Contemporary Iron Man billionaire Musk Elon Musk is willing to bid between $10 billion and $15 billion in cash for Twitter, the New York Post quoted two sources familiar with the situation as saying.

If necessary, Musk may also consider borrowing from his 9.1% stake in Twitter, a move that could raise billions of dollars and plans to launch a bid in about 10 days, the source said.

Co-investors will have a bigger stake than Mr Musk, but he will be the largest single holder. Still, for Musk, it is mainly external financing, and he has commissioned Morgan Stanley to refinance Twitter by $10 billion in the form of a traditional leveraged buyout.

As previously pointed out in the media, most of the money (about $20 billion) will come from co-investors, who will make malicious offers directly to Twitter shareholders.

In the recent buzz about the acquisition of Twitter by Musk, it is clear that although Musk is considered the richest man in the world, most of his assets are tied to Tesla, Inc. 's shares, which means he will probably have to sell shares or borrow money to finance the deal.

Third parties that "reinforcements" are willing to help bid, such as private equity firms such as Thoma Bravo, are "not real" in CNBC's view and are more marketing-oriented because the return on investment is "inappropriate".

Mr Musk's Twitter bid is attracting interest from investors who put cash into his former companies, including Tesla, Inc. and SpaceX, according to one of the sources. On the other hand, people familiar with the matter point out that most private equity firms prefer to stay away from political controversy and worry that they will not be able to control Musk.

In addition, controversy aside, few private equity firms are willing to participate in hostile takeovers, and Morgan Stanley is trying to attract other banks to participate in cash acquisitions. Similarly, according to sources, many people seem to doubt whether the Twitter is worth $43 billion.

Previously on Musk's acquisition of Twitter

Wall Street News an earlier article combed the timing of Musk's acquisition of Twitter and the motivation behind it, and then reviewed the latest developments in the previous timeline:

On March 26, Musk sent several tweets to express his dissatisfaction with Twitter, such as "is Twitter dead?" Do you need a new social platform? "this kind of soul torture immediately aroused heated discussion among Twitter users, and some netizens joked that you should buy Twitter.

On April 4th, Musk became Twitter's largest outside shareholder, with a 9.1% stake in Twitter, or about 73.48 million shares, about four times the 2.25% share of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, according to SEC 13G documents.

On April 5th, the latest SEC 13D documents showed that Musk had changed from "passive holding" to "aggressive investment". Several board members of Twitter also stepped forward and tweeted "welcome to join our board".

On April 10th, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted that Musk had decided not to join our (Twitter) board, and the "I'm here, I'm gone" operation caused a lot of speculation.

On April 11th, analysts pointed out that the dramatic reversal could mean that Musk is more ambitious (buying Twitter) and is planning a "Game of Thrones."

Musk responded to fans' offer to "buy Twitter" on April 14 by offering to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, saying the social media company should be taken private. On the same day, it was reported that Twitter's board of directors was considering a "poison pill"-dilution anti-takeover measures in response to the "menacing" Musk.

On April 15, Wall Street news articles analyzed that Musk needed a total of $43 billion to fully take over Twitter, and even though Musk already owns 9.1% of Twitter, Musk still needs $36 billion out of his own pocket-- reducing his holdings in Tesla, Inc. and SpaceX, or taking out of friends-- to raise money from the private sector.

On April 18, Musk may receive "reinforcements"-private equity giant Apollo Global Management, which is considering a bid for Twitter, is already in talks to support the deal, possibly providing equity or debt support to other prospective buyers such as Musk or Thomas Bravo LP.

On April 19th, the latest news is that Musk may put $10 billion to $15 billion in cash out of his own pocket today, and may also consider borrowing from his 9.1% stake, planning to launch a tender offer in about 10 days.

Show or sincerity? Is the acquisition of Twitter a protracted war?

Urska Velikonja, a law professor and associate dean of academic affairs at Georgetown University, commented on Tuesday that Musk's offer for a stake in Twitter was completely unserious compared to the actual, serious bid, as if to some extent saying,'I'm interested in buying all the Twitter'.

In addition, Velikonja, who specializes in securities regulation and law enforcement, pointed out that Musk's access to financing was a "very big and serious problem", especially because the whole process took place in a relatively short period of time.

Hostile takeover offers usually develop over time as potential bidders try to negotiate with the board of directors to buy the company in a friendly way. So, in my opinion, the reason Musk has just skipped this step is that he wants to promote it, which is his ultimate goal.

If Musk is serious, according to expert advice, he will have several funding options: the first is to work with other big Wall Street companies that have expressed interest in Twitter, such as Yahoo's parent companies Apollo Global (APO) and Morgan Stanley. However, this will require Mr Musk to hand over some control to these institutions, thereby diluting his own power in the company.

The second possibility includes a "tender offer", which Musk mentioned vaguely in a tweet. If he takes this approach, shareholders will have the opportunity to sell his shares directly to him at the price proposed by Musk.

But under the poison pill, Veilikonja says Musk's offer is harder to pass, even if he follows the bidding route.

Generally speaking, simply initiating a tender offer is not enough to overcome the threat of poison pills. Once he makes an offer and acquires more than 50 per cent of the shares, the poison pill takes effect and is triggered again at each sale, forcing Mr Musk to raise his offer.

So, in essence, as long as the board can insist that the price is too low, or that we want Twitter to remain independent, Musk cannot really pass this power, especially because he has little money to buy Twitter at his current offer.