-
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
strangecosmos
Non-Member
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I will give you that the NYT article was a surreal moment in which someone basically just repeated stuff off Twitter without putting in the small amount of effort required to confirm or disconfirm it: just take pictures of the parking lots multiple days in a row and see if the cars change.
A line from that article: “Photos posted online on Sunday show hoods open, possibly indicating maintenance work.” Probably worth clarifying in the article that Teslas don’t have engines under the hood. Even if the author knows that, many of the readers probably don’t.
However, with regard to what people say on Twitter, here’s what you need to understand. People who express a negative or skeptical view of Tesla, and even people who spread silly conspiracy theories, are exercising their right to free speech and abiding by Twitter’s terms of service. There is nothing you can do to stop them.
Where you can potentially have an impact is doing research, educating the public about Tesla, and promoting critical thought.
I am personally surprised by the NYT article, and will admit I never thought the conspiracy theories on Twitter would ever get serious treatment in a reputable newspaper.
It may be true that journalists are unduly influenced by random Twitter trolls, and this is an argument why Twitter should be redesigned and/or why more people should quit Twitter. It’s a platform where millions of people are telling you their instant, knee-jerk response all the time, so it’s a lot of snark, sarcasm, anger, noise, degradation, and unhealthy obsession.
However, your view that a “cabal” is afoot sounds immediately suspect to me. It seems likely that many anti-Tesla trolls have multiple sockpuppet accounts. It also seems like that anti-Tesla trolls form online connections and communities, just as Tesla fans do. But neither of these things is illegal, or suggests a conspiracy of powerful people.
This TMC thread, for instance, is the beginnings of a conspiracy of pro-Tesla vigilantes seeking to do secret, arguably unethical, and possibly illegal things because of an imagined boogeyman. Sometimes online mobs form out of sheer paranoia or irrationality.
A lot of people don’t understand the basics of investing, finance, or accounting, but invest in Tesla because they are fans of the company. There is nothing wrong with that as long as people are investing only as much as they’re okay with losing. But some people seem to be investing more than they can afford to lose, without really understanding how investing works or understanding basic concepts like discounted cash flow analysis. I find this concerning. This is irresponsible behaviour, like gambling with your savings.
Short-term stock prices are largely random and largely don’t matter. If you find yourself fixated, stressed, or excited about short-term stock price movements, that is a sign that you are gambling blindly and not investing rationally. Rational investment involves estimating a net present value for the stock, then buying if the stock price is below it and selling if the stock price is above it. Even then, most of those estimates turn out to be wrong, so it is imperative to be conscious of the risks.
The financial media might be short-term focused and panicky, but that doesn’t mean that is the right mindset or that the financial media’s preoccupations matter. CNBC and Twitter would love you to believe that the world revolves on their power and suck you into their world of noise. But almost everything said on these platforms has no consequence whatsoever, and only feels important to people addicted to the neurological stimulus they provide.
Last edited:
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I mean, I understand where you're coming from. However, people like Mark Spiegel are hedge fund managers spreading FUD over multiple platforms, and potentially multiple accounts. They have a vested interest in spreading disinformation, and that appears to go unchecked.
Now, whether their disinformation campaign can be directly attributable to a dip is certainly unknown...but I don't think attempting to manipulate stock requires that the attempt be successful...to run afoul of the law.
I am open to correction.
The Business Insider headline claiming that Tesla deliveries came in under expectations -- pushed through all the news feeds, Google, Yahoo, etc. -- only to be corrected an hour later to say that Tesla deliveries beat expectations.
That's market manipluation, and it's completely clear-cut. There is NO legitimate excuse for not being able to tell whether one number was larger than another.
That's market manipluation, and it's completely clear-cut. There is NO legitimate excuse for not being able to tell whether one number was larger than another.
WSJ correction:
So, perhaps FactSet was the root issue? I had thought I'd seen a note from them directly, but can't find it now....
I saw this too and thought it seemed incorrect, but seriously sad when you are so jaded by reading so many FUD articles that it barely registers. Thanks for pointing out the correction. Business insider has become a joke... they support some seriously idiotic and poor journalists.. can we alert the SEC of this one? Looks like they are trying to manipulate the stock...
Neroden, could you please provide us with some links so that we can consider using that Business Insider faked headline after deliveries? Many thanks. If someone else has good links, please jump in.
So much of what we need to do is bring up the manipulative behaviors we are observing, makes these behaviors public, and publicly ask the SEC to do their job and return investing in TSLA to a reasonably fair playing field. One benefit of the effort, even if we don't succeed in getting the SEC to act, is to take this burden off Elon Musk's shoulders and place it on our own. We know when Elon expresses his disappointment with the SEC the stock price goes lower. He needs to focus on making and delivering fabulous vehicles while others take on the SEC and the potential rule breakers. Again, I urge caution in how one accuses someone of breaking the law. We don't wish to libel anyone. For this reason it is better to say "potential SEC violation" or "potential manipulation" rather than the phrase without "potential".
When you are dealing with anonymous many-player manipulations such as "capping", "mandatory morning dip", and "sticky dip on steroids", I'm not too worried about using the word "manipulation" by itself. Any time you identify a potential culprit, however, please use the word "potential" in front of your accusation to protect yourself from possible libel.
When you are dealing with anonymous many-player manipulations such as "capping", "mandatory morning dip", and "sticky dip on steroids", I'm not too worried about using the word "manipulation" by itself. Any time you identify a potential culprit, however, please use the word "potential" in front of your accusation to protect yourself from possible libel.
You do realize that "INSIDER TRADING" would implicate Tesla directors, officers, or high-level employees, right? I can understand you wanting to tackle manipulation from outside Tesla, but I do not see how insider trading would apply. Everyone in the company is issued either stock or options. Where is their motivation to drive down the value of the stock?
You assume the leaks can only come from Tesla. SEC seems to have been leaking like a sieve with lots of action taking place just before or right as SEC releases/announces various things, plus a lot of SEC investigation info being leaked generally even when no specific thing was about to happen.
Here's a link to an article talking about how reporters can be found guilty of insider trading if they or someone they tell trades upon information that is "material" and "non-public."
Why business journalists need to understand the rules of insider trading
ps: my rule of thumb is that if someone is primarily a distraction to a thread, I prefer to ignore them rather than to engage them directly.
Why business journalists need to understand the rules of insider trading
ps: my rule of thumb is that if someone is primarily a distraction to a thread, I prefer to ignore them rather than to engage them directly.
Last edited:
strangecosmos
Non-Member
1. Use of sock puppets not shown to be true, just speculation.
2. Not illegal anyway.
3. Doesn’t actually impact Tesla in any noticeable way.
Spiegel runs a tiny fund that, last I heard, was losing money (capitalism at work!). He also has a tiny Twitter following. His tweets are a bit disturbing in their ceaseless, obsessive hatred of Tesla and wild ideas thrown out in ALL CAPS— not something that most reasonable people would take seriously. He essentially has zero influence. The most harmful thing he could do is convince you that he somehow affects Tesla’s fate and thereby cause you to waste your time and energy somehow shadowboxing with him.
Even if you did want to do something, the best thing would just be to write articles or make videos or podcasts fact checking his claims and refuting his arguments with research, evidence, and logic. Why not do that, if you’re concerned? In the process, you will learn things, and educate others. That makes it worth doing in itself.
85% of Tesla stock is owned by insiders and large institutional investors who don’t pay attention to this random Twitter stuff. Nobody whose decisions make a difference to Tesla’s fate cares about this stuff or even knows it’s happening. Except Elon who sometimes masochistically reads his @ replies.
To me, the idea that Tesla’s fate depends on what random people say on Twitter is as silly as the idea that whether people buy the new iPhone depends on what the YouTube comments say under tech review videos. It’s assigning a world-moving level of influence to something so trivial and small, which is primarily just for entertainment.
But more importantly... Elon said if you don’t like volatility, don’t own Tesla stock. That’s fair warning. In my opinion, short-term volatility is completely irrelevant. Either you’re investing long-term, in which case it doesn’t matter at all. Or you’re investing short-term, which is basically just blind gambling that has no social benefit — not anymore financially responsible or important to capitalism than betting on horses.
If volatility makes you panic, that suggests you’re investing based on extrapolating forward the historical movements of the stock price — which is irrational — rather than having a firm belief in the long-term intrinsic value of the company. The former is gambling or speculating, the latter is investing.
(Not financial advice, just my personal opinion on the matter.)
Last edited:
strangecosmos
Non-Member
The headlines were quickly corrected, so any effect on Tesla’s stock price has since been reversed. Why does this matter to anyone who isn’t a day trader?
Market manipulation has to be 1) intentional and 2) for personal gain. It seems pretty obvious that this was just a mistake. And Business Insider employees aren’t allowed to short stocks:
A similar policy, or a stricter one, is in place at most news publications. That’s why market manipulation and insider trading are not likely to occur.
As an aside, Electrek has been criticized by journalists because its writers own shares in Tesla and other companies they cover, which journalists generally consider to be beyond the pale. I view Electrek more as a fan site (like Teslarati) than a true news site for that reason. I agree that journalists should not stand to benefit or be harmed financially from the companies they cover. That biases coverage. With Electrek, I just accept that there’s bias— it’s a fan site, not impartial journalism.
Original article headline is changed, NOT the news aggregator feeds.
No one rereads articles to see if they changed. Other than TMC watchdogs
.Dropping a stick on bad news causes other selling, removing the headline does not undo the cascade effect.
@beachbum77 / Donn
See you are still doing research for a seeking alpha hit piece.
What will the title be?
Apologies if I misinterpreted your intentions.
I am researching the "personal benefits" provision of Section 10(b)5 that is a rule influencing the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). The case I'm looking at is Dirks vs. Security and Exchange Commission from 1985. Any help in researching and finding parameter within which we can work in SEC tips would be most appreciated. What we wish to avoid is filing tips that are clearly unable to be prosecuted.
In particular, I'm looking for examples where the SEC has prosecuted journalists or media firms for deceptive articles that influence a stock's price when there's no known securities owned by the writers of those articles.
In particular, I'm looking for examples where the SEC has prosecuted journalists or media firms for deceptive articles that influence a stock's price when there's no known securities owned by the writers of those articles.
Last edited:
Yuri_G
Member
Just want to say the headlines were not corrected quickly. The WSJ headline and article stayed unchanged for at least 2 hours after the market opened. Unacceptable for a major financial publication. That is material information retail investors and bots trade on.
This is simply incorrect. By seeding the false headlines into the search engines, the false headline popped up on newsfeeds for literally *days*. Anyone who skimmed the newsfeeds without clicking through -- including traders and algorithm traders -- would see the false headline, not the corrected one.
It's a rather clever way of spreading a false headline with plausible deniability. It's probably been used before, now that I think about it. Research would probably find additional cases where this was done. It's probably a known technique.
On the contrary, it is not plausible for that to be a mistake. It's not possible to make that mistake honestly. It's cut-and-dried "check the numbers, compare them", and the writer didn't get it right.
They can be spreading disinformation and manipulating the market for other motives. For all we know, their friends are short TSLA, or they are big fans of gasoline engines, or angry because Tesla isn't unionized, or who knows what. The point is that this was very clearly deliberate spreading of disinformation.
If they had been honest, they would have issued a *second* article -- pushing a new headline through the newsfeeds -- saying "CORRECTION OUR ARTICLE WAS WRONG TESLA BEAT ON DELIVERIES". They didn't.
Similar threads
