He filed 13g instead of 13d. Any activist investors who want to influence the course of the company get involved in proxy fights , change the board should not file 13g that is only for passive investment.
There was discussion yesterday whether him polling his followers last week about twitter and social media was activism. Joining the board certainly is.
It requires a lot more details and you have to disclose your intentions more clearly.
He has already signed a separate agreement with twitter that he won’t go over 14 % .
Twitter has always been ripe for being targeted for a takeover it is one of the smallest social media companies it is worth only 35-40B compared to say Facebook (900+B) or TikTok (400B) and it has enormous presence and daily active users. Snapchat is not very far in valuation, but has less reach, Reddit is growing and raised the last round at $10B post but is still private and not that easy take control of. The other attractive factor the founder is no longer actively involved.
Sooner or later someone was going to attempt take over and try to improve its monetizing strategy and generate more value. 3x-5x their MCap is well within the realm of possibility for twitter if executed to a good vision.
I guess my general thought was that the 13D requirements seem pretty trivial and intent is easy to amend. On Monday your intent is to solely to inform productive decisions with a board seat, and then by Friday you now want to take over and update your filing.
I dont see how filing a 13G is better than the above
There was discussion yesterday whether him polling his followers last week about twitter and social media was activism. Joining the board certainly is.