If you were the richest person in the world, what would more money mean to you? Personally if I had $1billion money would cease to have meaning. Why is it different for someone who couch surf's? Could there actually b someone out there that puts the greater good of humanity above all else?
Perhaps its not even about the money, but about power. Sure, adding few more billions to net worth may not drive the world's richest person. But the impact Musk can theoretically have on geopolitical discourse with twitter ownership is massive. Could it be possible that he is driven by this quest for power rather than just greater good of humanity? I'm betting on the former, but happy (and in fact hope) to be proven wrong.
oh yup - was curious if that was what it was, but:
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
Previously, the manager allowed its ETFs to hold up to 30 per cent of their assets in a single company, prospectuses show. The funds were also prohibited from owning more than 20 per cent of a single company’s outstanding shares.
But Ark removed those limits, effective immediately, the firm disclosed at the end of March.
Ark also removed language prohibiting its actively managed ETFs from investing more than 35 per cent of their assets in depository receipts, including American depository receipts used by foreign companies, and other types of securities, filings show. It also removed a limitation capping active funds’ investments at 10 per cent of assets in unsponsored ADRs that are traded over the counter.
On one hand this is all one big master plan but on the other hang you suggest he sort of fell into the idea to buy TWTR outright once he saw the reaction to the initial 9% interest. This is a masterful piece that is far more interesting than anything else we've read on this topic but you have a bit of a conceptual disconnect there.
That's fair - idea was more that original plan was to become biggest shareholder + board seat (as they said out loud) as that'd still fend off the SEC, but then once he saw the raw energy produced by the news, he started tweeting the homeless shelter HQ stuff and more, and then decided this was an even more critical part of What's Next. But again, very fair criticism.
+1 " “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” It’s the game, with it’s lack of regulation, the emerging market-ification of U.S. financial markets, the weakness of traditional journalism to hold the unconventional to account, and so much more that I hate."
If you were the richest person in the world, what would more money mean to you? Personally if I had $1billion money would cease to have meaning. Why is it different for someone who couch surf's? Could there actually b someone out there that puts the greater good of humanity above all else?
Perhaps its not even about the money, but about power. Sure, adding few more billions to net worth may not drive the world's richest person. But the impact Musk can theoretically have on geopolitical discourse with twitter ownership is massive. Could it be possible that he is driven by this quest for power rather than just greater good of humanity? I'm betting on the former, but happy (and in fact hope) to be proven wrong.
Finally something plausible that explains everything. Thank you!
not an Ark or even Elon stan but Cathie cutting the position to stay within the 10% upper limit for an individual stock in an ETF
oh yup - was curious if that was what it was, but:
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/bf7532ef-3f55-4c9b-b4e0-bd1f3dc59948
Previously, the manager allowed its ETFs to hold up to 30 per cent of their assets in a single company, prospectuses show. The funds were also prohibited from owning more than 20 per cent of a single company’s outstanding shares.
But Ark removed those limits, effective immediately, the firm disclosed at the end of March.
Ark also removed language prohibiting its actively managed ETFs from investing more than 35 per cent of their assets in depository receipts, including American depository receipts used by foreign companies, and other types of securities, filings show. It also removed a limitation capping active funds’ investments at 10 per cent of assets in unsponsored ADRs that are traded over the counter.
Missed that, thanks for clarifying
This has been written from a point of view that he just wants more money and power. Believe it or not that doesn't actually drive everyone...
And water is wet
On one hand this is all one big master plan but on the other hang you suggest he sort of fell into the idea to buy TWTR outright once he saw the reaction to the initial 9% interest. This is a masterful piece that is far more interesting than anything else we've read on this topic but you have a bit of a conceptual disconnect there.
That's fair - idea was more that original plan was to become biggest shareholder + board seat (as they said out loud) as that'd still fend off the SEC, but then once he saw the raw energy produced by the news, he started tweeting the homeless shelter HQ stuff and more, and then decided this was an even more critical part of What's Next. But again, very fair criticism.
+1 " “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” It’s the game, with it’s lack of regulation, the emerging market-ification of U.S. financial markets, the weakness of traditional journalism to hold the unconventional to account, and so much more that I hate."
Fascinating. Elon's behavior makes total sense when viewed in light of his stated belief that we're in a simulation.
Brilliant