Search results

You are admirably optimistic, if somewhat unrealistic.

Unlikely to be direct effect on Tesla is the lawsuit is primarily aimed at the board members personally. I don't know if or to what extent Tesla has indemnified the board members, but typically corporate indemnities would not cover the kind of allegations that are being made here.

Only during the 420 period.

No doot aboot it.

Most brokerages are going free-trades now.

I drive the gas version now. It's a really nice car. Hope Volvo offers the subscription deal on the PHEV versions.

Easy. Drive to Saudi Arabia.

They will expense the rent periodically and reduce the prepayment asset accordingly.

I think you're right on 1-5, but on 6, Tesla has said in its filings that it maintains relatively little D&O insurance (as reported here: https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2019/02/01/elon-musk-tweets-highlight-need-for-directors-and.html).

As I recall, the Q1 price cuts led to about a $90 million write-off. Given they’re still working on the Q2 financials, it will be interesting to see whether they take the hit for this one in Q2 or Q3.

From the CS report - this is something you don't see every day:

If anyone wants to read the full reports, they are available on E*Trade to all customers.

Seekingalpha loves Tesla - articles about Tesla get far more views than any other non-FAANG stocks. If Tesla went away, so would a significant proportion of their advertising revenue.

I'm speculating, but my guess would be that his previous hedge was the convertibles that got redeemed in Q1, thus necessitating a replacement hedge.

Few hedge funds will take unlimited exposure on a position, however much they believe in it. Out of the money calls are a natural way to cap potential loss.

Yes, and the effects are summarized on pages 12-13 of the Q1 10-Q.

Surprising that InsideEVs was so far off.

I don't think you can trade it in Asia, so Germany I expect.

It's not a swamp, it's a floodplain. And a floodplain with pretty good defenses - the new/main airport is on the same floodplain.

Amusing if illogical. If the judge had decided that wilfulness was required, and had therefore declined to issue an order to Musk, how would that be prejudicial to Tesla?

Just applying the repayment to the 10-K numbers worsens the quick ratio from about 46.39% to about 40.95%, so I don’t think that will impress Moody’s. Of course, there are other things going on.

The filing requesting a show cause order stated that willfulness is not required. Had that filing been incorrect on its face, the judge would have declined to issue the order.

I agree. It’s only about 44% of the debt due in 2019, so it would be strange to make a big deal about paying this one piece.

However, in this case the judge accepted the SEC’s filing and granted their request.

OK, I guess that's about as intelligent and polite answer as I am likely to get this evening, so I am heading out for a beer.

I am not sure that a simple insult constitutes a useful response (and the rest of your post was clearly not relevant to the importance of intent. Before I let this go, I would like to request your help on one point. You kindly opined that "your argument that Elon's intent doesn't matter to...

Of course (as always), I respect your right to hold that opinion. Presumably, you must then believe that the SEC is being “grossly and wilfully false” when they write in their complant that “Significantly, a violation need not be wilful in order to find contempt.”?

I think the point you miss is that the SEC is asking the court to enforce an agreement ro which Musk is a party and which was then ratified and put intp effect by an order of the court.

I think Wikipedia over-simplifies. For a court’s civil contempt powers to be brought into effect, any form of disobedience to an order will suffice. Criminal contempt, on the otherhand, requires some level of mens rea. See 18 USC 401.

So your view is that negligent or reckless violation of a court order cannot constitute contempt? Wilfulness iis required? Thar has not hitherto been my understanding of the position of the federal courts, but I would certainly be interested to read any authority or source that you could cite.

No No doubt the judge will grant the SEC’s request and so we will then get to see Elon’s own full explanation.

Yes, I think that summarizes the argument. Will be interesting to see which the judge prefers.

The SEC's point on that is that issuing a clarification does not erase the original non-compliance. I agree with you that lack of intent may be a mitigating factor when it comes to the penalty phase. For the record, I am not currently short (actually or economically), although I may reinitiate...

I think intent is not required here. Elon had an obligation to DILIGENTLY comply with the original order. If he tweeted without intent to violate but also without diligently checking that he wasn’t violating, he would still be in contempt.

Extremely unlikely given the timing.

Not technically impossible but you would lose a lot of retail investors and some funds only buy US listed shares.

Wow. Bet the instos are just loving this.

Seriously? He is doubling down in a fight with the federal government. Whatever else you say about this guy, he has balls.

I think the judge has to agree, based on a clear and convincing evidence standard. Likely consequence to Musk and Tesla would be fines. Ban from acting as a director/officer for Musk is possible. Depends a lot on what the SEC decides to ask for.

Yes, it’s all an evil conspiracy. :)

If Elon says there’s a production S-curve, why is it inconceivable that there’s a demand S-curve (reversed) also?

Well, me too (technically). But if we can’t have fun with this stuff, we shouldn’t be doing it.

There’s a difference between making fun of the discussion - it’s only a stock - and personally attacking the participants.

Geez, buddy, take a break with all the lies & innuendo sturm & drang. I thought sconelucht was on your side.

Me too. FUDsters kept dicussing “production hell” when we all know that Tesla produced precisely what they meant to produce exactly when they meant to produce it.

I wouldn't assume that. Over-optimistic demand predictions are not unknown on this forum.

No problem. Thanks

Well, I certainly agree with that as I think international deliveries will exceed any increase in production. However, firing most of the delivery team seems a strange response to an expected temporary and short-term reduction in deliveries. The costs of termination, rehiring and retraining...

"Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) let 150 employees go out of a 230-person team based at the Las Vegas facility tasked with Model 3 deliveries to North America, according to a Reuters exclusive." was in the link I previously posted. And here is the Reuters link. Exclusive: Tesla's delivery team gutted in...

Thanks for the quick response. How does the change in S&X production lead to cuts in the M3 delivery team?