top | item 37838866

The banks that funded Twitter deal may have a 'sell-down letter'

11 points| croes | 2 years ago |fortune.com

8 comments

order
[+] abhv|2 years ago|reply
If you owe the bank $10m, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $10b, you own the bank.
[+] jjeaff|2 years ago|reply
why would anyone want to buy this debt unless at a huge discount? and why would they be talking about write downs or potential default? Didn't they require Musk's personal stock assets as collateral?
[+] Zigurd|2 years ago|reply
Distressed debt is often a good investment. As for collateral, Twitter itself is the only collateral in these loans. You are thinking of margin loans, and IIRC Musk denied taking out margin loans.

As it often is, distressed situations could be complex financially. For example, Musk might be lending money to Twitter to pay the banks' LBO loans. So anyone buying Twitter or taking posession of all or part of Twitter in a loan default would have to make sure there are no claims on twitter they don't know about.

[+] dools|2 years ago|reply
How is a sell down letter not prosecutable as price fixing cartel behaviour?
[+] dragonwriter|2 years ago|reply
Because it doesn’t fix the price, in any way.

The only thing it does is reduce the risk of any of the banks being manipulated in a divide & conquer effort by a buyer with effective monoposony power because they have information not generally available to other buyers or even the banks themselves.

Which is exactly the scenario that it posited that would be present with Musk right now that it is potentially mitigating.

[+] Zigurd|2 years ago|reply
Because a coordinated action by creditors is not only not illegal, it can be required. How else would they force Twitter to be restructured if Twitter defaults or otherwise breaks loan covenants?