Elon Musk Announces New Financial Functionality on Twitter
Starting today, Twitter will provide tweeters the ability to buy and sell stocks and crypto on its platform via eTORO. Twitter owner, Elon Musk has been indicating he intends to turn the popular micro-blogging platform into a “super app.” Today’s move shows substantial headway in allowing financial transactions to be conducted on the social media platform. Other company goals since Musk’s purchase of the company include ride hailing, and attracting video influencers that may be disenchanted with YouTube restrictions on speech.
What Will the Twitter eTORO Partnership Provide?
Founded in 2007, eTORO has become one of the largest social investment networks and trading platforms. According to its website, it is “built on social collaboration and investor education: a community where users can connect, share, and learn.”
Twitter will partner with the platform to allow users (known as tweeters and Twitterers) to trade stocks and cryptocurrencies as part of a deal with the social investing company.
This partnership will provide access to view charts and trade stocks, cryptocurrencies, and other investment assets from eToro via its mobile platform. Together this significantly expands real-time trading data available to users who already have access on Twitter to real-time data, however this arrangement adds all the bells and whistles a modern trading app can provide.
Twitter will be expanding its use of cashtags as well. Twitter added pricing data for $Cashtags (company ticker preceded by “$”) in December 2022. Since January, there have been more than 420 million searches using Cashtags – the number of searches averages 4.7 million a day.
eToro CEO Yoni Assia told CNBC the deal will help better connect the two brands, adding that in recent years its users have increasingly turned to Twitter to “educate themselves about the markets.”
Assia said there is a great deal of “very high quality” content available in real-time and that the partnership with Twitter will help eToro expand to reach new audiences tapping this as a source of information.
Update on Elon
After Musk’s purchase of Twitter, many advertisers stepped back and watched to see how far the company would go to allow less moderated interaction. On Wednesday (April 12) Musk said that “almost all” advertisers had returned to the app. However, Stellantis and Volkswagen, two large competitors with Musk run Tesla, said they do not yet plan to resume advertising.
Musk told a Morgan Stanley conference last month he wants Twitter to become “the biggest financial institution in the world.” This begs those that follow Musk to ask, “Why stop there, why not include Mars?”
What Else
Be sure to follow Channelchek on Twitter (@channelchek) to stay up to date on market insights, news, videos, and of course, top-tier investment analyst research on small and microcap opportunities.
The hashtag #TwitterFiles is trending on Twitter and is likely to be for some time to come. After Elon Musk released the first set of documents that strongly suggests wrongdoing by both political parties, agencies of the government, and perhaps even elected officials, Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey joined the discussion on the social media/microblogging site. Dorsey’s tweet suggested impatience with the method with which Musk is sharing what is discovered within the Twitter offices and files.
Dorsey (@Jack) tweeted on Wednesday, “If the goal is transparency to build trust, why not just release everything without filter and let people judge for themselves?” He further tweeted, “Including all discussions around current and future actions? Make everything public now. #TwitterFiles.”
Elon Musk, who has promised to make Twitter more open tweeted back, “Most important data was hidden (from you too) and some may have been deleted, but everything we find will be released.”
The cause for Dorsey’s tweet may have been the result of learning that Jim Baker, a former FBI lawyer, was filtering documents released in the exposé. This was mentioned by Matt Taibbi the writer of the first installment of the “Twitter Files.” Taibbi suggested there is a delay in getting the second installment out because Baker was filtering documents to be released in the exposé, leading to the delay of the second batch of information. The journalist chosen to present the second installment of the Twitter files is named Bari Weiss.
Jim Baker has a reputation that includes distrust, and his name is often preceded by the word “disgraced [former FBI agent].” “The news that Baker was reviewing the ‘Twitter Files’ surprised everyone involved, to say the least,” Taibbi tweeted Tuesday night. ” Twitter chief Elon Musk acted quickly to ‘exit’ Baker Tuesday.”
Future installments are being compiled, according to Taibbi. “Reporters resumed searches through Twitter Files material — a lot of it — today,” he tweeted. “The next installment of ‘The Twitter Files’ will appear @bariweiss. Stay tuned.”
Does Jim Baker deserve to be scorned? Baker’s alleged involvement in the Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election has become a news story all its own, in a blog post by Jonathan Turley who is a constitutional law expert, Turley wrote a review titled “Six Degrees from James Baker: A Familiar Figure Reemerges With the Release of the Twitter Files.”
Was Dorsey involved in censorship? As for Dorsey’s level of involvement in censorship at Twitter before he was forced out, Taibbi referenced the former executive a number of times. “An amazing subplot of the Twitter/Hunter Biden laptop affair was how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, and how long it took for the situation to get ‘unf***ed’ (as one ex-employee put it) even after Dorsey jumped in,” Taibbi tweeted Friday.
“There are multiple instances in the files of Dorsey intervening to question suspensions and other moderation actions for accounts across the political spectrum,” Taibbi tweeted.
There is nothing better than drama to draw people to social media platforms. Musk’s open file policy is creating substantial drama and, for many, increased usage of Twitter. If Musk was to release the files all at once, as suggested by Jack Dorsey, the platform would have one large burst of activity and then settle down. The method he instead is using to share information includes assigning a journalist to unveil batches of documents, and this ought to keep the #TwitterFiles trending into 2023 and increase Twitter’s user base.
Is Meta the Wrong Path for Facebook, or is it Just Ahead of its Time?
Not all ideas are good ideas, even when they come from billionaire tech start-up founders like Mark Zuckerberg.
Michael Burry, the legendary investor of “Big Short” fame, has been criticizing the social media giant’s metaverse strategy. Burry joins others in questioning why Zuck would change the Facebook formula and spend billions embracing something that is far from real. Many of Zuckerberg’s critics are other successful billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. Other critics are investors that have endured Meta share’s 62.3% ($570 billion) decline since January.
Burry founded and manages the hedge fund Scion Asset Management. Burry tweeted a message that seems to say Meta management blew it – and suggests they have blown it by historic proportions by taking a deep dive into something that may or may not have legs – the metaverse.
Image: @BurryDeleted (Twitter)
You don’t have to have been alive in the mid-1980s to know what Burry was saying when he posted, “Seems Meta has a New Coke problem.” Any business school textbook lists Coca-Cola’s changing the formula of its best-selling product as the #1 lesson in corporate blunders. It was an expensive change that failed miserably and caused the company to revert back to its original product or risk losing a lot more ground against rivals.
A Sweet Refresher
New Coke was a much sweeter version of the Coca-Cola people had become accustomed to using to wash down their pizza slices, or a burger and fries. It was introduced by Coca-Cola in April 1985 during the cola war Pepsi was waging.
At the time Coca Cola was perhaps one of the most recognized brands in the world. But, Pepsi stole customers after it ran a few Michael Jackson commercials suggesting its sugar water was the “choice of a new generation,” and also backed it up with ads showing blind taste test preferences. Between the taste test science and everyone wanting to be more like Michael Jackson, Coke lost market share. Coke reacted by reformulating its product and did its own blind side-by-side tests that indicated that consumers seemed to prefer the new sweeter taste, similar to Pepsi. The company then decided to market the reformulated recipe – New Coke was born.
Max Headroom was the spokesman for New Coke, Like the Grand Canyon (Flickr)
New Coke was introduced in April 1985, and within weeks they were receiving 5,000 angry calls a day. The number grew from there. Seventy-nine days after their initial announcement, Coca-Cola held a press conference in July 1985 to offer a mea culpa and announce the return of the original Coca-Cola “classic” formula.
Will Zuckerberg Relent?
So far, Facebook, I mean Meta, still wants to identify as a metaverse company, despite there being very few metaverse customers. The company is making sure users have accessories available and just unveiled a new virtual reality headset selling for $1,500 called the Meta Quest Pro. Zuckerberg says lower priced, presumably not “pro,” will follow ($300-$500 zone).
When one has built a business from a college dorm, a garage, or their mother’s basement, and it attains the kind of growth that Facebook, Apple, Amazon, or others have, it’s hard to keep growing at the pace investors and other onlookers have become accustomed to. This leads to a scenario where investors are exposed to a risk best described as the bigger they are, the farther they have to fall.
And Facebook has fallen, not just in dollar value, but in ranking among its peers. Does this mean Zuckerberg is not right? The game isn’t over, and there aren’t many of us that can say, with honesty, that we are more forward-looking or have more luck than Zuck.
Is Michael Burry Right?
There is a whole universe of stocks beyond metaverse investments. Huge successful companies like Facebook or even Coca-Cola have ample resources to build and grow but lose nimbleness and growth potential, unlike the potential smaller companies enjoy. Huge companies are also more likely to have a “say yes to the boss, and you’ll be rewarded” culture, rather than a small company culture which is more “show the boss you can make them money, and you’ll be rewarded” culture.
Zuckerberg and Meta may very well be moving forward with a mistake that could be enshrined in textbooks years from now. However, like Coke, they may find that if it’s a lemon, they can make lemonade. Coca-Cola emerged from the brief departure from their main product strengthened as consumers discovered what life was like without their favorite soft drink.
Take Away
Michael Burry is worth paying attention to. He thinks differently and has been correct enough to always listen. The metaverse is new; does this mean it won’t grow and become something only a visionary like Mark Zuckerberg can imagine? It has been an expensive and slow start. I suspect Facebook was much less expensive to get off the ground, and adoption also required ancillary products to be useable by the masses.
A lesson investors should remember from this is how difficult it is for large companies to grow from their current offerings and huge corporate base.
Channelchek is a platform created to help investors uncover the next Apple, the next Moderna, or the next Facebook. It’s a resource to dig deeper into these less celebrated fledgling opportunities and to leave investors with enough understanding to decide whether they should take their own action by buying stock and becoming an owner of something with greater than average potential.
Elon Musk Argues Twitter is Better off Without a Board of Directors – Is He Right?
After a wild ride, it looks like Elon Musk’s bid to buy Twitter will move ahead.
Twitter’s board of directors had sued the Tesla billionaire in July 2022 when Musk tried to terminate the US$44 billion deal. The board has yet to drop its lawsuit to force Musk to complete the buyout, while many parts have been thrown out.
The board has in fact been at the center of this saga since the beginning, when Musk launched his hostile takeover bid while criticizing board members for owning almost no shares of the company they oversee. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey called the board the “dysfunction of the company.”
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of Michael Withers, Associate Professor of Business, Texas A&M University, Steven Boivie, Professor of Management, Texas A&M University.
As experts on corporate governance, we believe this feud raised two important corporate governance questions: What purpose does a board of directors serve? And does it matter if a member owns company stock or not?
‘A Bad Board Will Kill’
“Good boards don’t create good companies, but a bad board will kill a company every time.”
Venture capitalist Fred Destin wrote that in 2018, citing what he called an “old Silicon Valley proverb.” The quote has been making the rounds on Twitter recently in light of Musk’s hostile bid. It even seemed to get a nod from Dorsey himself when he replied to a tweet containing the quote with “big facts.”
This tweet and the general conversation that has emerged have important implications for understanding boards and their role in shepherding a company.
Broadly speaking, a board’s most important roles include hiring, paying and monitoring the chief executive officer.
Academic research suggests that board members at large companies – who typically receive generous compensation packages – may be limited in their ability to perform these tasks effectively. In our work, we found that boards often find it impossible to conduct adequate monitoring and rein in wayward CEOs because there’s just so much information for modern boards to process with their limited time. And the social dynamics involved in the board also make it difficult for directors to speak up and oppose other directors.
In a separate study involving face-to-face interviews with directors, we were consistently told that directors take their board service seriously and operate with their companies’ best interests in mind. But they do so with an eye toward collaborating with the CEO and the rest of the executive team rather than serving as impartial observers, as their “independent” status suggests they should.
While our work didn’t focus on this, if the board and the CEO fundamentally disagree about the direction of company – which was often the case between Dorsey and the Twitter board – it would certainly be problematic and could lead to less than optimal decisions being made.
In other words, a board that isn’t functioning effectively can definitely destroy a company’s value. And some reporting suggests that’s what happened to Twitter, whose shares were trading at less than half their 2021 peak before Musk disclosed he had amassed a 9% ownership stake.
A Raider’s Lament
That brings us to the next question: Does not owning a significant stake in a company you oversee make it more likely that you’ll run it into the ground, as Musk seemed to suggest?
A few days after making his takeover offer on April 14, the billionaire, responding to a tweet showing how few shares Twitter board members own, posted that its directors’ “economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders.”
Musk’s arguments harked back to takeover bids from the 1980s in which activist investors – or “corporate raiders” – would argue that executives’ interests did not align with those of shareholders. As Gordon Gekko from the film “Wall Street” famously railed against executives of a business he wanted to take over, “Today, management has no stake in the company!”
Musk’s words echo Gekko’s “greed is good” speech, except in regard to independent directors, who comprise the vast majority of corporate boards. By definition, an independent or outside director is one who doesn’t hold an executive role in running the company, such as chief executive officer or chief financial officer.
In reality, Twitter’s board share ownership is very similar to that of other companies.
Independent Twitter directors held a median ownership stake of 0.003% as of May 2022. For comparison, we looked at equity ownership of independent directors of companies listed in the S&P 500 stock index in 2021. We found the median stake was less than 0.01%, and all but a handful of directors held less than 1% of the company’s stock. Median ownership at Musk’s company Tesla is similarly minuscule, at 0.23%.
Whether this makes a difference to a company’s success is hard to assess because research on the topic is rather sparse, in large part because board members have so little equity.
Mixed Research
Academic researchers on effective corporate governance in the 1970s argued that outside directors should avoid owning many shares in the companies they oversee to maintain objectivity. More recently, management scholars have suggested that higher stakes could provide a way to motivate directors to monitor management and make decisions more in line with shareholder interests.
Some researchers have found that boards with larger ownership stakes can improve a company’s operational performance and better align outside directors with the interests of shareholders.
But other work that examined multiple studies shows the impact of director stock ownership is mixed at best, with some studies suggesting higher stakes potentially lead to negative outcomes, such as excessive executive and director compensation.
Since the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 after massive accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and elsewhere, corporate governance issues such as board oversight have become increasingly important. This led to a number of changes intended to align the interests of managers and those of shareholders, including a focus on board independence and adjusting executive compensation.
Although our research shows boards are limited in their ability to monitor management, they’re still better than nothing.
In his original letter to shareholders announcing his bid, Musk vowed to “unlock” Twitter’s potential as a private company, without a public board. We may finally learn if he’s right.
Michael Burry’s Advice for Companies to Become Better Values
After my morning coffee and check on stock futures, I peruse Twitter. Coffee is necessary when you may need to translate cryptic messages from tweeters like Dr. Michael Burry. This week, the hedge fund manager, famous for his foresight and creativity in shorting subprime mortgages before the mortgage crisis in 2008, has been very active on the microblogging platform. Two tweets from October 5th are newsworthy, considering their source, their insight, and the concern they convey are described below.
The first reads: “Low price/cash flow businesses are different today vs. 2000 because they will buy back stock, buy back debt at a discount, and in general manage capital structure better. Makes them statistical value – math problems that more or less must work out.”
The second says, “Companies that are heavily leveraged but have the cash flow and termed out debt have options today, including reducing their debt loads at a significant discount brought on by higher rates. But as Graham said, in such a case, better off buying the stock.”
Taking these two tweets together, they make sense. Twenty years ago, interest rates were the lowest they had been since 1965; during the last week in December, plummeting 30-year mortgage rates had broken below 6%. Despite cheaper money, corporate treasurers and finance officers didn’t use the situation to shore up their capital structure and build a better base to grow on. The equity markets were weak from August 2000 until May 2009, after the financial crisis that in part came about because of how the cheap money was used.
Companies that are not stretched and are earning money today have the choice of strengthening their financial foundation by either buying their stock at today’s bearish prices. A stock buyback has the effect of reducing shares available in the market as they are now in the company’s treasury. Reduced float tends to increase the price and benefits shareholders. The company does have the option of selling these shares should an opportunity present itself where it would like to raise capital selling previously available shares.
Burry also mentions leveraged companies. Having just come off of 40-year lows in interest rates, it was, in many cases, prudent for companies to leverage themselves with cheap money. These loans, present-valued at today’s higher rates, can be negotiated and paid off at a discount. For companies with adequate cash flow, they may be able to substantially reduce debt for a fraction of the principal amount. Here is how to best get your head around this, if you are a lender and the borrower is paying you 2%, and rates are now 6%, how much less than the borrowed amount would the borrower have to give you in order for you to do better than breaking even? You can lend one-third of the money at 6% and earn the same cash amount. So the borrower is in a great negotiating position.
Michael Burry makes no secret of the fact that he is an avid reader. “Graham” refers to Benjamin Graham the “father of value investing.” Burry reminds us that, according to this historically significant, well-published value investor, investors and companies are generally better off buying back their own stock.
Take Away
There are showmen that are on TV and keep their jobs by keeping viewers glued to their TV sets, and there are others that comment on the market for less-commercial reasons. Those on TV and writing on well-read sites like Yahoo Finance are worth reading to understand what others are reading. Proven, outside the mainstream thinking is worth paying attention to in order to diversify the information your weighing as an investor.
You can even think of it this way; no one pays Burry for advertising on Twitter accounts used by Burry or some other well-followed investors. Whereas mainstream news only exists because of paid-for advertising from companies and industries that they cover. This doesn’t mean he will always be correct, but, who might be less biased?
Musk’s Lawyers Call SEC Agreement a “Government Imposed Muzzle”
Elon Musk has had enough of being gagged. It has been over four years since he tweeted to his 22 million Twitter followers that he could take Tesla private, at $420 per share (a substantial premium to its trading price at the time), and that funding for the transaction had been secured, adding the only remaining uncertainty was a shareholder vote. On September 27, 2018, the SEC charged Musk, CEO of Tesla Inc., with securities fraud for a series of false and misleading tweets about a potential transaction to take Tesla (TSLA) private.
Part of the resolution with the Commission was that the CEO and chairman would not use Twitter and mention business without each tweet being vetted by a lawyer. Apparently, the provision restricting open communication with followers is difficult for Elon, who is quite active on the social media microblog platform. The easier part is the $40 million in cash that was part of the settlement ($20mm Musk, $20mm Tesla), and his resignation as Chairman of the Board.
In a brief filed with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, on the fourth anniversary of the SEC’s charges, Musk’s lawyers called the pre-approval mandate a “government-imposed muzzle” that inhibited and chilled his lawful speech on a broad range of topics. The brief also said the requirement imposed by the SEC violated the U.S. Constitution and undermined public policy by running “contrary to the American principles of free speech and open debate.”
The SEC is expected to respond by filing its own brief with the appeals court.
Elon had filed an appeal previously to terminate the settlement agreement he had as CEO of Tesla with the SEC. That request was denied in April of this year. The denial was awkward as Mr. Musk was moving forward to acquire Twitter for $44 billion.
When on November 6, 2021 Musk asked Twitter followers whether he should sell 10% of his Tesla stake to cover tax bills on stock options, the SEC opened a probe and subpoenaed documents related to his compliance with the earlier settlement.
It’s time to rein in the SEC, according to the filing by Musk’s attorneys. It said the ruling is keeping Musk under “constant threat” as the Commission might reject his view as to which tweets require pre-approval from legal staff.
“Under the shadow of the consent decree, the SEC has increasingly surveilled, policed, and attempted to curb Mr. Musk’s protected speech that does not touch upon the federal securities laws,” the lawyers wrote.
In other events related to Twitter and the Tesla founder, Twitter has sued Musk to complete his purchase of the company. A nonjury trial is scheduled for October 17 in Delaware Chancery Court.
