Elon Musk, Twitter, and the billionaire balancing act – Is it really a crisis?

Independent Singapore

a day ago

UNITED STATES: Still recall the sensational, buzz-worthy moment when Elon Musk bought Twitter for US$44 billion? It was Oct 27, 2022, a day that redesigned social media and changed the world's perception of how billionaires play.
In a post on Facebook, one user tried to analyse the financial position of Musk amid speculations that he is in 'hot water' money-wise. Initially, the poster refuted what many perceived after Musk bought Twitter. According to him, the world presumed at the time that Musk had an extra US$44 billion in the bank. However, in truth, just like most excessively wealthy individuals, his net value was (and is) mainly locked in assets, mainly Tesla stock.
To fund the transaction, Musk did what many magnates do — he tapped into his current assets. Tesla shares were a chunk of the equation, either directly or indirectly. However, to fix the narrative, Tesla stock wasn't dropping when he did the acquisition. According to a commenter to the post, 'on the day he clinched the Twitter contract, Tesla stock floated at around US$220 to US$230, fast-forward to June 2025, and Tesla stock sits at almost US$301, even higher than it was back then.' Likewise, some commenters have pointed out it 'has even soared to US$376' on recent peaks.
So, no, the description that he's under pressure from banks, like how some overhyped headlines speculate, is not accurate. His warranty has more value now than when he made the transaction, and, contrary to the view that he received a huge credit, some contend that much of the cash came from equity holders, such as Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, allegedly obtained with a single phone call. But there's more to the story than just numbers
It's not just about money. Musk has constantly stimulated 'storms,' and his recent acts have fanned the flames of obsessive reactions. Detractors cite his collaboration with contentious figures and his positioning with prickly views, particularly about matters associated with South Africa and international politics. One commenter said blatantly, 'I hope he doesn't bounce back.' Others went further: 'Bounce back where? May he lose everything.' These views mirror huge disapproval with what some see as the treacherous combination of affluence, clout, and ideology. See also S'pore ambassador named in Brazilian court in graft probe
On the business side, the surge of Chinese EV builders is real—they're quickly seizing global market share with viable pricing and remarkable quality. Tesla, while still a driving force, no longer remains uncontested. The rich don't always have it easy – just different
One common fallacy is that tycoons like Musk have billions of dollars in cash at their command. Not so. They may be oozing with assets, but not necessarily oozing with cash. Many people often equate him with Jeff Bezos, who had sufficient cash flow to provide his former wife with more than US$100 billion in a divorce agreement; however, much of that 'cash' came from selling stocks, not withdrawing money from a bank account.
Then there's the provocative matter of taxation and debt acquisition. Musk exploited a technicality: he can borrow against his assets without activating capital gains duties. One annoyed commenter put it this way: 'If it's not a gain, why can it be used as collateral? Let us play the same game, too.' It's a legitimate question, and one that's prompting demands for tax restructuring at the highest levels. See also Why did Musk do a livestream of migrant crisis from the border? So, what's really going on?
Notwithstanding the drama and headlines, Elon Musk is not at present in a perilous financial abyss. His resources are up and about, not down. His Twitter purchase is obviously still being discussed in terms of value and significance, but whether you like or fume over him, his story is a window where the world can peep into how affluence, power, and clout operate in the 21st century.
Being rich doesn't make one invulnerable to pressure; it just changes how pressure appears or what it looks like. Whether it's navigating regulatory inspections, steering investor expectations, or shaping public opinion, the risks at the top are high.
Also, as one commenter mockingly said: 'Why don't they just print money—they are the presidents after all.' For sure, that is said in jest, but it realistically captures the cynicism many people feel about how power operates in contemporary times.