This is stupid. News media equates musk to trump. No advertising has made it easier. No wonder third world countries have dirty air and even dirtier water money/power compromised news media same as ours. Misinforming people is what will kill this planet in the end.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Join push for SEC Investigation of TSLA manipulators and inside traders
- Thread starter Papafox
- Start date
I can identify three types of activity that would constitute violation of SEC rules. There are more. If I missed one that you'd like to see get attention, please speak up. I invite you to research any or all of these ideas and see if you can clarify and/or debunk.
1) Insider trading- This happens when a person buys or sells securities while in possession of information that is both material to the security and non-public.Examples could be hacking Tesla's computer system to determine production or delivery info ahead of public release. Another theoretical example could be trading on information that a damaging news article will be released on a specific future date and trading on that information. If someone let the news out that the NYTimes interview was coming out and it was extremely negative, anyone trading on that material, non-public information would be guilty of insider trading.
2) Providing false information with the intention of influencing the stock price The obvious defense would be "I just made a mistake." One remedy for that defense would be a pattern of behavior that suggests the statement wasn't a mistake at all. Another Remedy for the defense would be proof, such as an email, text message, or twitter statement that reveals the information was knowingly falsified. Certainly such behavior would be illegal if you owned the security or worked on behalf of someone who owned the security. Could someone research and verify that this behavior is illegal even if you do not own the security or are compensated by someone who owns it? Thanks.
3) Classic 1934 Section 9 (a)(2) which involves creating actual or apparent activity in a security with the intention of causing someone else to buy or sell. This provision opens up a wide variety of the short-selling techniques we see every day to scrutiny.
If you can research and find activities that are illegal in the eyes of the SEC that are not listed in one of the three categories, please bring them to our attention. Let's figure out the rules before we get too carried away with tracking down all the examples.
1) Insider trading- This happens when a person buys or sells securities while in possession of information that is both material to the security and non-public.Examples could be hacking Tesla's computer system to determine production or delivery info ahead of public release. Another theoretical example could be trading on information that a damaging news article will be released on a specific future date and trading on that information. If someone let the news out that the NYTimes interview was coming out and it was extremely negative, anyone trading on that material, non-public information would be guilty of insider trading.
2) Providing false information with the intention of influencing the stock price The obvious defense would be "I just made a mistake." One remedy for that defense would be a pattern of behavior that suggests the statement wasn't a mistake at all. Another Remedy for the defense would be proof, such as an email, text message, or twitter statement that reveals the information was knowingly falsified. Certainly such behavior would be illegal if you owned the security or worked on behalf of someone who owned the security. Could someone research and verify that this behavior is illegal even if you do not own the security or are compensated by someone who owns it? Thanks.
3) Classic 1934 Section 9 (a)(2) which involves creating actual or apparent activity in a security with the intention of causing someone else to buy or sell. This provision opens up a wide variety of the short-selling techniques we see every day to scrutiny.
If you can research and find activities that are illegal in the eyes of the SEC that are not listed in one of the three categories, please bring them to our attention. Let's figure out the rules before we get too carried away with tracking down all the examples.
Notice that 9(a)(2) states for the purpose of causing another to buy or sell. It does not state for raising or lowering the price of the stock. One can argue, though, that virtually all manipulations that affect the stock price will inevitably cause some investors to buy or sell (due to stop loss triggers, perceptions of the individual about the prospects of the stock, etc.
I like this idea.
I don't know the possibility of this from legal point of view, but I really like this idea, if all shareholder agrees this rule should be applied to the stock, is it remotely possible to do so?
It could be better solution to the shorting situation than going private...
I think category #2 is actually going to be the easiest to prove. The "mistakes" being made by the so-called reporters have been veering into the implausible. Particularly being unable to tell whether one number is larger or smaller than another -- I don't think claiming that that was a mistake is believable to anyone.
Category #3 is tough to prove because stock trades lie behind a layer of anonymity and it requires subpoenas to tell who actually made a trade. On top of this, many stock manipulators who were actually identified in recent decades have said "Oh, that was my automated trading program, I didn't have any intentions at all", and then you have to try to get them to reveal the code of the automated trading program (which they fight, and it's hard to force them to reveal it) to prove that it was actually deliberately programmed to manipulate the stock price.
"Oh, it was just a side-effect of someone else's computer program" is the go-to excuse for blatantly manipulative trading these days, because it does have a lot of plausibility.
Category #3 is tough to prove because stock trades lie behind a layer of anonymity and it requires subpoenas to tell who actually made a trade. On top of this, many stock manipulators who were actually identified in recent decades have said "Oh, that was my automated trading program, I didn't have any intentions at all", and then you have to try to get them to reveal the code of the automated trading program (which they fight, and it's hard to force them to reveal it) to prove that it was actually deliberately programmed to manipulate the stock price.
"Oh, it was just a side-effect of someone else's computer program" is the go-to excuse for blatantly manipulative trading these days, because it does have a lot of plausibility.
Last edited:
Removed. Keep kicking rear end Tesla family
Last edited:
Is anybody interested in being part of a google group to list proven and debunked articles or news reports? If you are let me know by DM or post here. If I get ten people interested in it I’ll start a google sheet. Goal would be to compile provable slander, and send along to the SEC.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I haven’t seen any evidence of market manipulation or insider trading whatsoever
dqd88
Member
This isn't big enough for SEC to act. Unless they get 100s of people complaining.
For false new articles, I suggest a civil lawsuit, filed by a group of Tesla investors, or maybe even Tesla Inc.
The journalist and paper need slapped with a legal complaint, if nothing else to let them know we aren't f*cking around anymore with their bullsh*t lies. They need a punch in the gut. It would be expensive to litigate this on both sides. So maybe I'm just rambling out of anger and it's not feasible. I think if Hulk Hogan can sue and take down Gawker, then Tesla can/should at a min sue the NYT (not that it would take them down). I think suing the poor little journalist is good too, if nothing else than to instill fear and make them waste their time.
Maybe a bigger investor can take the lead and the other investors can chip in some $$. I'll chip in a few grand happily.
dqd88
Member
dqd88
Member
I doubt they'll go after the little guys.
I think going direct via civil lawsuit would be quicker. Pick a journalist who wrote a libelous article and sue him direct. Let twitter know about it. Make him an example. They are public figures so it might be a good bang for the buck.
dqd88
Member
Elon and Tesla needs to sue them. But they prob won't so the shareholders should. Who can take the lead? You?
dqd88
Member
Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC host's husband is Andy Hubbard. A director at tesla shortie UBS.
dqd88
Member
She needs to receive a big fat lawsuit. C'mon Tesla, go for blood
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Online Tesla fan communities are sometimes a bizarro world of conspiracy theories that are just as wacky as the Tesla hate subculture’s black helicopters covertly airlifting Teslas to boost delivery numbers (how would you keep such a thing secret?) or the utterly meaningless photographs of parking lots full of cars (how can you avoid that when you’re delivering 83,000 cars per quarter?).
The idea that Tesla’s stock price or trading volume is meaningfully affected by Twitter accounts that often have less than 1,000 followers or sometimes even less than 100 followers — accounts which are not bot armies, but a relatively small number of actual humans — is just not plausible. 85% of Tesla stock is owned by insiders or institutions who are not even remotely aware of any of this irrelevant noise happening on Twitter, and sure as heck don’t base their trading decisions on it.
The stuff on Twitter might affect credulous retail investors who are in over their heads, but if that’s your concern then you should focus on educating retail investors and encouraging critical thinking and empiricism, not a weird and possibly illegal campaign of subterfuge. And even if some retail investors fall for silly tweets about parking lots and so on, that ultimately doesn’t affect Tesla the company much at all.
Ultimately, the market cap of Tesla will reflect institutional investors’ forecast models of its discounted future cash flows. Those models will be based on variables like Tesla’s current cash flows, gross margin improvement, revenue growth rate, progress on autonomy tech, and so on. What random people say on Twitter has as much effect on those variables as fish swimming in the sea. To think any of this noise matters is to make the dire mistake of believing that what controls the stock market is what random, unknown people say on obscure Twitter accounts rather than the decisions fund managers make in conference rooms at Fidelity and Bailie Gifford and T. Rowe Price and Vanguard.
The idea that Tesla’s stock price or trading volume is meaningfully affected by Twitter accounts that often have less than 1,000 followers or sometimes even less than 100 followers — accounts which are not bot armies, but a relatively small number of actual humans — is just not plausible. 85% of Tesla stock is owned by insiders or institutions who are not even remotely aware of any of this irrelevant noise happening on Twitter, and sure as heck don’t base their trading decisions on it.
The stuff on Twitter might affect credulous retail investors who are in over their heads, but if that’s your concern then you should focus on educating retail investors and encouraging critical thinking and empiricism, not a weird and possibly illegal campaign of subterfuge. And even if some retail investors fall for silly tweets about parking lots and so on, that ultimately doesn’t affect Tesla the company much at all.
Ultimately, the market cap of Tesla will reflect institutional investors’ forecast models of its discounted future cash flows. Those models will be based on variables like Tesla’s current cash flows, gross margin improvement, revenue growth rate, progress on autonomy tech, and so on. What random people say on Twitter has as much effect on those variables as fish swimming in the sea. To think any of this noise matters is to make the dire mistake of believing that what controls the stock market is what random, unknown people say on obscure Twitter accounts rather than the decisions fund managers make in conference rooms at Fidelity and Bailie Gifford and T. Rowe Price and Vanguard.
The purpose here is not to expose twitter users. It’s to expose insider trading and stock market manipulation. I think the evidence suggests that there are some really BIG fish doing such things.
And so do reporters writing for the largest newspapers in the country.
Unraveling a Tesla Mystery: Lots (and Lots) of Parked Cars
Even a joke tweet, after it gets the short treatment, then blasted at journalists by a swarm of Twitter accounts, is given credibility by someone who I think is generally quite trustworthy.
Elon Musk Stirs Controversy on Twitter in Wake of SEC Settlement
It seems very much like there is a disinformation campaign being waged by a cabal controlling a number of accounts, which all have certain earmarks. They swarm the accounts of journalists and constantly push their narrative(s). Journalists, many of whom were already inclined to be hostile to Musk after his Pravduh tweets, seem to be influenced. What they choose to write about and their tone affects investors both large and small. Investing is not just a numbers game.
I like to say "Not everything is a conspiracy," but the truth is sometimes conspiracies do occasionally exist. Personally, my observations lead me to suspect there is one here, and while I admit I could certainly be wrong, I'm definitely looking into it.
Similar threads
