesla. He obviously
Speaker 1: has a lot of projects going on, including SpaceX. So
Speaker 1: we'll see if this move holds when we actually get
Speaker 1: into real trading on Monday. But interesting to see the
Speaker 1: after hours reaction. You see the knee jerk move lower
Speaker 1: and Twitter shares down over six percent. You look at
Speaker 1: Tesla shares up moving up to one and a half
Speaker 1: percent or so. Now, so that is the knee jerk
Speaker 1: Katy Greifeldt. As always, we thank you for the knee
Speaker 1: joke reactions, the ultimate reactions. Mobidus to say also ahead
Speaker 1: of Wall Street Week, because I've very own David Weston,
Speaker 1: of course, anchor of that show, anchor of of course
Speaker 1: of the politics show for us as well, and also
Speaker 1: a man who knows an awful about the law, and
Speaker 1: this is going this is going to the courts, right.
Speaker 1: The one clear winner in this that the lawyers. They're
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of lawyers charging a lot of
Speaker 1: money and you're gonna pay a lot of billbill hours
Speaker 1: as a result. I mean, I think there's so much
Speaker 1: we don't know at this point. And we know that
Speaker 1: now Elon Musk says he's not going to go forward
Speaker 1: with the deal, we have to take him at his word.
Speaker 1: At the same time, he has some legal obligations he
Speaker 1: has to address. The Twitter board has been very steadfast
Speaker 1: and saying we're holding you your deal, and you have
Speaker 1: to ask, is he really getting out of it or
Speaker 1: is this a negotiation? Is this a negotiation over the
Speaker 1: one billion dollar big breakup? Fee or a lower price
Speaker 1: is Katie just suggested for the company. Let's be honest,
Speaker 1: he would not have offered forty four billion dollars a
Speaker 1: month after we offered it. It was no longer a
Speaker 1: sensible price. And he's saying, I'm not sure I wanted
Speaker 1: at that price. We'll see, but I'll guarantee it. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of legal action coming up. And of course, David,
Speaker 1: it is the fiducial duty of the board to fight
Speaker 1: for the highest possible price. It is also going to
Speaker 1: be incredibly costly for the board of Twitter and indeed
Speaker 1: Twitter's executive team to be paying these sort of legal
Speaker 1: fees when we know it's up against the wealthiest man
Speaker 1: in the world. Absolutely, and two other things that I
Speaker 1: add to that. A number one, there is a fairness
Speaker 1: opinion that was rendered by Goldman, Sachs and others saying
Speaker 1: this is a fair price. It's aftuly hard for the
Speaker 1: board to say, Okay, we have a fairness opinion saying
Speaker 1: that price is the fair price. Now we're just gonna
Speaker 1: give up on it. We're not going to pursue that
Speaker 1: anymore at all. That's a tough thing to do, and
Speaker 1: the board has a pretty good legal argument, I would think,
Speaker 1: and they've been pretty steadfast. At the same time, I
Speaker 1: suspect part of what's driving Mr Musk is the board
Speaker 1: has shown very little willingness to negotiate with him. Uh
Speaker 1: and this, as I say, and maybe he's really trying
Speaker 1: to get out of It's also possible that that in
Speaker 1: fact he's he's really trying to get a real negotiation
Speaker 1: going on. And also, David, going back to how the
Speaker 1: steel erupted, He's have it did this in in a
Speaker 1: completely bombastic way. For many a lawyer that it felt
Speaker 1: as though documents were put in too late, documents weren't
Speaker 1: filled out in the normal way, and indeed it seemed
Speaker 1: as though he waved his rights to due diligence. Well
Speaker 1: he did, I think explicitly waves the rights and due diligence,
Speaker 1: which which says something but I say bombastic and Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is not necessarily contradictory. Right, It's not a total
Speaker 1: surprise that would work. But I think from telling you
Speaker 1: to people who know Elon Musk can have dealt with
Speaker 1: him even during this time, I think there's a good
Speaker 1: part of the almost that really did want to buy Twitter.
Speaker 1: Maybe he still does want to buy Twitter. He generally
Speaker 1: wants to buy this company, thinks he can do something
Speaker 1: good with this company. So I don't think he was
Speaker 1: just toying with it at all. I just think he's
Speaker 1: definitely of two minds. Apparently, David Western, what would do
Speaker 1: without your legal expertise? And indeed po a man who
Speaker 1: is going to go on and talk about this a
Speaker 1: little bit, and of course your show, which we will
Speaker 1: want to be watching Wall Street Week Balance of Power
Speaker 1: as well. Of course he can tune into David Western there.
Speaker 1: But we thank also our own Kat Grayfield for the
Speaker 1: market moves and the reactions. More for you terms of
Speaker 1: analysis to the breaking news this Friday. Of course, you
Speaker 1: know Mask backing away from that forty four billion dollar
Speaker 1: deal for Twitter. This is Blomberg. The disastrous scenario has
Speaker 1: occurred as according to Dan Ives as well, this of course,
Speaker 1: a key analyst on all things Twitter, putting out a
Speaker 1: note as we speak from web Bush, Dan, I've saying
Speaker 1: that the termination that we've just learned Harv, you know,
Speaker 1: Mask trying to terminate the four billion dollar deal for
Speaker 1: Twitter is a disaster scenario for Twitter and it's board.
Speaker 1: As now the company will battle Musk in an elongated
Speaker 1: court battle to recoup the deal and or the breakup
Speaker 1: fee of one billion dollars at minimum. To discuss us
Speaker 1: a little bit more amid all of this analysis, I
Speaker 1: want to bring in one Ed Ludlow, who has been
Speaker 1: on the plane back from one some valley event where
Speaker 1: absolutely everyone has been talking about this deal. You managed
Speaker 1: to read the letter that the T and D. What
Speaker 1: were people saying about this deal to you? Ed Ludlow?
Speaker 1: You know all of the investors I was spoken to
Speaker 1: do over the last few days have been bracing for this,
Speaker 1: the idea that a termination was possible. We know about
Speaker 1: the one billion dollar reverse termination fee for both parties
Speaker 1: that you know, investors are bracing for an outcome where
Speaker 1: we have a long protracted legal battle between Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and Twitter's board. You look through the letter that Elon
Speaker 1: Musk sent to Twitter chief legals forgetting you know, he's
Speaker 1: pretty clear he made multiple attempts to request information about
Speaker 1: how the scientific approach the Twitter's board was taking to
Speaker 1: quantifying level of box on the platform. Right, this idea
Speaker 1: that there's less from five defensive blots on the platform
Speaker 1: in terms of the user base, there's been a longstanding
Speaker 1: boiler plate the Twitter of used in regulatory filing for
Speaker 1: many years. And so it's it's kind of weird and
Speaker 1: surprising that this was an issue from Musk in the
Speaker 1: first place, because you remember that eight or twenty when
Speaker 1: he signed a deal he waived due diligence anyway, you know,
Speaker 1: with with the news as it is breaking that he's terminated.
Speaker 1: You know, everyone I've spoken to in some valley it
Speaker 1: thinks that this is bad for Twitter as a disasters
Speaker 1: don for it, because you know, they're already cutting costs.
Speaker 1: They've been bracing for a recession in which they're going
Speaker 1: to have the lower r and defending lower head count.
Speaker 1: And market is looking okay globally, but it's not perfect.
Speaker 1: And now they're going to have to go to court
Speaker 1: and and and get this done. And it was only
Speaker 1: yet to day carried. You remember that they reiterated they
Speaker 1: intended to follow through with the terms of the original deal.
Speaker 1: And yet here we are, me on a jet playing
Speaker 1: you in the studio and Pelon must walking away from
Speaker 1: the deal just remind us because he talks of not
Speaker 1: enough information. He talks of multiple requests. I thought Twitter
Speaker 1: had been delivering information regarding bots. So in the letter,
Speaker 1: Elon Much's attorneys say that by Twitter's own admission in
Speaker 1: the communications they've made in the end of the beginning
Speaker 1: of May and through the June period, that the data
Speaker 1: would incomplete. Twitter's argument they took be is that a
Speaker 1: third party be a third party and stored by the
Speaker 1: mask been a third party chosen cannot verify the level
Speaker 1: of boxing the platform, the reason being the twitters methodology
Speaker 1: for verification uses a mix of private data that they
Speaker 1: hold as the platform operator m And you know, private
Speaker 1: data is such that they're protecting the contemer and public
Speaker 1: data and only Twitter has access to that. And that's
Speaker 1: what the discussion is around how complete that data work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and remind us because Elon Musk is due to be fly.
Speaker 1: I think he's already arrived, has he not, or is
Speaker 1: at least due to arrive at some values, want to
Speaker 1: be giving a speech tomorrow. And the key issue is
Speaker 1: al and Co were then advisor on the deal. In
Speaker 1: some way, this is this could be an amazing meeting
Speaker 1: of all the top executives because I understand the CEO
Speaker 1: and the CFO Twitter also at some value. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: just going to say out loud, I wish I was
Speaker 1: still in either or I wish I was with you
Speaker 1: in the studio, because this is the most crazy story
Speaker 1: of my career in lifetime. That al and Co. He's
Speaker 1: an advisor on the Twitter side, okay, Hanlen and Co
Speaker 1: is a long standing investment bank advisor for Twitter. And
Speaker 1: then on the other side, they've invited Elon Musk in
Speaker 1: the conference. No one saw Paragage Segal and Elon Musk
Speaker 1: in the same space as you know. I asked med
Speaker 1: Peogle and Paragagon Roll last night if they were worried
Speaker 1: about Elon Musk walking your way. Twice they declined to
Speaker 1: answer the question, and t four hours later he walked away.
Speaker 1: So there we go. There we go, at Dudlow, We'll
Speaker 1: let you go for a moment to thank you so
Speaker 1: much for jumping on the phone with us, Ed Ludlow.
Speaker 1: With the analysis, We've also got some expan analysis from
Speaker 1: a senior analyst on Twitter of web Bush Securities, one
Speaker 1: Dan Ice, who has a rating neutral on Twitter, who
Speaker 1: has a price of thirty eight dollars seventy nine, and
Speaker 1: it was a twelve month price target of forty three dollars.
Speaker 1: But Dan ives, you've already put out a note. You're
Speaker 1: a busy man. What do you make of this walk away?
Speaker 1: I mean, for Twitter, it's a it's a namedayor scenario
Speaker 1: because now it's a standalone company. Start could be twenty
Speaker 1: five thirty hours on Monday and they feed just a
Speaker 1: brutal core battle with Musk, and this has been it's
Speaker 1: been a you know, a circus show in terms of
Speaker 1: from the beginning it never made sense as to why
Speaker 1: Musk going to buy it, But now the way it ends,
Speaker 1: it's just it really ends. It puts them between a
Speaker 1: rock and a hard place, and the street's gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: really have a hard time with this. In terms of
Speaker 1: Twitter basically being viewed as damaged goods, I'm really interested in.
Speaker 1: And originally, as we were hearing when we talked to
Speaker 1: David Western that you know, forty four billion dollars was
Speaker 1: deemed fair value for overall Twitter. And as said, I
Speaker 1: think my Goldman sacks, why do you have a fair
Speaker 1: value price of thirty eight dollar seventy nine? What is it?
Speaker 1: It was the underlying business model. How much has that
Speaker 1: eroded since Elon Musk first put in his offer, well,
Speaker 1: first off billion from the beginning never made chance and
Speaker 1: that's why there was no other bidder within miles of it.
Speaker 1: You know, we always to fair value for Twitter was
Speaker 1: somewhere in an acquisition forty and now the fake account
Speaker 1: bod issue, you will as that's really come to the forefront.
Speaker 1: I think now this condition is the stock that's gonna
Speaker 1: have a chew in front of it because of those metrics,
Speaker 1: and also the markets changed so much sense to deal
Speaker 1: whether it's Must get in cold feet and now it
Speaker 1: really sends us onto a tail spin in terms of Twitter.
Speaker 1: And I also think Must comes out with a black
Speaker 1: eye in terms of how this was all handled. I
Speaker 1: agree and many would agree, I think in terms of
Speaker 1: like how something of news organizations view M and A offers.
Speaker 1: But I'm interested in your take from a four billion
Speaker 1: dollar price tag. What is it about the box? I
Speaker 1: thought we sort of knew about the box and the
Speaker 1: fact that what is it that from a Twitter perspective
Speaker 1: could have been done better on that. Well, it's all
Speaker 1: about what is it five? Or is it? And I
Speaker 1: think even though the body issue has always been a
Speaker 1: black cloud over Twitter's name, you know, even if you
Speaker 1: go back over the years, now it comes down, that's
Speaker 1: just how how big is that number? Because that's demodogation,
Speaker 1: that's the metrics. Then on the other side, others will
Speaker 1: argue Must just this is a scapegoat, it's cold feed.
Speaker 1: He basically woke up one day decided not to do
Speaker 1: it in typical must fashion. And now the knives will
Speaker 1: be sharpened going into what's just going to be a
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones core battle. We currently understand, of course,
Speaker 1: and them and breaking news continues, but we do understand
Speaker 1: that the Twitter board is committed to closing this transaction.
Speaker 1: According to Brett Taylor, now the Twitter board is planning
Speaker 1: legal action to enforce this agreement. Dan, how much the
Speaker 1: money suck? Is that? Look? I think right now, I
Speaker 1: mean Twitter is gonna officially come out with that stands
Speaker 1: just deal. When the stocker's trainer at thirty eight bocks,
Speaker 1: he was telling you twenty was never gonna happen. Now
Speaker 1: the question is is there still some chance that there's
Speaker 1: some renegotiation that happens. I think the will is too
Speaker 1: much at this point. And now Monday, Twitter is gonna
Speaker 1: be looking at the stock with the two in front
Speaker 1: of the probably high twenties. And now this starts to
Speaker 1: go into free fall. Tanys, we want to thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Senior Alice. Over their web, Bush Security is
Speaker 1: already putting out an on this deal. As we say,
Speaker 1: the Twitter board is planning legal action to enforce this agreement.
Speaker 1: This is coming from Brett Taylor, Here's the chairman of
Speaker 1: Twitter's a busy man because it's also the co se here.
Speaker 1: We know, of course the salesforce. But he is on
Speaker 1: the board of Twitter, and he is saying, look, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be fighting this. Tend to close the transaction at
Speaker 1: fifty four dollars twenty a share price. They received a
Speaker 1: notice of the purported termination from Musk, and they tend
Speaker 1: to close this transaction. They're confident in the merger pact
Speaker 1: for all of this, says Bloomberg in New York. Have
Speaker 1: a good weekend.