埃隆·馬斯克說過很多離譜的話,但他在美國勞動節(jié)(Labor Day)晚上7:04發(fā)布的這條消息,可能是有史以來企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人對自己企業(yè)做出的最負(fù)面的評價,而且實際上他是在自我批評。
馬斯克在攻擊由猶太人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的民權(quán)組織美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟(Anti-Defamation League)時,發(fā)射了這一輪令人震驚的言論炮火。美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟強烈反對X公司允許在平臺上發(fā)布極右仇恨組織的反猶推文。馬斯克則指責(zé)美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟“咄咄逼人地要求封禁社交媒體賬戶,即便是輕微的違規(guī)行為”,而且該組織“試圖扼殺X”,迫使廣告商回避該網(wǎng)站。但最令人費解的并不是馬斯克又一次口無遮攔地搬起石頭砸自己的腳,而是他居然對美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟造成的所謂的經(jīng)濟損失進行了估算,而這很可能會讓他的合作伙伴和債權(quán)人跌破眼鏡。
他的驚人算術(shù)是關(guān)于推特(Twitter)的現(xiàn)值。自2022年10月收購?fù)铺仄脚_以來,馬斯克曾經(jīng)多次表示,該平臺的價值已經(jīng)大幅下跌,主要原因是廣告收入災(zāi)難性下降。馬斯克以440億美元的價格收購了推特,其中130億美元來自大牌商業(yè)銀行和投資銀行的貸款,310億美元來自股權(quán)。在后一部分資金中,馬斯克自己出資約240億美元,而包括拉里·埃里森、羅恩·巴倫和沙特阿拉伯王子阿爾·瓦利德在內(nèi)的一批投資者朋友出資70億美元。
在這篇帖子里,馬斯克指責(zé)說:“美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟似乎應(yīng)該對我們大部分的收入損失負(fù)責(zé)。”他補充道:”我認(rèn)為他們至少要對10%的價值破壞負(fù)責(zé),所以大約是40億美元。”按理說,馬斯克所說的“價值”指的是完成收購整體支付的440億美元,而不是股權(quán)部分。畢竟,如果你以44萬美元的價格買了一棟房子,借了13萬美元,并用現(xiàn)金支付了剩余的31萬美元,而房價下跌了,你就會根據(jù)這棟房子現(xiàn)在的價格比44萬美元低多少來計算“價值”的下跌。
根據(jù)馬斯克的計算,美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟僅憑一己之力就使X的“價值”蒸發(fā)了約40億美元,而這40億美元約占整個公司價值跌幅的10%。按此計算,總跌幅為400億美元。由于馬斯克和合作伙伴支付了440億美元(包括債務(wù)),他的意思是,該平臺現(xiàn)在將以40億美元(440億美元的收購價減去400億美元的“價值破壞”)的價格易手,跌幅為90%。那么,馬斯克其實是在說,他與合伙人投資的310億美元股權(quán)已經(jīng)完全不復(fù)存在,而華爾街精英們提供的一大部分債務(wù)也遠在水面之下。
埃隆·馬斯克真的認(rèn)為X現(xiàn)在值40億美元嗎?也許不是。但他剛剛給自己本已陷入困境的品牌又造成了一次打擊,這將進一步損害其在廣告商心目中的地位。他的觀點可能是:當(dāng)你是受害者時,如果錯誤歸咎于他人,夸大痛苦和拋出損失數(shù)字就是可以接受的。如果X確實經(jīng)歷了一場金融災(zāi)難,人們很可能就會忘記這些借口,而去審視其多情的唯一所有者所犯下的錯誤。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:珠珠
埃隆·馬斯克說過很多離譜的話,但他在美國勞動節(jié)(Labor Day)晚上7:04發(fā)布的這條消息,可能是有史以來企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人對自己企業(yè)做出的最負(fù)面的評價,而且實際上他是在自我批評。
馬斯克在攻擊由猶太人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的民權(quán)組織美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟(Anti-Defamation League)時,發(fā)射了這一輪令人震驚的言論炮火。美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟強烈反對X公司允許在平臺上發(fā)布極右仇恨組織的反猶推文。馬斯克則指責(zé)美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟“咄咄逼人地要求封禁社交媒體賬戶,即便是輕微的違規(guī)行為”,而且該組織“試圖扼殺X”,迫使廣告商回避該網(wǎng)站。但最令人費解的并不是馬斯克又一次口無遮攔地搬起石頭砸自己的腳,而是他居然對美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟造成的所謂的經(jīng)濟損失進行了估算,而這很可能會讓他的合作伙伴和債權(quán)人跌破眼鏡。
他的驚人算術(shù)是關(guān)于推特(Twitter)的現(xiàn)值。自2022年10月收購?fù)铺仄脚_以來,馬斯克曾經(jīng)多次表示,該平臺的價值已經(jīng)大幅下跌,主要原因是廣告收入災(zāi)難性下降。馬斯克以440億美元的價格收購了推特,其中130億美元來自大牌商業(yè)銀行和投資銀行的貸款,310億美元來自股權(quán)。在后一部分資金中,馬斯克自己出資約240億美元,而包括拉里·埃里森、羅恩·巴倫和沙特阿拉伯王子阿爾·瓦利德在內(nèi)的一批投資者朋友出資70億美元。
在這篇帖子里,馬斯克指責(zé)說:“美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟似乎應(yīng)該對我們大部分的收入損失負(fù)責(zé)。”他補充道:”我認(rèn)為他們至少要對10%的價值破壞負(fù)責(zé),所以大約是40億美元。”按理說,馬斯克所說的“價值”指的是完成收購整體支付的440億美元,而不是股權(quán)部分。畢竟,如果你以44萬美元的價格買了一棟房子,借了13萬美元,并用現(xiàn)金支付了剩余的31萬美元,而房價下跌了,你就會根據(jù)這棟房子現(xiàn)在的價格比44萬美元低多少來計算“價值”的下跌。
根據(jù)馬斯克的計算,美國反誹謗聯(lián)盟僅憑一己之力就使X的“價值”蒸發(fā)了約40億美元,而這40億美元約占整個公司價值跌幅的10%。按此計算,總跌幅為400億美元。由于馬斯克和合作伙伴支付了440億美元(包括債務(wù)),他的意思是,該平臺現(xiàn)在將以40億美元(440億美元的收購價減去400億美元的“價值破壞”)的價格易手,跌幅為90%。那么,馬斯克其實是在說,他與合伙人投資的310億美元股權(quán)已經(jīng)完全不復(fù)存在,而華爾街精英們提供的一大部分債務(wù)也遠在水面之下。
埃隆·馬斯克真的認(rèn)為X現(xiàn)在值40億美元嗎?也許不是。但他剛剛給自己本已陷入困境的品牌又造成了一次打擊,這將進一步損害其在廣告商心目中的地位。他的觀點可能是:當(dāng)你是受害者時,如果錯誤歸咎于他人,夸大痛苦和拋出損失數(shù)字就是可以接受的。如果X確實經(jīng)歷了一場金融災(zāi)難,人們很可能就會忘記這些借口,而去審視其多情的唯一所有者所犯下的錯誤。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:珠珠
Elon Musk says the most outrageous things. But the message he posted at 7:04 p.m. On Labor Day evening may rank as the most negative, in fact self-indicting, assessment a corporate leader has ever issued about their own enterprise.
Musk fired off this head-spinning salvo in his attack on the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish-led organization civil rights organization. The ADL had strongly objected to virulently anti-Semitic tweets from far-right hate groups that X permitted on the platform. Musk charged that the ADL was “aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts even for minor infractions,” and that the organization was “trying to kill X” by pressing advertisers to avoid the site. But the most mystifying feature wasn’t that, once again, Musk shot off his mouth and hit his foot, but that he actually put a number on the financial damage allegedly inflicted by the ADL that’s likely to floor his partners and lenders.
His astounding math applies to the present value of the business formerly known as Twitter. Musk’s said many times since he purchased the platform last October that its worth has plummeted, largely via a disastrous drop in ad revenue. Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion, funded $13 billion by loans from big-name commercial and investment banks, and $31 billion in equity. Of the latter portion, Musk contributed about $24 billion of his own cash, while a group of investor friends including Larry Ellison, Ron Baron, and Prince Al Waleed of Saudi Arabia provided $7 billion.
In the post, Musk charges that “ADL seems responsible for most of our revenue loss” and adds, “I don’t see any scenario where they’re responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so around $4 billion.” It’s logical to assume that by “value,” Musk means the $44 billion paid for the property, not the equity portion. After all, if you bought a house for $440,000, borrowed $130,000, and funded the remaining $310,000 in cash, and the price fell, you’d calculate the fall in “value” based in how much less than $440,000 the dwelling would fetch today.
In Musk’s reckoning, the ADL singlehandedly vaporized roughly $4 billion in X’s “value,” and that $4 billion accounts for around 10% of the entire decline in the franchise’s worth. That formula puts the total fall at $40 billion. Since Musk and partners paid $44 billion including debt, he’s implying that the platform would now change hands for $4 billion (the $44 billion purchase price minus the $40 billion in “value destruction”), for a drop of 90%. In effect, he’s saying that the $31 billion he and his partners invested in equity is totally gone, and a big portion of the debt from provided by the cream of Wall Street sits far underwater.
Does Elon Musk really believe that X is now worth $4 billion, as his scorching post suggests? Maybe not. But he’s just inflicted still another battering on his already beleaguered brand that will further undermine its standing in the eyes of advertisers. His view may be that it’s acceptable to exaggerate the pain and throw around numbers when you’re the victim, when it’s somebody else’s fault. If X indeed proves a financial cataclysm, people are likely to forget the excuses, and examine the careening missteps from its mercurial sole proprietor.