by Karl Denninger
So LinkedIn is being bought by Microsoft.
The latter admits, however, that the acquisition will not be accretive to earnings. In other words the acquisition is “strategic”, not made to build the totality of the book of business.
This in turn means that it is going to be destructive to jobs net-net.
And why did Microsoft think that paying 50%+ over the market price was a good idea? Because Microsoft can emit debt into the market at essentially zero cost.