Elon Musk’s US$44 billion supply to purchase Twitter and switch the social media platform into a personal firm is nearly a achieved deal.
However not fairly. Whereas Twitter’s board has endorsed his supply, Musk now wants the nod from a majority of Twitter’s shareholders and US company regulators.
Earlier than we get on to the main points of those remaining hurdles, let’s recap the tumultuous occasions that bought us thus far.
It grew to become public in early April that Musk – an avid Twitter person – had acquired 9.2% of the corporate’s shares, making him the most important shareholder. There have been talks about him becoming a member of Twitter’s board, however Musk demurred.
A few week later, on April 14, Musk launched a full takeover bid, providing US$54.20 a share – about 38% greater than the corporate’s share value on April 1.
Twitter’s board responded with a “poison tablet” provision. This might enable different shareholders to purchase new shares issued by the board at a reduction if Musk acquired a 15% stake (greater than 15% is taken into account a controlling stake). This might have diluted Musk’s stake, thwarting his takeover ambitions.
Musk responded to that by flagging a hostile takeover. This concerned bypassing the board with a “tender supply” direct to shareholders, asking them to tender their shares on the market regardless of the board’s opposition.
With no competing bidder, and with no various plan to create worth for shareholders, Twitter’s board this week lastly accepted Musk’s bid of US$54.20 a share in money.
Musk plans to finance the bid utilizing equity and debt, in response to his filings with the US Securities and Trade Fee. He has secured about US$25.5 billion in loans. He has additionally raised his personal fairness, totalling round $21 billion, together with by means of margin loans towards Tesla inventory.
How would possibly regulators react?
The acquisition nonetheless requires regulatory and shareholder approval. Whereas these are unlikely to sink the deal, they don’t seem to be trivial.
There are two essential regulatory approvals right here. First the Securities and Trade Fee – which is akin to a monetary watchdog – should approve the takeover. Then the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice will take into account if the takeover might scale back competitors.
Musk has had unfavourable interactions with the SEC previously. In 2018 it charged him with fraud over him tweeting he had funding to take his electrical automobile firm Tesla non-public. Musk in the end settled, paying a US$20 million fine and stepping down as chair of the Tesla board. Some shareholders are suing him for losses suffered because of his tweet.
Musk’s conduct throughout his bid for Twitter may additionally affect regulators. There are questions on whether or not he disclosed his 9.2% holding in a timely enough manner. Ordinarily a shareholder ought to disclose their stake as soon as they personal 5% of a company. Musk seems to have acquired greater than 5% of Twitter on March 11 2022 however filed with regulators on 4 April.
Additional, Musk seems to have made a “short form” submitting with the SEC, reserved for passive shareholders. His subsequent behaviour, nonetheless, suggests he’s an activist investor.
Given Musk’s disclosure document, the SEC is prone to be be particularly cautious to make sure Twitter’s shareholders are correctly knowledgeable. If it finds Musk violated any legal guidelines, it may impose penalties or require undertakings protecting Musk’s function with Twitter after the acquisition. It’s, nonetheless, unlikely to cease the deal.
The opposite US anti-trust and competitors regulators are additionally prone to scrutinise the bid, given its excessive profile and bipartisan concerns concerning the energy of Massive Tech.
However additionally it is unlikely they might block Musk’s bid, as a result of he has little different monetary curiosity in tech corporations to obviously recommend his takeover is anti-competitive.
How will different shareholders reply?
Shareholders should approve the deal through a shareholder vote, which is but to be scheduled. If a majority approve the bid, then all shareholders should promote.
In making their vote, some shareholders would possibly take into account non-financial issues, akin to their view of Musk and what – if something – the acquisition means without cost speech.
However for many value is the important thing.
Some shareholders have complained that Musk’s $54.20 bid is too low. Twitter briefly traded above US$70 in July 2021 – consistent with the rise of tech shares typically in 2021, nevertheless it fell steadily thereafter to US$32.42. In February 2022, Goldman Sachs valued Twitter shares US$30 over the following 12 months based mostly on its most up-to-date earnings.
Twitter’s share value
Twitter’s earnings have been variable and face continued stress. Whereas revenues have elevated, Twitter isn’t worthwhile, owing partly to a litigation charge.
Different tech corporations have signalled continued stress to promoting income. For instance, Google’s mother or father firm, Alphabet, reported a decline in YouTube ad revenue within the first quarter of 2022, relative to the tip of 2021.
These details ought to affect how most shareholders vote. Musk’s US$54.20 bid value presents a stable takeover premium: 18% above the worth earlier than the takeover bid, 38% above the worth on April 1, and about 50% above the worth earlier than Musk accrued shares on January 31 2022. That is on the higher finish of takeover premiums reported by Boston Consulting Group.
So what now
So Musk could be very prone to full the acquisition for Twitter. Regulators might impose situations however are unlikely to dam the deal.
The massive questions now are how Musk will allow “free speech” with out turning Twitter right into a cesspool, how he’ll take care of censorious international locations during which his different corporations (Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and others) do enterprise, and if he’ll earn money from Twitter.
However these complications will probably be Musk’s alone, not the previous shareholders.