Thread by @TheLastRefuge2

I'm not saying Elon Musk is a bad actor in this. However, I accept what Musk himself says when he states he didn't know about child porn, Jack Dorsey, safety council, Yoel Roth, James Baker, Perkins Coie, DHS and the FBI as they relate to the platform he purchased.

Weird.

His lack of knowledge about operational stuff, makes me wonder what he did know, if anything, about the finance package put together, by others for him, in order to transfer ownership.

Not who made the loans/investments, but who are the underwriters of the transfer $$ vehicle?

Whoever those underwriters are now have a stake in Tesla that didn't exist until Musk put the subsidiary interest up as part of the financial package.

Remember, it's not public any longer - it's private.

Obviously, Twitter previously operated at a financial loss, never making a dime in profit. Which adds to the DHS in control element now being openly discussed. Profit was not part of the platform priority equation; influence and control of public information/opinion was.

However, now a path to profitability, if not the urgent need for immediate financial reversals, would be paramount. If not, depending on construct of the package, Tesla (tenuous and economy dependent) could start to bleed into Twitter sustainability.

But... Big But...

If profitability is not urgent, and yet the financial purchase package was constructed with subsidiary equity stake as partial current equity construct, then the question becomes... how are operational deficits being covered?

I see nothing about new loans/invests mentioned.

Which takes you back to the underwriting....

It's just weird to reconcile - unless the underwriter is, as major financial investment firms have previously hidden under layers of ancillary finance products, a circle that returns to... 👇