Little by little, but inexorably, the date approaches, the January 27th, of the first payment of interest for the purchase of Twitter, something that undoubtedly stars the concerns of Elon Musk. Let us remember that in order to acquire the social network, he was forced to request various loans (of various types), to which he added part of his personal fortune, in order to be able to pay the 44,000 million dollars, the purchase price agreed by both parties in April.
A few days before said initial signing, before all the soap opera that the operation became, we already warned of the impact that these credits could have for Musk. That date has already arrived and although Musk has managed to reduce Twitter’s operating costs, hand in hand with his measures and his communication policy, the social network has also experienced a huge loss in the volume of advertising contracts, with a drop in 40% in its annual index (year over year).
Mass layoffs, reduced benefits for those who have remained employees (some news reports say that workers must bring their own toilet paper when they go to the office), stop paying their rents… it is true that the accounts of the social network are deficient, they always have been, but the image that Twitter is giving with some of these actions goes directly against its interests, since it leaves its image at the level of bitumen.
Thus, everything that serves to obtain liquidity seems to be valid, to the point that Twitter has carried out an auction of objects from its offices. Yes, you read that right, the Heritage Global Partners auction house has published, in recent days, some furniture and office equipment ads, including some image objects from the social network, such as a neon with the Twitter logo. According to various sources, some of these objects were sold for between 40,000 and 100,000 dollars.
It may seem like a lot of money, yes, but as soon as we stop to see the size of Twitter’s debt, as well as that of Elon Musk, we can see that this is like scratching through the fog and, as I said before, it does not produce an image especially positive about the company. Who would contract long-term with a company that is paying off even its furniture? This is, without a doubt, the main problem, as once again trying to scratch up some liquidity in the short term may be mortgaging the future.
