NESN, -0.26%
said it now expects sales to grow organically between 8% and 8.5% from previous expectations of around 8%. The underlying trading operating profit margin is still seen at around 17%.
By 2025, it expects to return to an underlying trading operating profit margin in the range of 17.5% to 18.5%, following the margin impact of cost inflation in 2021 and 2022.
Annual underlying earnings-per-share growth is seen between 6% and 10% in constant currency over the 2022-25 period, Nestle said. The company aims for free cash flow toward 12% of sales, and return on invested capital of 15% by 2025.
In terms of portfolio management, it said it will explore strategic options for peanut allergy treatment Palforzia, following slower than expected adoption by patients and heathcare professionals. The review should be completed in the first half of next year.
Nestle said the health-science business will focus more on consumer care and medical nutrition.
The company confirmed its program to repurchase 20 billion Swiss francs ($21.14 billion) of its shares between 2022 and 2024 and said it aims to keep increasing its dividend year on year.
closing its $69 billion acquisition of the company. With
Activision
shares trading at a significant discount to the deal price, the stock looked closest to a sure thing in an increasingly uncertain market.
Four months later, the risks of the deal falling apart over antitrust concerns haven’t changed. What has changed is the outlook for Activision’s business. The firm behind Call of Duty and Candy Crush is suddenly doing quite well on its own.
The Estee Lauder Cos. is acquiring luxury powerhouse Tom Ford in a deal valued at $2.8 billion, marking the beauty firm’s biggest acquisition yet.
As part of the deal announced Tuesday, Ermenegildo Zegna Group and Marcolin S.p.A. will enter long-term license agreements for Tom Ford fashion and Tom Ford eyewear, respectively.
While Estee Lauder said the deal values the total enterprise at $2.8 billion, the New York-based beauty company is expected to pay roughly $2.3 billion, after a $250 million payment from Italian eyewear manufacturer Marcolin SpA.
The purchase, subject to regulatory approvals, is slated to close in the first half of 2023.
Under the agreement, Tom Ford, founder and CEO of Tom Ford International, will remain the brand’s creative visionary through the end of 2023. Domenico De Sole, chairman of Tom Ford International, will stay on as a consultant until that same time.
Estee Lauder introduced its Tom Ford Beauty line in 2006. In Estee Lauder’s fiscal year that ended June 30, the brand’s net sales grew nearly 25% compared to the prior year. The beauty company said that in the next few years it expect the beauty line to bring in net sales of $1 billion.
“This strategic acquisition will unlock new opportunities and fortify our growth plans for Tom Ford Beauty,” said Fabrizio Freda, president and CEO of Estee Lauder in a statement. “It will also further help to propel our momentum in the promising category of luxury beauty for the long-term, while reaffirming our commitment to being the leading pure player in global prestige beauty.”
Estee Lauder said it aims to finance the acquisition through a combination of cash, debt and $300 million in deferred payments to sellers that become due beginning in July of 2025.
Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, is abandoning its proposed acquisition of the non-U.S. assets of rival FTX, amid the latter’s liquidity crunch.
“As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com,” according to a tweet by Binance’s official account Wednesday.
“Our hope was to be able to support FTX’s customers to provide liquidity, but the issues are beyond our control or ability to help,” Binance wrote.
Executives at Binance have found a gap, likely in billions and possibly more than $6 billion, between the liabilities and assets of FTX, Bloomberg reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous source familiar with the matter.
Representatives at Binance and FTX didn’t immediately respond to a request seeking comments.
On Tuesday, Changpeng Zhao, Binance’s chief executive, said the exchange had signed a letter of intent to acquire FTX.com, a separate entity from FTX.US, after FTX “asked for help.”
Investors are worried about any contagion, as concerns over FTX’s solvency spilled over to the already battered crypto market. BitcoinBTCUSD plunged Wednesday to as low as $16,863, the lowest level since November 2020.
FTX is the third largest crypto exchange by trading volume, according to CoinMarketCap.
NEW YORK — Bitcoin slumped to a two-year low and other digital assets sold off following the sudden collapse of crypto exchange FTX Trading, which has been forced to sell itself to larger rival Binance.
Bitcoin traded around $17,645, and overnight fell to its lowest level since December 2020. Just a year ago, bitcoin hit an all-time high of $68,990. Ethereum, the second most actively traded digital currency, fell 10%.
FTX agreed to sell itself to Binance after experiencing the cryptocurrency equivalent of a bank run. Customers fled the exchange after becoming concerned about whether FTX had sufficient capital.
The sudden sale was a shocking turn of events for FTX CEO and founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who was hailed as somewhat of a savior earlier this year when he helped shore up a number of cryptocurrency companies that ran into financial trouble.
Shares of publicly traded companies with heavy exposure to crypto were also down in early trading after falling sharply on Tuesday.
Online trading platform Robinhood Markets fell more than 6% after sinking 19% Tuesday. Bankman-Fried’s holding company Emergent Fidelity Technology had a 7.5% stake in Robinhood as of Tuesday. Coinbase, the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange behind Binance, was down 6% in early trading.
FTX is the latest cryptocurrency company this year to come under financial pressure as crypto assets have collapsed in value. Other failures include Celsius, a bank-like company that took in crypto deposits in exchange for yield, as well as an Asia-based hedge fund known as Three Arrows Capital.
BERLIN — The German government may decide this week to block the sale of a chip factory to a Swedish subsidiary of a Chinese company, following a recent compromise over a Chinese shipping firm’s investment in a German container terminal.
German company Elmos said late Monday that it was informed by the Economy Ministry that the sale of its factory in Dortmund to Silex Microsystems AB “will most likely be prohibited in the upcoming cabinet session.” The ministry previously “had indicated to the parties that the transaction most likely will be approved,” Elmos added.
Silex is owned by Sai Microelectronics of China, according to German media. The planned 85 million-euro (dollar) sale was announced in December.
The change comes as Germany struggles with the extent it should allow Chinese companies to invest in Europe’s biggest economy.
The Cabinet, which will hold its weekly meeting Wednesday, reached a compromise late last month after officials argued over whether to allow China’s COSCO to take a 35% stake in a container terminal at the Hamburg port.
Members of two junior parties in the governing coalition opposed that deal while Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a former Hamburg mayor, downplayed its significance.
COSCO was cleared to take a stake below 25%, with a threshold above that allowing an investor can block a company’s decisions.
Scholz traveled to Beijing last week, becoming the first leader from the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations to meet President Xi Jinping since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The visit, coming shortly after Xi further cemented his authoritarian rule at home, drew some criticism at home.
Scholz is encouraging companies to diversify but not discouraging business with China. He said before the trip that “we don’t want decoupling from China” but that “we will reduce one-sided dependencies in the spirit of smart diversification.”
Renault SA and China’s Geely say they plan to launch a joint venture to produce gasoline-powered and hybrid powertrains, adding to a series of partnerships between global automakers to share soaring technology costs
BEIJING — Renault SA and China’s Geely announced plans Tuesday for a jointly owned venture to produce gasoline-powered and hybrid powertrains, adding to a series of partnerships between global automakers to share soaring technology costs.
The venture will have 17 plants with annual production capacity of 5 million powertrains, five research and development centers on three continents and some 19,000 employees, the companies said. They gave no financial terms but said each partner will own half of the venture.
It will supply brands owned by or linked to Renault and Geely including Nissan, Mitsubishi, Volvo Cars, Renault, Dacia, Geely Auto, Lynk & Co. and Proton, the companies said. They said it might later supply third-party brands.
Global automakers have been forming partnerships over the past decade to share the multibillion-dollar development costs of electric vehicles and more efficient gasoline engines.
The Renault-Geely agreement will “enable the creation of a global leader in hybrid technologies to provide highly efficient advanced solutions for automakers around the world,” Eric Li, chairman of Geely Holding Group, said in a statement.
The discourse was never all that civil on Twitter. The loudest voices have often drowned out softer, more nuanced takes. After all, it’s much easier to rage-tweet at a perceived enemy than to seek common ground, whether the argument is about transgender kids or baseball.
In the chaos that has enveloped Twitter the platform — and Twitter the company — since Elon Musk took over, it has become clear this isn’t changing anytime soon. In fact, it’s likely to get much worse before it gets better — if it gets better at all.
Musk, with his band of tech industry loyalists, arrived at Twitter just over a week ago ready to tear down the blue bird’s nest and rebuild it in his vision with breakneck speed. He quickly fired top executives and the board of directors, installed himself as the company’s sole director (for now) and declared himself “Chief Twit,” then “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” on his bio.
On Friday, he began mass layoffs at the San Francisco-based company, letting go about half of its workers via email to return it to staffing levels not seen since 2014.
All the while, he’s continued to tweet a mix of crude memes, half-jokes, SpaceX rocket launches and maybe-maybe not plans for Twitter that he seems to be workshopping on the site in real time. After floating the idea of charging users $20 a month for the “blue check” and some extra features, for instance, he appeared to quickly scale it back in a Twitter exchange with author Stephen King, who posted, “If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron.”
“We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?” Musk replied. On Saturday, the company announced a subscription service for $7.99 monthly that allows anyone on Twitter to pay a fee for the check mark “just like the celebrities, companies and politicians you already follow” as well as some premium features — not yet available — like getting their tweets boosted above those coming from accounts without the blue check.
The billionaire Tesla CEO also has repeatedly engaged with right-wing figures appealing for looser restrictions on hate and misinformation. He received congratulations from Dimitry Medvedev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top associate, and tweeted — then deleted — a baseless conspiracy theory about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, who was attacked in his home.
More than three dozen advocacy organizations wrote an open letter to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, calling on them to commit to halting advertising on the platform if Twitter under Musk undermines “brand safety” and guts content moderation.
“Not only are extremists celebrating Musk’s takeover of Twitter, they are seeing it as a new opportunity to post the most abusive, harassing, and racist language and imagery. This includes clear threats of violence against people with whom they disagree,” the letter said.
One of Musk’s first moves was to fire the woman in charge of trust and safety at the platform, Vijaya Gadde. But he has kept on Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, and has taken steps to reassure users and advertisers that the site won’t turn into a “free-for-all hellscape” that some fear it might.
On Friday, he tweeted that “Twitter’s strong commitment to content moderation remains absolutely unchanged. In fact, we have actually seen hateful speech at times this week decline (asterisk)below(asterisk) our prior norms, contrary to what you may read in the press.” A growing number of advertisers are nevertheless pausing spending on Twitter while they reassess how Musk’s changes might increase objectionable material on the platform.
Musk also met with some civil rights leaders “about how Twitter will continue to combat hate & harassment & enforce its election integrity policies,” according to a tweet he sent Nov. 1.
But representatives of the LGBTQ community were notably absent from the meeting, even though its members are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than those outside of such communities. Twitter did not respond to a message for comment on whether Musk plans to meet with LGBTQ groups.
The mercurial billionaire has said he won’t make major decisions about content or restoring banned accounts — such as that of former President Donald Trump — before setting up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints. The council, he later added, will include “the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fueled violence.” But experts have pointed out that Twitter already has a trust and safety advisory council to address moderation questions.
“Truly I can’t imagine how it would differ,” said Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor who sits on the council and has been working with Twitter since its infancy in 2009 to tackle online harms, such as threats and stalking. “Our council has the full spectrum of views on free speech.”
Some amount of chaos is expected after a corporate takeover, as are layoffs and firings. But Musk’s murky plans for Twitter — especially its content moderation, misinformation and hate speech policies — are raising alarms about where one of the world’s most high-profile information ecosystems is headed. All that seems certain is that for now, at least, as Elon Musk goes, so goes Twitter.
“I hope that responsibility and maturity will win the day,” said Eddie Perez, a former Twitter civic integrity team leader who left the company before Musk took over. “It’s one thing to be a billionaire troll on Twitter and to try to get laughs with memes and to yuk it up. You are now the owner of Twitter and there’s a new level of responsibility.”
For now, though, the memes appear to be winning. This concerns experts like Perez, who worry Musk is moving too fast without listening to people who have been working to improve civility on the platform and instead using his own insular experience as one of the platform’s most popular users with millions of fawning fans who hail his every move.
“You have a single billionaire that is controlling something as influential as a social media platform like Twitter. And you have entire nation states (whose) political goals are inimical to our own, and they are trying to create chaos and they are directly courting favor” with Musk, Perez said.
“There’s just no world in which all of that is normal,” he added. “That should absolutely concern us.”
Twitter didn’t start out as a cesspool. And even now there are pockets of funny, weird, nerdy subgroups on the platform that remain somewhat insulated from the messy and confrontational place it can appear to be if one follows too many hotheaded agitators. But as with Facebook, Twitter’s rise also coincided with growing polarization and a measurable decline in online civility in the United States and beyond.
“The big understanding that occurred between 2008 and 2012 is that the way to get traction, the way to get attention on any social media, Twitter included, was to use incendiary language — to challenge the basic humanity of the opposition,” said Lee Rainie, director of internet and technology research at the Pew Research Center.
Things continued to devolve as the 2016 U.S. presidential election approached and passed, and the new president cemented his reputation as one of Twitter’s most incendiary users. After it was revealed that Russia used social media platforms to try to influence elections in the U.S. and other countries, the platforms themselves became central figures in the political debate.
“Do they have too much power? Do their content moderation policies privilege one side or another?” Rainie said. “The companies themselves found themselves in the thick of the most intense arguments in the culture. And so that’s the environment that Elon Musk is entering now.”
And beyond the bluster and the outsized personality, Musk’s own description of his new job — “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” — may turn out to be his biggest challenge yet.
———
AP Technology Writer Frank Bajak contributed to this story.
The discourse was never all that civil on Twitter. The loudest voices have often drowned out softer, more nuanced takes. After all, it’s much easier to rage-tweet at a perceived enemy than to seek common ground, whether the argument is about transgender kids or baseball.
In the chaos that has enveloped Twitter the platform — and Twitter the company — since Elon Musk took over, it has become clear this isn’t changing anytime soon. In fact, it’s likely to get much worse before it gets better — if it gets better at all.
Musk, with his band of tech industry loyalists, arrived at Twitter just over a week ago ready to tear down the blue bird’s nest and rebuild it in his vision with breakneck speed. He quickly fired top executives and the board of directors, installed himself as the company’s sole director (for now) and declared himself “Chief Twit,” then “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” on his bio.
On Friday, he began mass layoffs at the San Francisco-based company, letting go about half of of its workers via email to return it to staffing levels not seen since 2014.
All the while, he’s continued to tweet a mix of crude memes, half-jokes, SpaceX rocket launches and maybe-maybe not plans for Twitter that he seems to be workshopping on the site in real time. After floating the idea of charging users $20 a month for the “blue check” and some extra features, for instance, he appeared to quickly scale it back in a Twitter exchange with author Stephen King, who posted, “If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron.”
“We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?” Musk replied. On Saturday, the company announced a subscription service for $7.99 monthly that allows anyone on Twitter to pay a fee for the check mark “just like the celebrities, companies and politicians you already follow” as well as some premium features — not yet available — like getting their tweets boosted above those coming from accounts without the blue check.
The billionaire Tesla CEO also has repeatedly engaged with right-wing figures appealing for looser restrictions on hate and misinformation, received congratulations from Dimitry Medvedev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top associate and tweeted — then deleted — a baseless conspiracy theory about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, who was attacked in his home.
More than three dozen advocacy organizations wrote an open letter to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, calling on them to commit to halting advertising on the platform if Twitter under Musk undermines “brand safety” and guts content moderation.
“Not only are extremists celebrating Musk’s takeover of Twitter, they are seeing it as a new opportunity to post the most abusive, harassing, and racist language and imagery. This includes clear threats of violence against people with whom they disagree,” the letter said.
One of Musk’s first moves was to fire the woman in charge of trust and safety at the platform, Vijaya Gadde. But he has kept on Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, and has taken steps to reassure users and advertisers that the site won’t turn into a “free-for-all hellscape” that some fear it might.
On Friday, he tweeted that “Twitter’s strong commitment to content moderation remains absolutely unchanged. In fact, we have actually seen hateful speech at times this week decline (asterisk)below(asterisk) our prior norms, contrary to what you may read in the press.” A growing number of advertisers are nevertheless pausing spending on Twitter while they reassess how Musk’s changes might increase objectionable material on the platform.
Musk also met with some civil rights leaders “about how Twitter will continue to combat hate & harassment & enforce its election integrity policies,” according to a tweet he sent Nov. 1.
But representatives of the LGBTQ community were notably absent from the meeting, even though its members are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than those outside of such communities. Twitter did not respond to a message for comment on whether Musk plans to meet with LGBTQ groups.
The mercurial billionaire has said he won’t make major decisions about content or restoring banned accounts — such as that of former President Donald Trump — before setting up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints. The council, he later added, will include “the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fueled violence.” But experts have pointed out that Twitter already has a trust and safety advisory council to address moderation questions.
“Truly I can’t imagine how it would differ,” said Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor who sits on the council and has been working with Twitter since its infancy in 2009 to tackle online harms, such as threats and stalking. “Our council has the full spectrum of views on free speech.”
Some amount of chaos is expected after a corporate takeover, as are layoffs and firings. But Musk’s murky plans for Twitter — especially its content moderation, misinformation and hate speech policies — are raising alarms about where one of the world’s most high-profile information ecosystems is headed. All that seems certain is that for now, at least, as Elon Musk goes, so goes Twitter.
“I hope that responsibility and maturity will win the day,” said Eddie Perez, a former Twitter civic integrity team leader who left the company before Musk took over. “It’s one thing to be a billionaire troll on Twitter and to try to get laughs with memes and to yuk it up. You are now the owner of Twitter and there’s a new level of responsibility.”
For now, though, the memes appear to be winning. This concerns experts like Perez, who worry Musk is moving too fast without listening to people who have been working to improve civility on the platform and instead using his own insular experience as one of the platform’s most popular users with millions of fawning fans who hail his every move.
“You have a single billionaire that is controlling something as influential as a social media platform like Twitter. And you have entire nation states (whose) political goals are inimical to our own, and they are trying to create chaos and they are directly courting favor” with Musk, Perez said.
“There’s just no world in which all of that is normal,” he added. “That should absolutely concern us.”
Twitter didn’t start out as a cesspool. And even now there are pockets of funny, weird, nerdy subgroups on the platform that remain somewhat insulated from the messy and confrontational place it can appear to be if one follows too many hotheaded agitators. But as with Facebook, Twitter’s rise also coincided with growing polarization and a measurable decline in online civility in the United States and beyond.
“The big understanding that occurred between 2008 and 2012 is that the way to get traction, the way to get attention on any social media, Twitter included, was to use incendiary language — to challenge the basic humanity of the opposition,” said Lee Rainie, director of internet and technology research at the Pew Research Center.
Things continued to devolve as the 2016 U.S. presidential election approached and passed, and the new president cemented his reputation as one of Twitter’s most incendiary users. After it was revealed that Russia used social media platforms to try to influence elections in the U.S. and other countries, the platforms found themselves became central figures in the political debate.
“Do they have too much power? Do their content moderation policies privilege one side or another?” Rainie said. “The companies themselves found themselves in the thick of the most intense arguments in the culture. And so that’s the environment that Elon Musk is entering now.”
And beyond the bluster and the outsized personality, Musk’s own description of his new job — “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” — may turn out to be his biggest challenge yet.
———
AP Technology Writer Frank Bajak contributed to this story.
The discourse was never all that civil on Twitter. The loudest voices have often drowned out softer, more nuanced takes. After all, it’s much easier to rage-tweet at a perceived enemy than to seek common ground, whether the argument is about transgender kids or baseball.
In the chaos that has enveloped Twitter the platform — and Twitter the company — since Elon Musk took over, it has become clear this isn’t changing anytime soon. In fact, it’s likely to get much worse before it gets better — if it gets better at all.
Musk, with his band of tech industry loyalists, arrived at Twitter just over a week ago ready to tear down the blue bird’s nest and rebuild it in his vision with breakneck speed. He quickly fired top executives and the board of directors, installed himself as the company’s sole director (for now) and declared himself “Chief Twit,” then “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” on his bio.
On Friday, he began mass layoffs at the San Francisco-based company, letting go about half of of its workers via email to return it to staffing levels not seen since 2014.
All the while, he’s continued to tweet a mix of crude memes, half-jokes, SpaceX rocket launches and maybe-maybe not plans for Twitter that he seems to be workshopping on the site in real time. After floating the idea of charging users $20 a month for the “blue check” and some extra features, for instance, he appeared to quickly scale it back in a Twitter exchange with author Stephen King, who posted, “If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron.”
“We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?” Musk replied. On Saturday, the company announced a subscription service for $7.99 monthly that allows anyone on Twitter to pay a fee for the check mark “just like the celebrities, companies and politicians you already follow” as well as some premium features — not yet available — like getting their tweets boosted above those coming from accounts without the blue check.
The billionaire Tesla CEO also has repeatedly engaged with right-wing figures appealing for looser restrictions on hate and misinformation, received congratulations from Dimitry Medvedev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top associate and tweeted — then deleted — a baseless conspiracy theory about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, who was attacked in his home.
More than three dozen advocacy organizations wrote an open letter to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, calling on them to commit to halting advertising on the platform if Twitter under Musk undermines “brand safety” and guts content moderation.
“Not only are extremists celebrating Musk’s takeover of Twitter, they are seeing it as a new opportunity to post the most abusive, harassing, and racist language and imagery. This includes clear threats of violence against people with whom they disagree,” the letter said.
One of Musk’s first moves was to fire the woman in charge of trust and safety at the platform, Vijaya Gadde. But he has kept on Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, and has taken steps to reassure users and advertisers that the site won’t turn into a “free-for-all hellscape” that some fear it might.
On Friday, he tweeted that “Twitter’s strong commitment to content moderation remains absolutely unchanged. In fact, we have actually seen hateful speech at times this week decline (asterisk)below(asterisk) our prior norms, contrary to what you may read in the press.” A growing number of advertisers are nevertheless pausing spending on Twitter while they reassess how Musk’s changes might increase objectionable material on the platform.
Musk also met with some civil rights leaders “about how Twitter will continue to combat hate & harassment & enforce its election integrity policies,” according to a tweet he sent Nov. 1.
But representatives of the LGBTQ community were notably absent from the meeting, even though its members are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than those outside of such communities. Twitter did not respond to a message for comment on whether Musk plans to meet with LGBTQ groups.
The mercurial billionaire has said he won’t make major decisions about content or restoring banned accounts — such as that of former President Donald Trump — before setting up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints. The council, he later added, will include “the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fueled violence.” But experts have pointed out that Twitter already has a trust and safety advisory council to address moderation questions.
“Truly I can’t imagine how it would differ,” said Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor who sits on the council and has been working with Twitter since its infancy in 2009 to tackle online harms, such as threats and stalking. “Our council has the full spectrum of views on free speech.”
Some amount of chaos is expected after a corporate takeover, as are layoffs and firings. But Musk’s murky plans for Twitter — especially its content moderation, misinformation and hate speech policies — are raising alarms about where one of the world’s most high-profile information ecosystems is headed. All that seems certain is that for now, at least, as Elon Musk goes, so goes Twitter.
“I hope that responsibility and maturity will win the day,” said Eddie Perez, a former Twitter civic integrity team leader who left the company before Musk took over. “It’s one thing to be a billionaire troll on Twitter and to try to get laughs with memes and to yuk it up. You are now the owner of Twitter and there’s a new level of responsibility.”
For now, though, the memes appear to be winning. This concerns experts like Perez, who worry Musk is moving too fast without listening to people who have been working to improve civility on the platform and instead using his own insular experience as one of the platform’s most popular users with millions of fawning fans who hail his every move.
“You have a single billionaire that is controlling something as influential as a social media platform like Twitter. And you have entire nation states (whose) political goals are inimical to our own, and they are trying to create chaos and they are directly courting favor” with Musk, Perez said.
“There’s just no world in which all of that is normal,” he added. “That should absolutely concern us.”
Twitter didn’t start out as a cesspool. And even now there are pockets of funny, weird, nerdy subgroups on the platform that remain somewhat insulated from the messy and confrontational place it can appear to be if one follows too many hotheaded agitators. But as with Facebook, Twitter’s rise also coincided with growing polarization and a measurable decline in online civility in the United States and beyond.
“The big understanding that occurred between 2008 and 2012 is that the way to get traction, the way to get attention on any social media, Twitter included, was to use incendiary language — to challenge the basic humanity of the opposition,” said Lee Rainie, director of internet and technology research at the Pew Research Center.
Things continued to devolve as the 2016 U.S. presidential election approached and passed, and the new president cemented his reputation as one of Twitter’s most incendiary users. After it was revealed that Russia used social media platforms to try to influence elections in the U.S. and other countries, the platforms found themselves became central figures in the political debate.
“Do they have too much power? Do their content moderation policies privilege one side or another?” Rainie said. “The companies themselves found themselves in the thick of the most intense arguments in the culture. And so that’s the environment that Elon Musk is entering now.”
And beyond the bluster and the outsized personality, Musk’s own description of his new job — “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” — may turn out to be his biggest challenge yet.
———
AP Technology Writer Frank Bajak contributed to this story.
Vicki Hollub’s Occidental Petroleum controls the biggest piece of the most important area for oil production in the United States. Not so long ago, an oilman in a position like that—and it would’ve been a man, before Hollub came along—would have gone for broke, turning up production to its physical limits.
Not Hollub. Occidental produces on average the equivalent of about 1.15 million barrels of oil a day, and that’s more than enough to turn a profit. The company can make money as long as oil prices are above $40 a barrel. They’ve been above $80 for almost all of this year, as the war in Ukraine takes a toll on global markets and the Saudi-led oil cartel OPEC now slashes production.
“We don’t feel like we’re in a national crisis right now,” Hollub told MarketWatch in an interview. And that means Hollub can keep executing on her plans: making shareholders happy by paying down debt and buying back shares. “When you have such a low break-even, to me there’s no pressure to increase production right now, when we have these other two ways that we can increase shareholder value,” Hollub said.
That market-focused logic puts her at odds with President Biden, who is acting like there is a national energy crisis ongoingprecisely because of what oil CEOs like Hollub are doing. The size of oil companies’ profits is outrageous, Biden said Monday. They’re raking in cash not because of innovation or investment but as a windfall from the war in Ukraine, Biden said. “Rather than increasing their investments in America or giving American consumers a break, their excess profits are going back to their shareholders and to buying back their stock, so the executive pay is — are going to skyrocket,” Biden said. He has ordered releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep down gas prices and asked Congress to tax oil-company profits.
But Hollub is single-mindedly focused on seizing the moment to improve the company’s financial position. Occidental still has significant debt left over from a challenging acquisition Hollub spearheaded before the pandemic. In the second quarter alone, the company used its windfall to repay $4.8 billion in debt. If Biden called, she’d listen, but she hasn’t spoken to him one-on-one. Hollub said she’d spoken to the administration through Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. (“She doesn’t know the industry very well right now, but it’s because she hasn’t been in her job very long,” Hollub said.) The White House and the Department of Energy did not return requests for comment.
Hollub says she’s just following the market. “If demand goes down, we reduce production, if it goes up, we increase.” Oil prices have fluctuated rapidly over the year, and with a recession widely anticipated in the near future, demand could drop, Hollub said. Biden’s releases of oil from the SPR, she added, may have reduced gasoline prices, but at a cost to national security. “The SPR should be reserved for emergency situations, and you never know when those might come,” Hollub said.
Hollub’s message may not be politically convenient, but it’s exactly what her shareholders want to hear. Occidental OXY, -2.29%
is America’s hottest stock and has returned 150% this year, making it the top-performing company in the S&P 500 SPX, -0.65%.
Investors who bought shares of Occidental in January and held them through today would have more than doubled their money, even as the broader market has crashed. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has gone on a buying spree this year, and now owns more than 20% of Occidental’s shares. How Hollub got here constitutes America’s greatest corporate saga in recent years, from her 2019 debt-fueled decision to buy bigger rival Anadarko Petroleum over the vocal objections of activist investor Carl Icahn, to the pandemic-induced collapse in oil prices that almost bankrupted Occidental, and Buffett’s extension, removal, and re-extension of support.
With Occidental now on solid financial footing, Hollub is continuing to leave a mark on the oil industry and the world, landing her on the MarketWatch 50 list of the most influential people in markets. Hollub’s tangles with the wise men of Wall Street have left her savvier about how to manage her business. Stung by previous boom-and-bust cycles, Hollub has helped lead America’s oil frackers away from being “swing producers” that could counter the war-driven increase in energy prices, as she paid down debt and returned cash to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks instead of plowing some of that money into shale oil fields. She is also pushing investment into Occidental’s massive new carbon-capture effort.
More than anything, Hollub is focused on guys like Bill Smead, founder of Smead Capital Management, who is a long-term investor in Occidental and a Hollub fan. “She’s somebody that we have a great deal of respect for and appreciate all the money she’s making us,” he said.
With that kind of backing, Hollub is planning to put Occidental in the driver’s seat of the massive national economic transition induced by climate change. She is positioning Occidental to be the company of the energy transition, one geared not to the free-for-all economy of the last century or some carbonless vision of the next, but the oil company for right now. She might even stop drilling new oil wells entirely.
“Now we feel like we control our own destiny,” Hollub said.
For the chief executive of a company that’s having a banner year on Wall Street while investors choke down generational losses, Hollub seems to constantly be on the alert for threats. Talking through the company’s prospects, she repeats a certain phrase: “I know that this will ultimately get me in trouble, but…”
Trouble? Hollub and Occidental have known their share.
The drama surrounding Occidental’s 2019 acquisition of Anadarko would make for a good boardroom thriller—or at least a lively business-school case study. Anadarko had big assets in the crucial Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico, where horizontal drilling in shale rock had reinvigorated an aging oil field into the nation’s biggest production zone.
Hollub and her team made an offer to buy Anadarko after months of research. She thought she had a deal locked, only to hear on the radio that Anadarko had announced plans to combine with Chevron. She nearly drove off the road, Texas Monthly recounts.
Hollub turned to Buffett for help. He agreed to what was effectively a $10 billion loan at 8% interest, in the form of preferred shares, along with warrants that allow Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett’s company, to buy more common stock. That got Hollub what she wanted, but many on Wall Street hated it. “The Buffett deal was like taking candy from a baby and amazingly she even thanked him publicly for it!” Icahn wrote in a letter to his fellow shareholders. Icahn had bought a slug of Occidental’s shares and, in the ensuing months, the billionaire investor led a shareholder campaign against Hollub, insisting that she needed stronger board oversight. Icahn allies were made Occidental directors.
In 2020, as COVID-19 flattened the global economy, deeply indebted Occidental was forced to cut its dividend for the first time in decades. Buffett sold his stock. At Icahn’s urging, the company issued 113 million warrants to its shareholders, allowing them to buy shares at $22, at a time when the stock was trading at $17. Gary Hu, one of the Icahn directors on Occidental’s board, pointed to those warrants as evidence of their success. “Our involvement in Occidental represented activism at its finest,” said Hu.
Hollub flatly disagrees. Icahn saw an opportunity to make an easy profit in derailing the Anadarko deal, Hollub said. “And what he expected is that we would lose and he would benefit from that. Since that didn’t happen, he managed to maneuver his way onto the board.” Icahn’s representatives on the board came to Hollub with a number of plans, including the warrants. She felt that one wouldn’t do any harm. “So that’s what we agreed to, but yeah, the other 10 or so weird things, we didn’t do.”
““She’s somebody that we have a great deal of respect for and appreciate all the money she’s making us.””
— Bill Smead, founder of Smead Capital Management
Former Occidental CEO Stephen Chazen returned to chair the board at Icahn’s insistence. Icahn and Occidental ultimately reached a settlement. His board members left, and the activist sold his common shares earlier this year. Chazen passed away in September. The experience embittered both sides, but there is one point of agreement: Hollub will do as she sees fit. “We were clearly wrong about the board’s ability to restrain Vicki’s ambitions,” Hu said.
Icahn made a $1.5 billion profit. At a MarketWatch event in September, Icahn said he still holds the warrants. But he hasn’t let go of the issues that motivated him to push into Occidental in the first place, though he insists he has no problem with Hollub personally. He likened her to a kid who got lucky gambling in Vegas. “The system allowed her to do it. And she’s just one small example of what is wrong with corporate governance.”
But as Icahn has himself shown, the system of corporate money in America is malleable. Its players can learn the rules of the game and adapt. Quarter after quarter since the dark days of the pandemic, Hollub turned up on corporate earnings calls pledging to keep cash flows strong, to invest in the highest-returning assets, and not to fall into the trap of overinvesting in debt-fueled or expensive production capacity, as so many failed shale producers have done in the past. She’s driven the company’s debt from nearly $40 billion following the Anadarko acquisition to less than $20 billion today. She increased the company’s dividend earlier this year. Along the way she transformed from market pariah to textbook CEO.
Hollub and other CEOs who run America’s biggest shale-oil producers have learned from the industry’s past mistakes. After proving a decade ago they could successfully extract shale oil, many U.S. oil producers were cheered on by growth and momentum stock investors as they borrowed billions to ramp up production, only to have those same investors abandon them after Saudi Arabia induced a plunge in oil prices. In the years that followed, U.S. shale-oil producers cultivated a new set of more value-oriented shareholders by promising they would share in profits through dividends and stock buybacks. Hollub and many of those other CEOs are not interested in chasing unrestrained growth again.
The world’s most famous value investor is now also on board. For Buffett, an earnings call Hollub led in February was the turning point. “I read every word, and said this is exactly what I would be doing. She’s running the company the right way,” Buffett told CNBC. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.A, +0.15%
started buying Occidental stock soon after. In August, federal regulators gave Buffett’s company permission to buy up to half of the company. (Asked for comment, a representative of Berkshire Hathaway asked for questions by email but did not respond to them.)
The markets are rife with speculation that Buffett will go all the way and purchase the entire company, though neither Hollub nor Berkshire have said as much. Hollub said simply that Buffett is bullish on oil, so she expects him to invest for the long haul. A Buffett buyout wouldn’t necessarily be a win for the investors who’ve hung on as Occidental’s stock price has recovered. “I’d probably make more money if he doesn’t buy it,” said Smead.
Warren Buffett is back to betting on Hollub and bought 20% of Occidental’s stock this year.
Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Where Hollub might cause real trouble is in the fight to keep carbon dioxide out of the earth’s atmosphere. That’s not because she’s a climate-denier. Far from it. Like many of her fellow oil-and-gas CEOs in recent years, Hollub has come to see climate change not as a threat to the business, but as an opportunity to be managed.
“I know some people don’t want oil to be produced for very long, but it’s going to be,” Hollub said. For that to change, people have to start using less oil. “It’s not that the more supply we generate, then the more that people are gonna use. It’s all driven by demand,” she said. And even with an electric vehicle in every driveway, we’d still need to extract oil to produce plastics and to create airplane fuel, among other projects that fall under the category of hard-to-abate emissions.
Hollub’s plan for Occidental is to wrap the company around that lingering stream of demand for hydrocarbons. She says Occidental is now in the business of carbon management, a euphemism that glides over the messiness of the climate transition and companies’ role in it. Companies need to show anxious shareholders that they’re serious about reducing their carbon emissions, but they also need to keep operating in an economy that is still seriously short on meaningful alternatives to fossil fuels. Occidental is here to help, spurred along by a series of state and federal incentives that the company lobbied for over years, culminating in the passage this year of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Climate advocates have for years tried to make the use of fossil fuels reflect their full cost on the environment. That has put them deeply at odds with oil-and-gas executives like Hollub, who opposes carbon taxes. It’s also left U.S. climate policy stalled as the planet warms. But the IRA tries something else. “I do not see the IRA as a handout to the energy industry,” said Sasha Mackler, executive director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a D.C. think tank. Rather than making dirty energy more expensive, the IRA tries to make clean energy cheaper, Mackler said. And that’s something Hollub can get on board with. She’s selling the idea that a barrel of oil can be clean.
Getting to a net-zero barrel of oil, as Hollub calls it, involves literally rerouting the route carbon dioxide takes through the world. For companies like Occidental, CO2 isn’t just a planet-destroying waste product. It’s a critical input to the process of oil production. Engineers can use CO2 to essentially juice aging oil wells by pumping it underground to displace hydrocarbons. The process is called enhanced oil recovery, or EOR. Occidental is the industry leader, producing the equivalent of 130,000 barrels per day of EOR oil and gas as of 2020. And that oil can, in theory, be less impactful on the climate. “We have it documented that it takes more CO2 injected into the reservoir than what the incremental barrels from that CO2 that are produced will emit when they’re used,” she said.
The trick is where that injected CO2 comes from. The Permian is crisscrossed with thousands of miles of pipelines that bring CO2 to oil fields from as far away as Colorado. At the moment, the vast majority comes from naturally occurring reservoirs or as a byproduct of the production of methane. One of the strangest ironies of modern oil production is that companies like Occidental don’t actually have enough CO2. “There’s two billion barrels of resources remaining to be developed in our conventional reservoirs using CO2,” Hollub said.
So she and her team went out looking for more. Eventually they hit on the idea that’s encapsulated in the IRA. Instead of pulling CO2 out of the ground only to put it back, Occidental could divert some of the CO2 that’s being produced by so-called industrial sources, companies that would otherwise be dumping it into the atmosphere because, of course, there’s no business reason not to.
Finding companies that wanted to do the right thing with their waste CO2 turned out to be harder than Hollub thought. “We knocked on the doors of a lot of emitters,” Hollub said. They found one taker—a Texas ethanol producer that was willing to try a pilot. It was a decent start but not enough to unlock all those buried barrels.
That may soon change, driven by the IRA. The law puts new financial incentives behind those conversations Occidental was having with CO2 emitters. The IRA significantly beefed up the so-called 45Q tax incentive for companies to put CO2 permanently in the ground. Occidental can get $60 a ton in tax credits if the CO2 is stored in the process of pumping more oil for EOR, or $85 if the company just buries it.
There’s also a higher tier of incentives if companies obtain that CO2 using an experimental technology called direct air capture. Occidental is spending $1 billion to build what would be the world’s largest direct-air-capture facility in Texas, which you can loosely think of as a giant fan to suck ambient CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. Hollub plans to build as many as 70 by 2035.
The problem some see with this plan, and with Hollub and others’ efforts to shape legislation around it, is it tightens the economy’s dependence on fossil fuels rather than loosening it. Americans will now effectively pay Occidental to pursue more enhanced oil recovery. Those net-zero barrels of oil—should they materialize—might be better in climate terms than a traditional barrel. But that’s not the only alternative. Dollar for dollar, public money would be better spent on solar energy and other low-carbon options than on EOR, said Kurt House, who knows as much because he’s tried it. House got a Ph.D. at Harvard in the science of carbon capture and storage more than a decade ago and co-founded a company to put the idea into practice. “It is bad, bad economics,” he said. “If you pay people a million dollars a ton of CO2 sequestering, they will sequester a lot of CO2. But it’ll cost us. It’ll make solving global warming much, much, much, much, much more expensive.”
But Hollub isn’t likely to change course. “I would say to those who don’t like what we’re doing, who do they want to do this? Tell me who have they gotten to, that will commit to take CO2 out of the atmosphere?” she said. “This climate transition cannot happen as fast as some people want it to happen because the world can’t afford it,” Hollub said. “We’re looking at, you know, $100 to $200 trillion for this climate transition. We cannot spend that kind of money to make this transition happen without help from diverting some of the CO2 to enhanced oil recovery, which enables then the technology to be developed and to be built at a faster pace.” And in the meantime, Occidental can sell carbon offsets to companies like United Airlines, which is supporting the direct-air-capture facility.
Those companies can choose whether they want the CO2 Occidental is capturing to be buried, full stop, or used for more oil production. But it’s clear Hollub thinks EOR is a big part of the future for Occidental. She has often said that the last barrel of oil should come from EOR. “I think there could be a world where we do stop drilling new wells,” she said. “To increase recovery from the remaining conventional reservoirs is something that’s kind of like a best kept secret for the United States. Nobody very much realizes that, but that is there. And that gives us that longevity beyond what some people are forecasting,” Hollub said.
Hollub is well-aware of her critics. Perhaps that’s why she keeps looking around for signs of trouble. But even if it finds her, she doesn’t plan to change much. “I have no regrets,” she said.
Elon Musk has taken control of Twitter and ousted the CEO, chief financial officer and the company’s top lawyer, two people familiar with the deal said Thursday night.
The people wouldn’t say if all the paperwork for the deal, originally valued at $44 billion, had been signed or if the deal has closed. But they said Musk is in charge of the social media platform and has fired CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal and Chief Legal Counsel Vijaya Gadde. Neither person wanted to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the deal.
A few hours later, Musk tweeted, “the bird has been freed,” a reference to Twitter’s logo.
The departures came just hours before a deadline set by a Delaware judge to finalize the deal on Friday. She threatened to schedule a trial if no agreement was reached.
Although they came quickly, the major personnel moves had been widely expected and almost certainly are the first of many major changes the mercurial Tesla CEO will make.
Musk privately clashed with Agrawal in April, immediately before deciding to make a bid for the company, according to text messages later revealed in court filings.
About the same time, he used Twitter to criticize Gadde, the company’s top lawyer. His tweets were followed by a wave of harassment of Gadde from other Twitter accounts. For Gadde, an 11-year Twitter employee who also heads public policy and safety, the harassment included racist and misogynistic attacks, in addition to calls for Musk to fire her. On Thursday, after she was fired, the harassing tweets lit up once again.
Musk’s changes will be aimed at increasing Twitter’s subscriber base and revenue.
In his first big move earlier on Thursday, Musk tried to soothe leery Twitter advertisers saying that he is buying the platform to help humanity and doesn’t want it to become a “free-for-all hellscape.”
The message appeared to be aimed at addressing concerns among advertisers — Twitter’s chief source of revenue — that Musk’s plans to promote free speech by cutting back on moderating content will open the floodgates to more online toxicity and drive away users.
“The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence,” Musk wrote in an uncharacteristically long message for the Tesla CEO, who typically projects his thoughts in one-line tweets.
He continued: “There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.”
Musk has previously expressed distaste for advertising and Twitter’s dependence on it, suggesting more emphasis on other business models such as paid subscriptions that won’t allow big corporations to dictate policy on how social media operates. But on Thursday, he assured advertisers he wants Twitter to be “the most respected advertising platform in the world.”
The note is a shift from Musk’s position that Twitter is unfairly infringing on free speech rights by blocking misinformation or graphic content, said Pinar Yildirim, associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
But it’s also a realization that having no content moderation is bad for business, putting Twitter at risk of losing advertisers and subscribers, she said.
“You do not want a place where consumers just simply are bombarded with things they do not want to hear about, and the platform takes no responsibility,” Yildirim said.
Musk said Twitter should be “warm and welcoming to all” and enable users to choose the experience they want to have.
Friday’s deadline to close the deal was ordered by the Delaware Chancery Court in early October. It is the latest step in a battle that began in April with Musk signing a deal to acquire Twitter, then tried to back out of it, leading Twitter to sue the Tesla CEO to force him to go through with the acquisition. If the two sides don’t meet Friday’s deadline, the next step could be a November trial that could lead to a judge forcing Musk to complete the deal.
But Musk has been signaling that the deal is going through. He strolled into the company’s San Francisco headquarters Wednesday carrying a porcelain sink, changed his Twitter profile to “Chief Twit,” and tweeted “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”
And overnight the New York Stock Exchange notified investors that it will suspend trading in shares of Twitter before the opening bell Friday in anticipation of the company going private under Musk.
Musk is expected to speak to Twitter employees directly Friday if the deal is finalized, according to an internal memo cited in several media outlets. Despite internal confusion and low morale tied to fears of layoffs or a dismantling of the company’s culture and operations, Twitter leaders this week have at least outwardly welcomed Musk’s arrival and messaging.
Top sales executive Sarah Personette, the company’s chief customer officer, said she had a “great discussion” with Musk on Wednesday and appeared to endorse his Thursday message to advertisers.
“Our continued commitment to brand safety for advertisers remains unchanged,” Personette tweeted Thursday. “Looking forward to the future!”
Musk’s apparent enthusiasm about visiting Twitter headquarters this week stood in sharp contrast to one of his earlier suggestions: The building should be turned into a homeless shelter because so few employees actually worked there.
The Washington Post reported last week that Musk told prospective investors that he plans to cut three quarters of Twitter’s 7,500 workers when he becomes owner of the company. The newspaper cited documents and unnamed sources familiar with the deliberation.
Musk has spent months deriding Twitter’s “spam bots” and making sometimes contradictory pronouncements about Twitter’s problems and how to fix them. But he has shared few concrete details about his plans for the social media platform.
Thursday’s note to advertisers shows a newfound emphasis on advertising revenue, especially a need for Twitter to provide more “relevant ads” — which typically means targeted ads that rely on collecting and analyzing users’ personal information.
Yildirim said that, unlike Facebook, Twitter has not been good at targeting advertising to what users want to see. Musk’s message suggests he wants to fix that, she said.
Insider Intelligence principal analyst Jasmine Enberg said Musk has good reason to avoid a massive shakeup of Twitter’s ad business because Twitter’s revenues have taken a beating from the weakening economy, months of uncertainty surrounding Musk’s proposed takeover, changing consumer behaviors and the fact that “there’s no other revenue source waiting in the wings.”
“Even slightly loosening content moderation on the platform is sure to spook advertisers, many of whom already find Twitter’s brand safety tools to be lacking compared with other social platforms,” Enberg said.
This story was updated with a more current tally of shares from Twitter’s most recent proxy statement.
When Twitter Inc.’s top executives walked out of its San Francisco headquarters Thursday, they may as well have been carrying bags of Elon Musk’s cash.
Chief Executive Parag Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal and Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal policy, received a “golden parachute” clause in Twitter’s TWTR, +0.66%
merger with Musk’s X Holdings. Musk reportedly fired all three Thursday evening upon officially taking control of the social network in a $44 billion acquisition, and will be obligated to give more than $204 million of it to those three, according to Twitter’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Agrawal, Segal and Gadde own roughly 1.2 million shares of Twitter, more than half of that a $34.8 million stake owned by Gadde. The trio’s roughly $65 million stake would be purchased by Musk like any other shareholder’s stock.
Additionally, a clause in the merger agreement provided accelerated vesting of promised future stock compensation — and that’s where the biggest chunk of money comes in. The “Golden Parachute Compensation” clause in Twitter’s SEC filing — which was the deal approved by Twitter shareholders — shows the trio would automatically vest stock worth $119.6 million as severance if terminated, with the largest payout there going to Agrawal at $56 million.
They’re also entitled to a year’s salary and health benefits. In 2021, Agrawal had a base pay of $623,000, while Segal and Gadde’s base pay was $600,000 each.
In total, Gadde is set to walk away from Twitter with the biggest haul: Nearly $74 million. Agrawal and Segal aren’t far behind her, though, at roughly $65 million and $66 million, respectively.
Twitter shares have rallied 26% over the past month and closed Thursday at $53.70, close to the $54.20 share price Musk, who’s also CEO of Tesla Inc. TSLA, +0.20%
and the world’s wealthiest individual, agreed to pay in April.
Elon Musk attempted to soothe leery Twitter advertisers Thursday, a day before a deadline to close out on his $44 billion acquisition of the social media platform, saying that he is buying the platform to help humanity and doesn’t want it to become a “free-for-all hellscape.”
The message appears aimed at addressing concerns among advertisers — Twitter’s chief source of revenue — that Musk’s plans to promote free speech by cutting back on moderating content will open the floodgates to more online toxicity and drive away users.
“The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence,” Musk wrote in an uncharacteristically long message for the Tesla CEO, who typically projects his thoughts in one-line tweets.
He continued: “There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.”
Musk has previously expressed distaste for advertising and Twitter’s dependence on it, suggesting more emphasis on other business models such as paid subscriptions that won’t allow big corporations to dictate policy on how social media operates. But on Thursday, he assured advertisers he wants Twitter to be “the most respected advertising platform in the world.”
The note is a shift from Musk’s position that Twitter is unfairly infringing on free speech rights by blocking misinformation or graphic content, said Pinar Yildirim, associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
But it’s also a realization that having no content moderation is bad for business, putting Twitter at risk of losing advertisers and subscribers, she said.
“You do not want a place where consumers just simply are bombarded with things they do not want to hear about, and the platform takes no responsibility,” Yildirim said.
Musk said Twitter should be “warm and welcoming to all” and enable users to choose the experience they want to have.
“I didn’t do it to make money,” he said of the pending acquisition. “I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love. And I do so with humility, recognizing that failure in pursuing this goal, despite our best efforts, is a very real possibility.”
Friday’s deadline to close the deal was ordered by the Delaware Chancery Court in early October. It is the latest step in a battle that began in April with Musk signing a deal to acquire Twitter, then tried to back out of it, leading Twitter to sue the Tesla CEO to force him to go through with the acquisition. If the two sides don’t meet Friday’s deadline, the next step could be a November trial that could lead to a judge forcing Musk to complete the deal.
But Musk has been signaling that the deal is going through. He strolled into the company’s San Francisco headquarters Wednesday carrying a porcelain sink, changed his Twitter profile to “Chief Twit,” and tweeted “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”
And overnight the New York Stock Exchange notified investors that it will suspend trading in shares of Twitter before the opening bell Friday in anticipation of the company going private under Musk.
Musk is expected to speak to Twitter employees directly Friday if the deal is finalized, according to an internal memo cited in several media outlets. Despite internal confusion and low morale tied to fears of layoffs or a dismantling of the company’s culture and operations, Twitter leaders this week have at least outwardly welcomed Musk’s arrival and messaging.
Top sales executive Sarah Personette, the company’s chief customer officer, said she had a “great discussion” with Musk on Wednesday and appeared to endorse his Thursday message to advertisers.
“Our continued commitment to brand safety for advertisers remains unchanged,” Personette tweeted Thursday. “Looking forward to the future!”
Musk’s apparent enthusiasm about visiting Twitter headquarters this week stood in sharp contrast to one of his earlier suggestions: The building should be turned into a homeless shelter because so few employees actually worked there.
The Washington Post reported last week that Musk told prospective investors that he plans to cut three quarters of Twitter’s 7,500 workers when he becomes owner of the company. The newspaper cited documents and unnamed sources familiar with the deliberation.
Musk has spent months deriding Twitter’s “spam bots” and making sometimes contradictory pronouncements about Twitter’s problems and how to fix them. But he has shared few concrete details about his plans for the social media platform.
Thursday’s note to advertisers shows a newfound emphasis on advertising revenue, especially a need for Twitter to provide more “relevant ads” — which typically means targeted ads that rely on collecting and analyzing users’ personal information.
Yildirim said that, unlike Facebook, Twitter has not been good at targeting advertising to what users want to see. Musk’s message suggests he wants to fix that, she said.
Insider Intelligence principal analyst Jasmine Enberg said Musk has good reason to avoid a massive shakeup of Twitter’s ad business because Twitter’s revenues have taken a beating from the weakening economy, months of uncertainty surrounding Musk’s proposed takeover, changing consumer behaviors and the fact that “there’s no other revenue source waiting in the wings.”
“Even slightly loosening content moderation on the platform is sure to spook advertisers, many of whom already find Twitter’s brand safety tools to be lacking compared with other social platforms,” Enberg said.
Twitter Inc. is now owned by Elon Musk, with multiple media outlets reporting Thursday night that the long-anticipated sale had officially closed.
The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and others reported, based on unnamed sources, that the top executives of Twitter TWTR, +0.66%
were fired and escorted from the building, including Chief Executive Parag Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal and Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust and safety.
Musk himself is expected to assume the role of interim CEO, though in the longer term may appoint someone else, Bloomberg reported early Friday, citing unnamed sources. Twitter did not respond to a request by the publication for comment.
The acquisition ends months of legal wrangling after Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla Inc. TSLA, +0.20%
and SpaceX and a frequent Twitter user, offered to buy Twitter in April. After reaching an agreement with Twitter’s board to buy the social media company for $44 billion, Musk tried to back out of the deal and Twitter sued him. He faced a Friday deadline to complete the deal or face trial.
In a tweet late Thursday night, Musk said only: “the bird is freed.”
Thursday morning, Musk signaled a deal was imminent when he tweeted a statement aimed at assuring advertisers, some of whom might be concerned about his plans for content moderation. Musk has said one of his motivations for buying the platform is related to complaints about censorship, mostly from people who have been banned because they have violated Twitter’s terms of service.
Twitter did not immediately return a request for comment late Thursday.
The Bloomberg report added that Musk also plans to end lifetime bans for users, meaning former President Donald Trump could return to Twitter, though it’s unclear how soon that could happen, the source said.
Twitter shares have rallied 26% over the past month, closing Thursday at $53.70, close to the $54.20 share price Musk agreed to pay in April.
The European Union reached a deal Thursday to effectively ban new gas-powered cars beginning in 2035.
It’s a move seen as a key part of a broader plan to reduce carbon emissions across economic sectors — and a major policy achievement to carry into high-profile United Nations climate-change talks in Egypt early next month.
Speculation about a deal, which had been heavily debated, was reported earlier this week and confirmed Thursday via a tweet from the spokesperson for the rotating presidency of the bloc, currently held by the Czech Republic.
Broadly, the agreement is part of a plan that requires a 55% cut in emissions across transportation, buildings, power generation and other sources this decade. That halfway mark is seen as a major milestone as the EU aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
The announcement comes as the U.N. climate arm has released a series of updated reports this week. One chastised the “highly inadequate” steps to date by rich nations to cut emissions of Earth-warming greenhouse gases, such as those from burning fossil fuels. The window to act is closing but is not quite shut yet, according to the Emissions Gap report from the U.N. Environment Programme. “Global and national climate commitments are falling pitifully short,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Thursday. “We are headed for a global catastrophe.”
The EU is the world’s largest trade bloc, and its moves could push other major economies to also set firm cutoff dates for gasoline RB00, -0.52%
and diesel engines. Volkswagen AG VOW, +0.88%
and Daimler Truck Holding AG DTG, +2.67%
are already moving deeper into electric vehicles. Volkswagen this week said it would stop selling internal-combustion-engine cars in Europe between 2033 and 2035.
Other major economies, including the U.S., have set similar goals, but the U.S. has not set any federal-level restrictions on vehicle manufacturing. Some individual automakers, including General Motors GM, +0.79%, have set their own timelines. And California approved plans in August to mandate a gradual phasing out of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, with only zero-emission cars and a small portion of plug-in gas/electric hybrids to be allowed by 2035.
As the world’s fifth-largest economy, California can create ripple effects with its moves. At least 15 other states have signed on to California’s existing zero-emission vehicle program or have shown interest in and are working toward codifying the change. Among them, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Vermont are expected to adopt California’s ban on new gasoline-fueled vehicles.
Mobileye Global Inc. priced its initial public offering higher than its targeted range late Tuesday to raise nearly $1 billion, most of which will go to Intel Corp.
Mobileye priced its initial public offering at $21 late Tuesday, the company announced in a news release, after previously stating a targeted range of $18 to $20; shares are expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “MBLY” on Wednesday. Intel INTC, +0.85%
will sell at least 41 million shares of Mobileye, which would raise $861 million, and also agreed to a $100 million concurrent sale of stock to General Atlantic, which would make the total raised at least $961 million.
Intel paid $15.3 billion to acquire Mobileye in 2017, and was reportedly aiming for a valuation as high as $50 billion when originally planning this IPO, but instead will settle for a basic valuation of roughly $16.7 billion. After a record year with more than 1,000 offerings in 2021, the IPO market has largely dried up in 2022.
Underwriting banks — Intel listed two dozen underwriters, led by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS, +1.13%
and Morgan Stanley MS, +1.36%
— have access to an additional 6.15 million shares for overallotments, which could push the total raised higher than $1 billion and make Mobileye the second-largest offering of the year. Only two offerings thus far this year have raised at least $1 billion — private-equity firm TPG Inc. TPG, +4.21% raised exactly $1 billion in January, and American International Group Inc. AIG, -0.11%
spinoff Corebridge Financial Inc. CRBG, +1.36% raised at least $1.68 billion in September.
Intel will receive the bulk of the proceeds of the offering — after promising to make sure that Mobileye has $1 billion in cash and equivalents, the chip maker will take the rest of the proceeds for its own coffers. Wells Fargo analysts calculated that Mobileye will need about $225 million to hit that level, leaving at least $736 million for Intel before fees and other costs.
Intel will also maintain control of the company after spinning it off, keeping class B shares that will convey 10 votes for each share while selling class A shares that convey one vote per share. Intel will retain more than 99% of the voting power and nearly 94% of the economic ownership of the company, and the Mobileye board is expected to include four members with ties to Intel, including Chief Executive Pat Gelsinger serving as chairman of the board.
Mobileye will continue to be led by founder Amnon Shashua, who served as chief executive before Intel acquired the company and stayed at the helm while it was part of the Silicon Valley chip maker. Shashua founded Mobileye in 1999 and turned it into a pioneer in the field of automated-driving technology and one of Israel’s most prominent tech companies.
BANGKOK — Thailand’s telecoms regulator has agreed to allow a merger between the country’s two main phone carriers in a decision that raises worries over whether reduced competition will harm consumer interests.
The $7.3 billion deal will merge True Corp. and smaller DTAC, a subsidiary of Norway’s Telenor Group. The new entity, to be called NewCo, will have about 51 million subscribers. The next largest telecoms carrier, AIS, or Advanced Info Service, has 44 million subscribers.
True is owned by Charoen Pokphand (CP) Holding, one of the country’s biggest family-controlled conglomerates. It has 32 million subscribers to DTAC’s 19 million.
Shareholders of True and DTAC, or Total Access Communication Plc., approved the merger plan in April.
The regulatory go-ahead by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission came late Thursday in a 3-2 vote in favor, with the chair casting a deciding vote after more than 10 hours of discussions.
The commission imposed conditions that included price controls, keeping current service agreements in place and requiring the expansion of 5G coverage to at least 90% of the population within five years. It said it could cancel or add further conditions if it observes monopolistic behavior due to the merger.
“The merger will create a long and lasting impact and make it impossible to turn back the clock,” Pirongrong Ramasoota, one of the two commissioners who voted against letting the merger go ahead, said in a Facebook post. She said the deal could result in unfair competition and prevent other companies from trying to enter the market.
“The development of our country depends on the competitiveness of the mobile service industry, which also is a key to boosting the economy,” she said.
The approval reflects the sway of the huge family-run conglomerates that own big chunks of Thailand’s economy, critics said.
“Despite massive protest, comments, reports, analysis and plain common sense, it is no surprise that the NBTC ended up allowing the merger,” Yozzo, a telecoms, media and technology consulting firm, said in a report.
“Big conglomerates in Thailand have long enjoyed market power in a regime that many perceive to be friendly towards the big family companies,” it said, adding that consumers and businesses will pay the price of having two companies be the virtual gatekeepers of going digital.
True and DTAC have said they are merging to better invest in next-generation telecommunications to advance Thailand’s adoption of digital technology.
The companies have said they plan to list the newly merged company on Thailand’s stock exchange as soon as November.
Shares of Twitter plunged in premarket trade on Friday after a report Biden administration officials are considering subjecting some of Elon Musk’s ventures to national-security reviews.
Twitter TWTR, +1.18%
shares plunged 9% to $47.64 in premarket trade, below the $54.20 per share buyout price.
Bloomberg News reported late Thursday that some U.S. officials have become concerned in recent weeks by Musk’s Russia-friendly tweets and his threat to cut off Starlink satellite internet service to Ukraine. The Tesla TSLA, -6.65%
and SpaceX CEO’s pending $44 billion acquisition of Twitter has also reportedly drawn concerns because of its foreign investors, including a Saudi prince, Binance Holdings — a crypto exchange that was initially based in China — and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund.
Citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg said discussions are still in the early stages and officials are trying to figure out what regulatory tools are available to them. One option could be a national-security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the report said.
When Snap Inc. went public in 2017, this column boiled down the entire investment opportunity to one, simple question: Do you trust Evan Spiegel?
As Snap SNAP, -0.64%
stock heads toward its lowest prices since March 2020, and potentially even lower, that question is even more important, and answering “yes” should be even harder.
Three months ago, amid the beginning of a huge slowdown in the ad business, Snap initiated a unique dividend meant to ensure that the founders maintained control of the company, even if they sold their stock — protecting themselves. Then in August, news came that Snap was laying off one in five employees. As Snap again reported disappointing results Thursday and saw the stock plunge again, the company decided now was the time to initiate a stock buyback plan, promising to spend up to $500 million to offset the dilution from employee stock plans — in the past nine months, Snap has spent $937 million on stock-based compensation.
As the company’s largest individual shareholders, Spiegel and Murphy are among the key beneficiaries of Snap’s plans to buy back stock, which usually leads to a boost in the stock price. Those two still control over 99% of the voting power of the company’s capital stock, and as the parent of Snapchat reminded investors in its annual report, “Mr. Spiegel alone can exercise voting control over a majority of our outstanding capital stock.”
Shares of Snap tumbled an additional 25% to just under $8 in after-hours trading, putting them near the lowest prices since March 2020. On Thursday, the company ended regular trading hours with a market capitalization of around $17.91 billion, but that was headed toward $13 billion with the after-hours collapse.
Besides protecting themselves and their investment, Snap’s executives have shown little ability to head off big issues, nor offer any worthwhile solutions to the current ad downturn. In the third quarter, its revenue grew a paltry 6%, down from the most recent second-quarter revenue growth of 13%. Snap appears to be in a steady revenue slowdown, from its peak growth of 116% in the June 2021 quarter.
Snap has blamed both privacy changes that Apple Inc. AAPL, -0.33%
made to the iPhone that affected ad tracking, and more recently, the macroeconomic advertising climate, while avoiding one of the biggest factors — the rise of TikTok. Top executives didn’t seem to see any of those challenges coming early enough, and did not do enough about them once they did.
“The company was slow to react — or acknowledge — the significant headwinds faced by privacy initiatives, compounded by competition, and more recently macro headwinds,” Colin Sebastian, an analyst at Baird Equity Research, wrote in a note.
The competition factor, mostly from China’s TikTok, was addressed briefly on the company’s call with analysts, but was not really acknowledged by Snap leaders.
“We believe that the differentiated nature of our service is what’s contributing to the daily active-user growth, which grew 19% year-over-year to 363 million daily active users,” Spiegel said. “In terms of the content specifically, I think there’s a lot of headroom, of course, to continue to grow content engagement.”
In the company’s shareholder letter, Spiegel acknowledged that the results were “far from our aspirations,” and that Snap would use this time of reduced demand “to pull forward and accelerate changes to our advertising platform and auction dynamics that we believe will deliver better results for our advertising partner.”
Spiegel is known for going by his own instincts and not listening to other executives, employees or even market forces, as was noted in a Wall Street Journal report that detailed his push for an unsuccessful product redesign in 2018. While the company appeared to have snapped back from that debacle last year, it is now facing a fiercer rival for young people on social media in the form of TikTok.
Investors who still have patience to wait and see if this stock ever recovers will also have to stick around with Spiegel — and as our IPO column noted — Snap is unapologetically founder-controlled. No change at the top can ever come unless it is initiated by Spiegel himself. Investors have to make a leap of faith that Spiegel can turn things around, but they need to remember that Spiegel usually thinks about himself first.