> If he had just made the engineering cuts and kept his mouth shut he would be making a pile of money on the acquisition right now.
Twitter cost $44 billion to acquire. The employee layoffs save maybe $1 or $2 billion per year. Where do you see the pile of money coming from?
You can keep a preexisting service running for a while with a skeleton crew. But what are the long-term prospects for that service? And when will the skeleton crew get burned out?
Companies like Twitter are valued at a huge multiple of earnings. e.g. META is 33x earnings. So if you cut costs by $2 billion a year, that would come back as $66 billion of equity value. It's not exactly that simple, but close enough.
As for your other questions, it's coming up on 2 years now. I'd say that's too long to be running on autopilot.
> Companies like Twitter are valued at a huge multiple of earnings. e.g. META is 33x earnings.
Meta is not a company like Twitter. Yes, they're both social media services, but otherwise the comparison is not apt. Meta/Facebook is in the top 10 companies by market cap, has about $117 billion in revenue per year, and has been hugely profitable for a very long time, unlike Twitter, which has barely made a profit ever.
> So if you cut costs by $2 billion a year, that would come back as $66 billion of equity value.
Um, no, sorry, that's extremely questionable, based on a false comparison, and if it were that easy, Twitter would have already done it before the acquisition.
Twitter cost $44 billion to acquire. The employee layoffs save maybe $1 or $2 billion per year. Where do you see the pile of money coming from?
You can keep a preexisting service running for a while with a skeleton crew. But what are the long-term prospects for that service? And when will the skeleton crew get burned out?