Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
That is not correct. As I mentioned earlier, the matter is even laid out in the filing! Somewhere around point 30-40 from memory.
As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
Nope - read it again, can't see anything that talks about a procedural issue with regard to the lack of advanced notification to the SEC, only that Musk was in the early stages of structuring a potential deal and was premature in announcing that without a whole load of steps being taken first, those steps which ultimately caused the demise of the deal. As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
Heres Johnny said:
DonkeyApple said:
That is not correct. As I mentioned earlier, the matter is even laid out in the filing! Somewhere around point 30-40 from memory.
As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
Nope - read it again, can't see anything that talks about a procedural issue with regard to the lack of advanced notification to the SEC, only that Musk was in the early stages of structuring a potential deal and was premature in announcing that without a whole load of steps being taken first, those steps which ultimately caused the demise of the deal. As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
Heres Johnny said:
DonkeyApple said:
That is not correct. As I mentioned earlier, the matter is even laid out in the filing! Somewhere around point 30-40 from memory.
As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
Nope - read it again, can't see anything that talks about a procedural issue with regard to the lack of advanced notification to the SEC, only that Musk was in the early stages of structuring a potential deal and was premature in announcing that without a whole load of steps being taken first, those steps which ultimately caused the demise of the deal. As a reporting company, Tesla abides by a set of rules. The Nasdaq requires an advance notification of material announcements. This is governed under the SEC section 10b. The exact section that the SEC is claiming was violated. The Nasdaq rule exists specifIcally in relation to insider trading and is an integral part of the SEC governance of this area of market manipulation.
What the SEC appear to be aiming for is a charge of insider dealing here. Ie the intent of the breaching tweet(s) were to materially impact the share price for financial gain. Close out the shorts.
And as an aside, via Rule 10b the SEC are not stating that the the take private transaction was premature but that it did not exist and that Musk knew it did not exist and that he cannot prove that it would exist within a suitable time frame in the future. Again, this is laid out in the filing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SE...
If there was no offer of finance, then, surely, the rest - procedural or not, is less the issue - he just 'made it up'?
Heres Johnny said:
REALIST123 said:
Heres Johnny said:
DonkeyApple said:
He deliberately and knowingly published a price sensitive tweet without notifying the exchange in advance, via a distribution channel specifically registered with the exchange as a means to broadcast market sensitive information. That alone makes the SEC action justified and he knows this all too well.
I agree with most of what you said except this bit - tweeting via that channel constitutes notifying the exchange, you even acknowledge that yourselfHis defence is he meant no malice - I don't think thats going to wash
The bit I've read elsewhere which I find most disturbing is the use of the industry norm or 20% above the current market price making it 419, but then deciding to make it 420 as thats the Cannabis reference and it would impress his girlfriend. Its not a school playground.
If I was one of the big investors and the price I hadn't even agreed to yet was being put up by something like $175M as a bi product of impressing his girlfriends he subsequently split from the next week, I'd be walkiing
I read it as:
He deliberately and knowingly published a price sensitive tweet via a distribution channel specifically registered with the exchange as a means to broadcast market sensitive information. Without notifying the exchange in advance.
Surely it’s not giving them advance warning that’s key?
Toaster said:
you guys are being far to rational, he can’t resign from Tesla etc so if he is barred or sacked he can get on with his life. I know it’s sounds odd but if you were in his position how would you do it. Being the CEO of space x and Tesla would come at huge personal cost and maybe he is just sick of it all. who knows the real answer.
Indeed - when you look at how one of Elon's 'idols' ended up broke, in a hotel and then carted off by some shady characters, or Howard Hughes weirder than fiction tail of his life.Amazing that such gifted/rich people end up (sometimes) in just completely left field situations.
And I'm not supporting one way or other, just commenting on human nature.
Edited by dukeboy749r on Monday 1st October 09:20
Heres Johnny said:
Nope - read it again, can't see anything that talks about a procedural issue with regard to the lack of advanced notification to the SEC, only that Musk was in the early stages of structuring a potential deal and was premature in announcing that without a whole load of steps being taken first, those steps which ultimately caused the demise of the deal.
You haven’t read it at all. Nor are you comprehending the basics of exchange governance or what happened. Stick to your initial view that it was all about adding $1. DonkeyApple said:
You haven’t read it at all. Nor are you comprehending the basics of exchange governance or what happened. Stick to your initial view that it was all about adding $1.
You seem hung up on the fact it’s a procedural issue with the SEC, it’s not. If the deal had been lined up we wouldn’t be having this conversation over the timing of the tweet or that it was done during the day. The issue is purely that what he said was false and nothing to do with how or when he said it, Heres Johnny said:
You seem hung up on the fact it’s a procedural issue with the SEC, it’s not. If the deal had been lined up we wouldn’t be having this conversation over the timing of the tweet or that it was done during the day. The issue is purely that what he said was false and nothing to do with how or when he said it,
No. It is how I stated at the start of the day. You are the one hung up on this. It is written in the documentation. just read it and stop fannying about. It’s all there in black and white. Both parts. And also go back to my original post on the matter as you’ve clearly forgotten that. Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 28th September 22:52
Burwood said:
Anywho, hands up if you’ve made money shorting this toxic s
t.
Another prediction. Musk goes, the stock has 150 written all over it. Bankruptcy protection by April 19. Cover at 80
i just don’t know. He is no idiot. He obviously sees an upside to his move. They’ve had the SEC in and now know their hand, which is possibly a smart move or his ego has caught up with him after a decade of being able to be outrageous and prospering from it. t. Another prediction. Musk goes, the stock has 150 written all over it. Bankruptcy protection by April 19. Cover at 80
And if they’ve got real sales coming in for the 3 to keep demand going after the pre-orders are filled or know that they will be able to deliver the $35k car ahead of the new schedule then maybe the firm has reached the point that it doesn’t need him as an officer?
DonkeyApple said:
Burwood said:
Anywho, hands up if you’ve made money shorting this toxic st.
Another prediction. Musk goes, the stock has 150 written all over it. Bankruptcy protection by April 19. Cover at 80
i just don’t know. He is no idiot. He obviously sees an upside to his move. They’ve had the SEC in and now know their hand, which is possibly a smart move or his ego has caught up with him after a decade of being able to be outrageous and prospering from it. t. Another prediction. Musk goes, the stock has 150 written all over it. Bankruptcy protection by April 19. Cover at 80
And if they’ve got real sales coming in for the 3 to keep demand going after the pre-orders are filled or know that they will be able to deliver the $35k car ahead of the new schedule then maybe the firm has reached the point that it doesn’t need him as an officer?
As @DonkeyApple says, he’s not an idiot. Weirdly could be in a win win? If he beats the SEC and the numbers are good, he’s a hero and beaten all the naysayers. If he loses and goes but the numbers are good, confidence could be restored and and on Tesla goes regardless.
DonkeyApple said:
Heres Johnny said:
You seem hung up on the fact it’s a procedural issue with the SEC, it’s not. If the deal had been lined up we wouldn’t be having this conversation over the timing of the tweet or that it was done during the day. The issue is purely that what he said was false and nothing to do with how or when he said it,
No. It is how I stated at the start of the day. You are the one hung up on this. It is written in the documentation. just read it and stop fannying about. It’s all there in black and white. Both parts. And also go back to my original post on the matter as you’ve clearly forgotten that. The veracity (or otherwise) of his statement about "funding secured" is perhaps difficult to prove in court. If the Saudi Sovereign Wealth chap says in court that Musk could have interpreted his comments in a meeting that he had verbal commitment to proceed with an MBO, the SEC's case would possibly collapse. But they seemingly have him bang-to-rights on not informing the exchange.
AstonZagato said:
Remember that the got Al Capone on tax evasion.
The veracity (or otherwise) of his statement about "funding secured" is perhaps difficult to prove in court. If the Saudi Sovereign Wealth chap says in court that Musk could have interpreted his comments in a meeting that he had verbal commitment to proceed with an MBO, the SEC's case would possibly collapse. But they seemingly have him bang-to-rights on not informing the exchange.
Yup. They are including both in their filing so going for the whole shebang as a market manipulation. Which is almost impossible to view as not being exactly what happened. It is clear that that element is cut and dried but on its own would normally be a slap on the wrist but obviously it was merely the start of the event rather than the event itself. The SEC have stated that Musk has not been able to produce any evidence to back up his funding secured claim, nor has any third party and that there never was any deal in the offing, not that there was a deal and it was accidentally announced early at a time that was very coincidentally close to the news of the open market buy in by the Saudis and the moment of peak short selling, which in turn was just a couple of weeks after Musk had told shooters he was going to burn them but was before he knew the Saudis had been buying in the open market. The veracity (or otherwise) of his statement about "funding secured" is perhaps difficult to prove in court. If the Saudi Sovereign Wealth chap says in court that Musk could have interpreted his comments in a meeting that he had verbal commitment to proceed with an MBO, the SEC's case would possibly collapse. But they seemingly have him bang-to-rights on not informing the exchange.
DJP31 said:
If he’d have kept his head down and stopped making the crazy optimistic predictions the shorts issue would be significantly less of a knife in his side than it has been.
As @DonkeyApple says, he’s not an idiot. Weirdly could be in a win win? If he beats the SEC and the numbers are good, he’s a hero and beaten all the naysayers. If he loses and goes but the numbers are good, confidence could be restored and and on Tesla goes regardless.
I wondered if by binning what seems a very reasonable deal given what he did, what he is seeking to achieve is a delay to having to stand down?As @DonkeyApple says, he’s not an idiot. Weirdly could be in a win win? If he beats the SEC and the numbers are good, he’s a hero and beaten all the naysayers. If he loses and goes but the numbers are good, confidence could be restored and and on Tesla goes regardless.
If the business is at the critical turning point that it is at maybe the deal was from immediate effect and that by fighting it he can push any ramifications out 12 months when him stepping down will have far less impact as the firm should be self funding by then?
Does what he has done work as a stalling tactic?
DonkeyApple said:
I wondered if by binning what seems a very reasonable deal given what he did, what he is seeking to achieve is a delay to having to stand down?
If the business is at the critical turning point that it is at maybe the deal was from immediate effect and that by fighting it he can push any ramifications out 12 months when him stepping down will have far less impact as the firm should be self funding by then?
Does what he has done work as a stalling tactic?
Let's take your premise. No doubt his approach would delay any immediate legal consequences. But I can only imagine the preamble to the court case is going to become all consuming. If the business is at the critical turning point that it is at maybe the deal was from immediate effect and that by fighting it he can push any ramifications out 12 months when him stepping down will have far less impact as the firm should be self funding by then?
Does what he has done work as a stalling tactic?
Every interview, every product release, every Tesla commentary piece is likely to focus on the SEC accusations. And no doubt there will be "leaks" as the investigators discover more damaging info to heap even more pressure onto Musk.
And if he is experiencing significant mental stress (which his erratic behaviour would suggest), it is hard to see how being prosecuted for securities fraud is going to help his peace of mind.
So I know it is the obvious conclusion, but I think his ego has reached some kind of transcendent level of self importance. This prevents him from compromising or working in a pragmatic way. That would fit the broader pattern of behaviour.
EddieSteadyGo said:
DonkeyApple said:
I wondered if by binning what seems a very reasonable deal given what he did, what he is seeking to achieve is a delay to having to stand down?
If the business is at the critical turning point that it is at maybe the deal was from immediate effect and that by fighting it he can push any ramifications out 12 months when him stepping down will have far less impact as the firm should be self funding by then?
Does what he has done work as a stalling tactic?
Let's take your premise. No doubt his approach would delay any immediate legal consequences. But I can only imagine the preamble to the court case is going to become all consuming. If the business is at the critical turning point that it is at maybe the deal was from immediate effect and that by fighting it he can push any ramifications out 12 months when him stepping down will have far less impact as the firm should be self funding by then?
Does what he has done work as a stalling tactic?
Every interview, every product release, every Tesla commentary piece is likely to focus on the SEC accusations. And no doubt there will be "leaks" as the investigators discover more damaging info to heap even more pressure onto Musk.
And if he is experiencing significant mental stress (which his erratic behaviour would suggest), it is hard to see how being prosecuted for securities fraud is going to help his peace of mind.
So I know it is the obvious conclusion, but I think his ego has reached some kind of transcendent level of self importance. This prevents him from compromising or working in a pragmatic way. That would fit the broader pattern of behaviour.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff