tv Bloomberg Markets Bloomberg April 14, 2022 1:00pm-2:00pm EDT
poses a severe and ongoing danger to the community. james was arrested for allegedly shooting 10 people and injuring more than two dozen others at a brooklyn subway station earlier this week. police say he has an extensive arrest record dating back 30 years. grocery stores and some parts of the united states are expected to start running out of avocados , limes, tomatoes, cucumbers, and mangoes and other perishable foods as soon as this weekend. a mexican truckers blockade is stranding millions of dollars worth of fresh produce. the goods are stalled south of the u.s. border amid a protest of texas governor greg abbott controversial vehicle expection -- inspection program. pfizer says the third dose of their vaccine increases antibodies against the omicron strain. it plans to file for emergency use authorization.
in clinical trials, children were given the vaccine six months after their second dose. a month later, antibodies against the original covid virus were six times higher. global news, 24 hours a day, on air and on bloomberg quicktake, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries pre-i am mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. romaine: good afternoon from york, it is 6:00 p.m. in london and 1:00 a.m. in hong kong. i am matt miller. welcome to bloomberg markets. here are the top stories we are following for you around the world. after rejecting a seat on twitter's board, elon musk offered to buy the entire company for $43 billion.
ambitions of taking the social network out of the public market. we are going to hear from the fed president john williams on the strong demand in the labor market. why a 50 basis point rate hike is a reasonable option, and the new york auto show makes its comeback this year. we will speak exclusively with dave gardner of american honda motor to discuss the hrv and the challenges facing the auto sector as a whole. let's take a quick check in the markets, and we have seen the s&p 500 come down this morning. it is afternoon now. it is off .7%. 4415 is that level basically. tech stocks are leading the way. nasdaq is trading just under 14,000. the 30 year yield right now up nine basis points to 290. we have seen yields across the curve move higher over the past few hours.
the euro-dollar is right now trading at 108. we had the ecb decision a little bit earlier today. christine lagarde expected to start to cut back on bond purchases and raise rates as well. along with all other central banks in the western hemisphere. let's get to something that caught my eye, and that is really something that caught everyone's eye. elon musk, $43 billion cash offer to buy twitter. he wants to pay 54.20 a share. it is the 4.20 that is interesting to him into us. it is the largest investment, and he turned down a board seat at the company print twitter said it would review the proposal, and any response would be in the best interest of all twitter stockholders. maybe they met stakeholders there, because that is an even broader group of people. in any case, it is a 54% premium
over the january 28 closing price, we have seen twitter trade as high as $77 over the last year and a half. elon musk has no confidence in the board, and that may not help them decide in his favor. let's talk more about bloomberg's head in san francisco. elon musk is scheduled to talk on twitter soon. if he does, we will take our viewers live to that because it is public. is he serious about this? it is not close to the high that stock has been traded that over the past year or two. ed: his instructions or statement in the regulatory finding, the attached letters to the twitters board, including text message communications, it was very clear. this is a final offer. he doesn't want any back-and-forth, and his language. if they can't get a deal done, elon musk says he will reconsider his investment, and
essentially i am paraphrasing, but what he said was there are changes needed to the twitter platform, the only way to make that happen is to take the company private. he once again mentioned freedom of speech in the regulatory filing, which seems to keep the main sort of driver and his motivation or rationale the biggest question is, when you look at the stock reaction, both twitter and tesla, is how to see finances? matt: how does he finance it? does he have to sell shares, or do investors give them credit? what is the story? ed: tesla shares are down three percentage points. one of the biggest lags on the nasdaq 100. the hypothesis from the industry is that he sells a portion of his tesla holdings to finance it, to get enough cash. he has talked about in the past. he is the world's richest man. but he is cash poor because all of his wealth is tied up in equity. it is around $3 billion of cash
or cash like assets that he could make liquid to do this. the other hypothesis is the column on the terminal that i would encourage viewers to read is that he could get a massive loan. he could borrow against the value of his holdings. get a massive $43 billion loan with a proviso that there are sections of the industry writing today that the $43 billion offer is a lowball offer. the third one -- he could bring together a consortium. private equity like-minded activists who share in his vision. those are three buckets, but we don't know. matt: i've seen on twitter, a number of suggestions about how he could monetize twitter, using the blockchain. it was put out on a cool chain of tweets that are producer, laura ellis, turned me onto. plus i saw see the from finance
say something similar. do you think elon musk's thoughts are along those lines because he is crypto savvy? john: he is crypto savvy. the consistent message of the regulatory findings, going all the way back to when the steak was first disclosed, has been the idea of freedom of speech. all we have to go off is passed tweets and comments, past president. when jack dorsey's step down from his ceo in 2021, you remember the famous meme that he tweeted. he is depicted as joseph stalin pushing the head of security into the river. the inference that drawn by the media and some investors was that he had an ideological difference over content moderation on the platform, which ties to freedom of speech. matt: why is that? has twitter censored some of elon musk's tweets? i've never been censored on twitter, i don't know any people
who have read are they stopping people from doing much more than yelling fire in it crowded theater? ed: if you compare for example to facebook, the obvious comparative platform, twitters content moderation rules are more codified then facebook is. facebook's issue has always been, is an up to moderate content. one of the rules we have -- twitter has policies in place. jack dorsey defended them at the time they removed trump from the platform. one idea is that perhaps he doesn't agree with the rules. matt: that is a good point. they did take the former president off the platform. thank you very much for joining us. ed ludlow out of san francisco talking about a story that is really taking center stage today. as i mentioned, elon musk is expected to talk soon at an event in vancouver. and he comes out, if he is talking about twitter, we will ring you those comments light. coming up, and interview -- an
matt: let's get to a bloomberg exclusive interview. the new york fed president john williams was in the building today. he spoke with our own mike mckee. they talked about the hawkish shift from the central bank as they tackled soaring inflation. >> was very high inflation, we need to focus on bringing inflation down. to do that over the next few years. that is the number one focus, and i say that because the economy is not strong. the labor market is basically back to close to where it was before the pandemic, with the unemployment rate. it was 3.5%, and other indicators show that we have very strong demand for labor. i do think, from a monetary policy point of view, it makes sense to move expeditiously towards more normal levels of federal funds, and also to move forward on our college sheet -- balance sheet of reduction. mike: if there is one phrase
that sums up where your colleagues are, it is get to neutral by the end of the year. would you be on board for that? john: we need to get back to a more normal level, whether it is at the end of the year, or exactly when it happened, it will depend on the data, and it will be data-dependent. given where the economy is, and especially where inflation is, we need to reverse the policy actions that we put into place back into march of 2020 and move that forward. move the federal funds, targeting neutral. whether it is by the end of the year, or exactly when it happens, i think that that will depend on the path of the economy, but i agree with that. mike: 50 basis points by may 4? john: that is not a decision we have made. mike: you can make it right now. john: i think it is a reasonable option for us because the federal funds rate is low. we do need to move policy back towards more neutral levels. through this year, i think that
is a very reasonable option. matt: very cool to get that exclusive interview this morning with new york fed president john williams. we are talking about the demand in the labor market, and we had jobless claims now today. they stayed near historic lows. bloomberg economic suggested, saying that this suggests imminent recession. fears are exaggerated. that is what we hear a lot, lately. joining us as betsey stevenson. she is a professor of economic and public policy at the university of michigan. she was also a former chief economist at the u.s. department of labor. take you for joining us. a real pleasure to have you on the program. it seems like the last couple of weeks, recession fears have grown stronger and stronger. but over the last couple of days, people have been downplaying that. what is your take on the possibility of construction -- contraction in this economy? betsey: any time people see a boom going on, there is a fear
of recession, but the truth is that recessions get killed by something. there is a lot of fear about what is going on locally with the -- globally with the russian invasion of the ukraine pushing up world food prices, energy prices. that is definitely where are risks lie. when you look at what happens in the u.s. economy right now, we see strong demand, and we see strong supply. overall, i don't see any imminent threat of a recession. i see hiring continuing, and i see demand continuing. i see the bumps in the road that are mostly coming from global pressures. matt: other central banks are reacting to this around the world. it is surprising to me that, at least ecb, the fed, the boe, the boc, they are not working in a concerted way. do you think there talking to
each other? betsey: i don't want to speculate if they are talking to each other or not. it is clear that, you are right to say this is not just about the decisions that the federal reserve board makes in terms of can the fed get us a soft landing? but there is also all the other central banks that are developing to the world. can they help us get a soft landing. it is clear that what we have seen for the last year has been elevated inflation that is particularly concentrated in the good sector. we had this supply train disruption. we had a lot of problems getting people to stuff that they want. you know, even in the reports we just saw out this week, the inflation, whether we are looking at it from the cpi are the ppi, it is must -- much faster in the goods producing sector than the service sector. where we see hiring coming from
is the hiring sector because that is what hammered the most during the pandemic, and it has not fully recovered. yet, it is chugging along. it is recovering along in recovery mode. we saw a really high hiring in the last month in leisure and hospitality, adding workers back in. workers are showing up to take those jobs. we don't see unprecedented wage gains in the sectors that are doing the most hiring right now. matt: when you look at the inflation that we are facing now, and you are not nearly old enough, but i'm sure you studied wellesley, and at harvard, the inflation of the 70's and the beginning of the 80's, what are the key differences? betsey: i think there are some important differences. we can start with the labor side. fewer workers today have wages that are linked to long-term contracts or part of union negotiated. one of the things you hear people worry a lot about our
wage price fire off, where murders say, -- so i need you to give me 6% wage increase, and the company decade the 6% wage increase have to turn around and raise their prices in order to afford the wage increase, and we get inflation going on android. we have workers in the 70's covered by the kinds of contracts that could get us to wage prices. it is a little bit, you know, more individual bargaining, and it is going to be harder to get that in motion. i think the fed has that to their advantage. i think the other thing is, we just haven't seen inflation expectations come untethered as they did in the 70's. i think that is partially because we have seen 20 years of the fed just really nailing it with price stability. they told us they want to percent, and they have given us 2%. god bless them. i believe they are going to keep
the 2%, and i hope you believe two. we are going to keep believing and get back to 2% print that is how the thing works. i think it will continue working that way. matt: you can see it in the break even spread -- breakevens. betsy michigan, ann arbor. a redesigned version of the honda hrv. we will have an exclusive interview with dave gardner on the challenges facing carmakers today. this is bloomberg.
tomorrow and check out those cars. you may see me there because i am going to go as well. i will introduce my 18 month old daughter to the love of my life. the other love of my life. we are going to talk to -- try to get dave gardner on the phone. he is an executive vice president at american honda. they have a new hrv we want to show you. first, let's take a quick check out what is going on in the markets. the s&p 500 is down eight tenths of a percent. this is the dow jones. it is going absently nowhere. the reason is tech stocks are down. it is down 1.6%, and the s&p i've hundred is tech heavy compared to the blue chips on the dow. the u.s. 10 year yield is up 13 basis points. unbelievable moves here in yields. early come across the curve. i showed you the 30 year before, in case you are wondering on the long end, we are up 10 basis. but the 10-year is up to 2.8255.
this is the highest we have seen that since the end of 2018. i also want to point out, elon musk is speaking right now. this is a ted talk. is this an actual ted talk or a preamble? it looks like he is just talking to somebody. let's listen and see if he is any about twitter to say. >> so, was their question? >> why make the offer? work so, -- >>, so, it is important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech, where -- so, yeah. twitter has become a defective town square, so it is really important that people have the
reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law, and so, one of the things i believe twitter should do is open source the algorithm and make any changes to people's tweets, that emphasize or deemphasize actions, that should be apparent so anyone can see that action has been taken. there should be no behind the scenes manipulation, algorithmically, or manually. >> last week, i asked you what you are thinking of taking. you said no way. i do not want twitter. it is a recipe for misery. everyone will blame me for everything. what has changed? elon: i think everyone will still blame me for everything. if i acquired twitter, and something goes wrong, it is my
fault, 100%. i think there will be quite a few hours, yes. >> it will be miserable but you want to do it. why? elon: i just think it is important -- like, it is important to the function of democracy, and it is important to the function of the united states as a free country. not many other countries have freedom in the world. not more portly than the u.s.. i think -- more importantly than the u.s.. i think the civilizational risk is decreased if twitter, the more we increase the trust of twitter as a public platform, and so, i do think this will be painful, and i am not sure i will be able to acquire it. i should also say, if the intent is to retain as many
shareholders by the law, for a private company, which is 2000, it is not like from a standpoint of how to figure out how to monopolize ownership of twitter. i will try to bring along as many shareholders as the are allowed to. >> you don't want to pay out $40 billion in cash. you'd like them to come with you. elon: i could technically afford it. but what i am saying, is that this is not a way of making money. this is just that i think this is -- my strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely
important. to the future of civilization. >> but --. elon: i don't care about the economics is all. >> but quoting you, this not about the economics, this is about the moral good. you have described yourself as a free speech absolutist. does that mean there is literally nothing that people can't say, and it is ok? elon: i think, obviously, twitter or any forum is bound by the country it operates in. so, obviously, there are some limitations on free speech in the u.s.. of course, twitter would have to add by -- abide by those rules. >> you cannot assume violence. a direct incitement to violence, you cannot do the equivalent of crying fire in a movie theater, for example. elon: that would be a crime. it should be a crime.
>> here's the challenge. it is a nuanced difference between different things. there is incitement of violence, that is a no, if it is legal. there is hate speech, which some forms of hate speech are fine it i hate spinach. elon: if it is sauteed in a cream sauce, why not? >> of the problem is, let's say, ok. i am saying i hate politician xp or i which -- i hate politician next. i wish he was dead. that is legitimate speech. a picture of a head with a gun citing over. that, plus their address, at some point, someone has to make a decision as to which of those is not ok. can an algorithm do that, or
surely you need human judgment at some point? elon: like i said, in my view, twitter should match the laws of the country, and really, there is an obligation to do that. going beyond that, having it be unclear who is making what changes to who or to where, having tweets mysteriously be promoted and demoted with no insight into what is going on, having a black box to promote something, and not other things, i think this could be really dangerous. >> the idea of opening the algorithm is a huge deal, and many people would welcome that, an understanding of --. matt: i welcoming all of our viewers on bnn. i am matt miller new york, along with jon erlichman.
we are listening right now to ted founder chris anderson interview, in a sense, elon musk. you're talking about his bid -- a $43 billion bid. chris: as i understand it, right now with the algorithm would do is look at how any people have flag day tweed as obnoxious, and then a human has to look at it and make a decision as to does this cross the line or not. the algorithm itself, i don't think yet can tell the difference between ok and obnoxious. which humans make that call? do you have a picture of that right now? twitter and facebook have hired thousands of people to try to help make wise decisions. the trouble is no one can agree on it. how do you solve that? elon: i think we would -- if in
doubt, let it exist. if it is, you know, a gray area let the tweet exist. in a case where there is controversy you would not want to necessarily promote that tweet. i'm not saying i have all the answers here. i do think that we want to be reluctant to have -- be very cautious with permanent bans. timeouts are better than permanent bans. just in general, like i said, it
won't be perfect but we want to have the reality that free speech is reasonably possible. a good sign as to whether there is free speech is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? if that is the case, we have free speech. it is damn annoying. that is the sign of a healthy functioning free speech situation. [applause] chris: looking at the reaction online many are excited by you coming in. some are absolutely horrified. they would say, wait a second. we agree that twitter is an incredibly important platform. it is well the will to exchange his life-and-death matters. how on earth can be owned by the world's richest person?
that can't be right. what is the response? is there anyway you can distance yourself from the actual decision-making that matters on conten and some clear way that is convincing to people? elon: i think it's important that the algorithm be open sourced and any manual adjustments be identified. if somebody did something to with tweet, there is information attached to it of what action is taken. i would personally be in their editing tweet. you will know if something was done to promote or demote or affect the tweet. as for media ownership, mark zuckerberg owning facebook and instagram and whatsapp, and with
a share ownership structure that will have mark zuckerberg the 14th controlling those entities. literally. [laughter] we will not have that twitter. chris: if you commit to opening up the algorithm, that gives some level of confidence. talk about some of the other changes you proposed. the edit button. that is definitely coming. if you have your way. elon: yes. a top priority i would have is eliminating the spam and scam bots and bot armies on twitter. [applause] these influence -- they make the
product much worse. if i had at dudes going for every cryptosystem -- dogecoin for every crypto scam i saw, 100 billion dogecoin. 100 billion chris: do you regret sparking the excitement over doge? elon: doge is fun. i i think -- i like doge and memes, and it has both of those. chris: on the edit button, how do you get around someone tweets elon rocks and it's retweeted by 2 million people. after that they edit it to elon sucks, and other retweets are embarrassed.
how do you and void -- avoid that meaning so they're not exploited? elon: you only have the edit capability for a short period of time. it would zero out or retweet favorite. chris: ok. elon: i am open to ideas. chris: in one way the algorithm works well. i wanted to show you this. this is a typical tweet of mine, lame. 97 likes. then i tried another one. [laughter] 29,000 likes. the algorithm seems to be -- is elon musk to the world medially.
not bad. elon: i guess so. cool. [laughter] chris: help us understand. have you -- how did you build this incredible following on twitter? the people who love you the most look at what you tweet and they think it is somewhere between embarrassing and crazy. some of it is amazing. it is actually why it works? chris: i don't know. you were tweeting more or less a stream of consciousness. let me think about my grand plan about twitter. this is funny and then tweak that out. -- tweet that out. over sharing. [laughter] chris: you are obsessed with getting the most of every minute
of your day. elon: i don't know. i try to tweet out things that are interesting or funny. people like it. chris: if you are unsuccessful -- before i ask, let me ask this. how can i say it? is funding secured? [laughter] elon: i have sufficient assets. it is not a poor looking statement. i can do it if possible. originally from back in the day the funding was secured. i want to be clear about that. a good option to clarify that.
if funding was secured and -- why don't i have respect for the sec in that situation. i don't want to blame everyone at the sec. it is because the sec knew the funding was secured but they sued an active public investigation nonetheless -- pursued an active public investigation nonetheless. i was told by the bank if i had not agreed to settle with the sec, the banks would cease to write working capital and we would go bankrupt medially. that is like having a gun to your child's had. i was forced to concede to the sec unlawfully, those bastards. [laughter] now it makes it look like i lied when it did not lie. i was forced to admit i lied to say tesla's life and that was
the only reason. [applause] chris: what has happened to tesla since then, aren't you glad you did not take it private? elon: yes. it is difficult to put yourself in the position. tesla was under the most relentless short seller attack in the history of the stock market. it was cold short and distort. with the barrage of negativity that comes from short-sellers on wall street was beyond -- tesla was the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market. this is saying something. this was affecting her ability to hire people, our ability to sell the cars. it was terrible. they wanted to die so bad they could taste it. chris: most have paid the price.
elon: yes. where are they now? [laughter] chris: that was a very strong statement. people who support you would say you have so much to offer the world on the vision side, don't waste time getting distracted by these battles that bring out negativity and make people feel you are being defensive. people don't like fights with powerful government authorities. they would rather buy into your dream. argue encouraged people -- aren't you encouraged by people editing that 10 tatian out and going with the bigger story? elon: i would say i am sort of a mixed bag. [laughter] chris: you are a fighter.
you don't like to lose. you are determined that you don't. elon: i don't like to lose and i'm not sure many people do. the truth matters to me a lot. pathologically it matters to me. chris: you don't like to lose. if you are not successful in the board -- and the board does not accept your offer, is there a plan b? elon: there is. [laughter] [applause] chris: i think we would like to hear a little bit about plan b. elon: for another time, i think. [applause] chris: that's a nice tease. i would love to try to
understand this brain of yours more. i would like to -- before we do that here were one of the thousands of questions people asked. if you could go back in time and change when decision you made along the way, your own edit button. which one would it be and why? elon: like a career decision? chris: kenny over the last few years like your decision to invest in twitter in the first place. anything. the worst decision i made was not starting tesla with jv. -- jb. chris: he was a visionary co-founder who was obsessed with a new -- and you so much about batteries.
your decision to go with tesla meant you got locked into what you concluded. elon: there is a lot of confusion. tesla did not -- it was a shell company with no intellectual property when i invested. a false narrative has been created by the other cofounders, martin over hard -- overhard. we created a company. ultimately the creation of the company was done by jb and me. unfortunately another co-founder who made it his life's mission to make it sound like he created the company, which is false. chris: was there another issue at the heart of the tesla model 3 when tesla almost went bankrupt? you have said part of the reason
was that you overestimated the extent to which it was possible at that time to automate a factory. it did not work. it nearly took the company down. is that fair? elon: is important to understand what has tesla accomplished that is the most noteworthy? it is not the creation of an altered vehicle or electric vehicle prototype for low-volume production of a car. there have been hundreds of cars startups over the years. at one point bloomberg counted up the number of electric vehicle startups and i think they got almost 500. the hard part is not creating a prototype going into production. the obsolete difficult thing,
which has not been a compost by the american car company in 100 years is reaching volume production without going bankrupt. that is the actual hard thing. the last company to reach volume production without going bankrupt was chrysler in the 1920's. chris: and it nearly happened to tesla. elon: it is not like if we had done more manual stuff things would have been fine. of course not. that is not the case. we basically messed up almost every aspect of the model 3 production line from cells to packs to orders, body line, the paint shop, final assembly, everything was messed up. i lived there for three months
in the nevada factories for three years fixing that production line. running around like a maniac to every part of that factory. living with the team. i slept on the floor so the team going through a hard time could see me on the floor. they knew i was not in some ivory tower. whatever pain they experienced, i had it more. chris: some people who know you well thought you were making a terrible mistake. you were driving yourself to the edge of sanity almost. that you were in danger of making bad choices. i heard you say last week because of tesla pose huge value now -- tesla's huge value now that you are in danger of
obsessing and spending time to the edge of sanity. that does not sound wise. you are completely spending rested time in decision-making is more powerful and compelling than that sort of -- i can barely hold my eyes open -- so surely it should be a priority to look after yourself. elon: there wasn't any other way to make it work. it was three years of hell. 2017, 2018, 2019 were three years, the longest period of excruciating pain in my life. there was not any other way and we barely made it. we were on the ragged edge of bankruptcy the entire time.
those were three years of so much pain. it had to be done or tesla would be dead. chris: when you look around at the gigafactory and see where the company has come, do you feel this challenge of figuring out the new way of manufacturing -- you have an edge now that is different that he figured out how to do this. from those three years you have figured out a new way of manufacturing. elon: at this point i think i know more about manufacturing than anyone currently alive on earth. [laughter] [applause] matt: that was elon musk speaking now at a tech conference in vancouver -- ted
conference in vancouver. it's enthralling. you can type live go on the bloomberg terminal and you can keep watching. i know i will lose half my viewers that way. let me bring in jon erlichman here. we can talk a little bit about this. just amazing disclosure on a number of things from elon musk. it's interesting he is saying in terms of the twitter offer, he wants to do this or the benefit of the world, for the good of democracy and free speech. he is not at all concerned about the economic effects. jon: that is the product side. what the product look like and what it is, you're right. he offered clues on an edit button. there seems to be more of a focus on the free-speech part. as for the deal itself, he made
some comments about not being sure if he could actually get this thing done. we have seen twitter shares trading below the offer put on the table has been. as the conversation continued to did make a case for having enough funding. he said i have sufficient assets. people have to try to dig through that at a time when there is already reporting out there on what exactly he would be doing, who he might be partnering with and there is some intrigue with him saying there is a "plan b" if this bid is not accepted. we should get more perspective from someone who has been following this. someone trying to make a call on what happens here, what is your reaction to the breaking news? >> thank you. elon was on a roll here.
he talks about plan b. based on what what he said the initial offer musk is, is truly that. it is not a final offer. most likely the board would err on the side of rejecting or starting a dialogue. hinting this is not comfortable. they need more structure and more disclosure about what he wants to do with the company. it starts a dialogue. the plan b tease elon said it is probably the most important thing he said about the future. i agree. he talked about his philosophy view. there was very little dialogue about the product, the actual way twitter makes money. how that happens?
maybe he wants to turn it into a nonprofit. that's the question that comes to mind. many more questions and few answers but there is a plan b. that will keep us on the edge. matt: in terms of taking it private he said he would like to bring as many shareholders with him as possible. he mentioned 2000. how would that work? bringing two thousand shareholders into a private company? rohit: probably it would be a two-step process. it would be a step of the company because private and immediately after there would be a second step in terms of how the company would swap debt for equity or some sort of structure where the initial financing would be done in a 90 or 100-day
period. any shareholder that was to come in would have an option to do so. i feel there are structures. they could implement that. probably will not happen. it will be a multistep process. jon: obviously we are hearing a lot of different reporting on how the board feels about this. they will be dialogue between management employees. the idea that maybe the endgame for someone like elon musk is to make this a nonprofit is fascinating. i do wonder for those employees he will have to be kept informed and for the board that has to make a decision here what do you think they are going to do? you have an offer that is on the table. it is at a substantially higher price than what twitter was before elon musk came to the table. rohit: i think with the board needs to do is articulate that.
they are happy with the offer but they need more information. they are probably preparing a response which probably could give this way. twitter is a once-in-a-lifetime company. it's an important part of the global townhall and it is much more undervalued than what your offer seems to indicate. matt: but not a growth vehicle, right? can you make the argument that it is worth more than $43 billion? rohit: not based on today's fundamentals. what we know today, but the company is capable of doing in the next 12 months, we don't see much about the offer musk musk that is providing matt: thank you for sticking through, although i'm sure you were just as fascinated about we were -- as we were about that interview.
again, if you have a bloomberg terminal in front of you, just type "live go" and you can watch if you want to get a more insight from the world's richest man. he's worth $260 billion. you have to think he could come up somehow with $43 billion in cash if it means borrowing, selling shares, putting together a consortium. it seems like it's a possibility. well it happened? even elon musk himself said he's not sure he will be able to buy twitter but it's interesting to hear him talk about it. this is bloomberg. ♪
so many people are overweight now, and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance, stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat all while controlling stress and emotional eating. at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours.
they $43 billion bid to take over twitter. he addressed those at the start of this discussion, saying he was interested in pursuing this. was not sure if he would be successful. he did indicate he was willing to work towards his goals. he said he had a plan b in case plan a did not work out. we are learning from other sources that the twitter board which was scheduled to meet today refused the takeover offer as unwelcome. want to go back to that interview now. let's take a listen. >>-i was quite depressed about the meaning of life and i was trying to understand the meaning of life. looking at religious texts. reading books on philosophy. i got into the german philosophers, which is not wise if you are a young teenager. [laughter] a bit dark.