To my understanding, this at the moment is neither hostile nor a takeover, but a (rather direct/rude/aggressive; pick whatever adjective you want) question to the board to advise shareholders to accept Musk’s offer.

It could become any of the four options failed takeover, failed hostile takeover, takeover, or hostile takeover.

If the board says “good idea” and advises shareholders to accept the offer, it could or could not become a takeover, depending on whether enough shareholders (by share count) accept it (I don’t know how many is enough, but it’s almost certainly more than 50%, as an OK would force _all_ shareholders to sell. You can’t take a company private and keep shareholders around)

Technically, that wouldn’t be a hostile takeover, though, as it would be with agreement by the board.

If the board advises shareholders to reject the offer Musk could persevere. In the end, if enough shareholders sell their shares to him, the board’s opinion doesn’t matter. if enough shareholders do that, it would become a hostile takeover.

> To my understanding, this at the moment is neither hostile nor a takeover, but a (rather direct/rude/aggressive; pick whatever adjective you want) question to the board to advise shareholders to accept Musk’s offer.

Right, but a board is never going to say yes to this. If he was actually trying to get the board's agreement, the negotiations would have all happened in private and the announcement wouldn't have been made until it was basically a done deal.

I'd assume he wants to make the price shoot up and then when he gets rejected be the first to sell as previously proclaimed making big money in the process. ie market manipulation.

Is it market manipulation if he is ostensibly willing to follow through with the purchase if they were to accept?

> You can’t take a company private and keep shareholders around

I don't know how customary, but technically it's possible to keep up to hundreds of shareholders around when going private.

> that's why it's called a "hostile takeover"

No, this is not a hostile takeover. A hostile takeover is if Elon bought up more than 50% of the shares. Which he can do much more cheaply than buying outright at a 38% premium.

If they decline his offer plan B may be to buy up the cheap shares until he has 51%.

> Which he can do much more cheaply than buying outright at a 38% premium.

Are you sure? I suspect were he actually trying to do this and had the liquidity, the price would go up as he tried to buy it.

Plan B makes sense if Musk was actually serious/determined (I have no idea but I doubt it). Especially once the stock gets volatile while going down after he sells [part of] his stake before re-buying privately.

If it is so simple to buy out twitter, why hasn't it been done?

I can think of some reasons.

1. There's <100 billionaires with enough wealth to buy 51% of Twitter. And even for most of them, such an investment would represent a larger share of their wealth than it will for Musk, meaning greater risk.

2. Most just aren't interested. Unlike Musk, who shows a strong affinity for the platform.

It's kinda pricey and not profitable.

It's not hostile, yet.....

Wouldn't be a takeover if it's rejected.