Twitter Shareholder Sues CEO and Board Members Over Inflated Share Price
fortune.com
fortune.com
It's one thing to be CEO of two companies that are doing well, with a well-established strategy and strong teams of A-grade players that are executing well.
What I don't understand is how Jack Dorsey could believe he could successfully manage two companies, Square and Twitter, at the same time at such critical points in their growth. I just shake my head at the unbridled hubris and over-estimation of one's own abilities that one must have to make this decision. It's very frustrating, because I believe both companies could be so much greater at what they do; they've just touched the tip of the iceberg.
It's hard enough to turn around one company successfully. But even if Dorsey is successful in the end, splitting 50% of your time somewhere else is a needless way to slim down your odds, kind of like smoking a pack of Marlboros a day and hoping to make it to 100. It happens, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Or to paraphrase from elsewhere: "It could be that the purpose of Dorsey's career is to serve as a warning for others."
Having said that, I can't speak to how accurate it is. I don't know him, not do I know anyone who knows him. Like many books, it probably has its own angle/spin on the events it describes, even if the author was trying to be unbiased.
Keeping that in mind, it's still an interesting read. Can anyone suggest other books, articles, or blog posts that discuss Twitter's history?
First, it does seem that Musk has had a plan for at least two of those companies: Solar City and Tesla. It could still fail, but at least there is some plan and soon they will be one company.
Second, I think my opinion would also depend on the bench strength of the rest of the company's team as well the other leadership. Basically, these will be the people who will be there to make the important decisions and make sure your company hits its results while you are working on your other company(s). I haven't learned enough about Musk's team to have an opinion on that yet.
Finally, there is the question of the overall company vision/mission. I would say that Twitter's mission is under siege and in need of revisiting, far more than Musk's companies. This is can be confirmed by Twitter's consistently poor user growth numbers and feckless monetization efforts.
I'm sure we're all happy they didn't fail, but he didn't increase the chance of success with that move.
Unlike Tesla/SpaceX at the time, Twitter is rolling in money and can afford to get almost anyone they want.
Blame the board, too. They are the ones who decided to approve the hiring of a CEO who wanted to keep his other full-time CEO job. If Twitter fails, the board will be just as much to blame as Dorsey.
I'd be pretty unhappy about this if I were a shareholder. I don't care that Dorsey was a founder. It's just not responsible for a board to hire a CEO who isn't dedicated 100% to the company.
The gentle explanation: He's an external figurehead, and he has 3 rock star execs supporting him, each of whom has CEO-level capabilities. (Noto, Bain and Kordestani)
The less gentle explanation: If you think you're the second coming of Steve Jobs, part of securing your legacy is starting a company simultaneous to turning around your old company. It ain't easy being Steve Jobs!
Either way, it doesn't look like it's going to end well.
Wait, does this mean Twitter is going to buy Square?
Also all this was public information at the time. All these insiders would have filed a notice with the SEC when they sell shares.
Still, Twitter is run quite poorly and lawyers will make a lot of money on this weak ash lawsuit.
Ironically this lawsuit will likely just lower the stock price even further if it has any effect at all, which I doubt it will.
Both are in a tight spot. T is just more recently "high-flying" than Y.
Twitter, on the other hand, operates infrastructure that a lot of people care about but can't make money and seemingly has no plan for how to change that.
I don't know the law or the precedents, but it seems concealing info might be an the exception that proves the rule here. The point being you need non-lying results if you are going to decide whether to sell the stock.are lying about results, you can't
> The best that I can say about Twitter, at the moment, is that at $18/share, it is fairly valued, but if the company continues to be run the way it has for the last few years, both price and value could move in tandem to zero.
oh it is about the ever changing engagement metrics that social media companies woo dollars with.