Elon Musk on twitter: what the evidence says · JRE #2223
SUBJECT: TWITTER
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
Elon's a bad businessman, Twitter is worth you know 400% less than when he bought it. No, it wasn't worth that in the first place. It wasn't worth 44 billion dollars.
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
Musk agreed to pay $44 billion for Twitter in October 2022 and closed the deal at that price after initially trying to back out. Independent, repeated mark-to-market estimates from Fidelity, one of the outside investors in the deal, tracked a steep decline in the company's implied value in the two years afterward: down roughly 65-72% by late 2023, and by September 2024 down approximately 79%, implying a total company value of around $9 billion, a fraction of the purchase price. Other analysts, such as Wedbush's Dan Ives, similarly concluded Musk overpaid, estimating Twitter's fair value at the time of purchase was closer to $20-30 billion rather than $44 billion, a claim consistent with Musk's assertion that the sticker price didn't reflect true worth, even though it was a price he agreed to. However, this does not make the described loss illusory: multiple independent valuations converged on a real, substantial decline in value after the purchase, driven by advertiser flight, revenue drops, and increased debt load, not merely a correction of an inflated initial price. X's valuation later recovered significantly, reaching roughly $33-44 billion in a March 2025 transaction tied to its merger with Musk's xAI. The specific "400%" figure Musk cites does not match any of the commonly reported percentage figures (which cluster around 65-79% declines) and appears to be a mischaracterization or exaggeration of the magnitude reported by outlets discussing the losses.