What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Seven banks lent $13 billion toward Elon Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022. They held much of that debt for nearly two years before selling it down in 2025. The delay was a costly bind and the final portion reportedly sold below face value—but public reporting does not establish whether the banks collectively lost money. Reuters reported a source’s view that the February sale likely produced a profit on the portion sold then.
Which banks financed Musk’s Twitter acquisition?
Morgan Stanley and six other banks provided $13 billion of debt financing for Musk’s $44 billion buyout of Twitter, according to Reuters reporting published by Investing.com. The lenders named across Reuters reports were Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale. The reports do not disclose each bank’s final share of the financing.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Twitter Logo High Definition Sticker - Sticker Graphic - Auto Wall Laptop Cell Phone Bumper Sticker... | $4.99 | Buy on Amazon |
Four facilities made up the debt package
| Facility | Amount | Security or structure |
|---|---|---|
| Term loan | $6.5 billion | Secured |
| Revolving credit facility | $500 million | Secured; revolving credit |
| Loan | $3 billion | Unsecured |
| Loans | $3 billion | Secured |
These facility figures and the total financing are reported by Reuters; its coverage does not give lender-by-lender allocations.
Why did the banks hold the loans for so long?
Acquisition lenders often expect to sell loans to investors after a deal closes. In this case, the banks remained exposed to the Twitter debt for nearly two years. Reuters attributed weak demand to investor concerns about changes to the platform, job cuts, advertiser departures, pressure on revenue and the resulting risk of default.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
An attempted sale of the unsecured loan in late 2022 drew bids around 60 cents on the dollar, Reuters reported. That was an indication of investor appetite at that time—not the price received for the later sales or a measure of the banks’ eventual total return.
What debt did the banks sell in 2025?
Reuters reported two major sell-downs. The February and April figures below describe separate reported sales; the reports do not provide a consolidated accounting of all proceeds, interest, fees or each lender’s position.
| Reported sale | Amount | Price versus face value | Stated yield | What the report says |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 2025 | $5.5 billion | 97 cents per dollar | 11% | Reuters said the loans had been marketed at 90–95 cents. A source characterized the 97-cent price as likely profitable for the portion sold. |
| April 2025 | $1.2 billion | 98 cents per dollar | 9.5% | Reuters described this as the final portion sold and said banks had offloaded almost all of the debt they had held for nearly two years. |
The sale figures, prices and yields were reported by Reuters based on sources familiar with the transactions. The 97-cent and 98-cent prices are below the loans’ face value; the stated yields are separate terms of the debt, not additional sale-price discounts.
In the lead-up to the final sale, Reuters had reported that Morgan Stanley was offering its remaining $1.23 billion of X-related debt. A separate report said $1.2 billion was ultimately sold; the reports do not explain the difference between those rounded figures.
Did the banks lose money?
The available reporting does not establish that the banks collectively lost money, nor does it show their aggregate net profit. A sale below face value means a discount to the amount of principal sold; it does not, by itself, reveal a lender’s overall return. The public reports do not provide each bank’s allocation, interest income, fees, funding costs or a final accounting across the life of the financing.
For the February sale specifically, one Reuters source said the 97-cent price likely meant a profit on that portion. That source’s assessment is not an accounting result for every lender or the whole deal. The April sale’s 98-cent price likewise does not settle the total economics.
What influenced investor interest in the 2025 sales?
Reuters reported that the February investor pitch included exposure to X’s stake in xAI. The reporting also described lenders’ view that Musk’s closeness to President Donald Trump and the prospect of stronger X revenue could help investor appetite. Those were reported considerations, not verified measures of X’s financial performance.
An unnamed prospective investor quoted in Reuters questioned whether political proximity was generating enough revenue improvement to justify buying the unrated debt. The reports do not establish that this expectation was fulfilled or quantify any resulting change in X’s credit risk.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
