Yuri_G
Member
That was written by the original poster of this thread, and a monumental first effort!
-
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
That was written by the original poster of this thread, and a monumental first effort!
@strangecosmos ,
We have chosen to see if the SEC will prosecute some of the tips we file. It's a reasonable request if the tips we provide are consistent with the SEC's rules. We're going over those rules and trying to see how closely perceived cases of manipulation or insider trader match up with the rules. If you'd like to join the effort, fine, you seem like a very capable person. If your presence here is to save us from ourselves and tell us we're wasting our time, you've already done that, and too many times already for good taste. Please, either join our effort in a constructive way or channel your energies elsewhere. Your constant pestering and pessimism has grown very, very old. Thanks.
We have chosen to see if the SEC will prosecute some of the tips we file. It's a reasonable request if the tips we provide are consistent with the SEC's rules. We're going over those rules and trying to see how closely perceived cases of manipulation or insider trader match up with the rules. If you'd like to join the effort, fine, you seem like a very capable person. If your presence here is to save us from ourselves and tell us we're wasting our time, you've already done that, and too many times already for good taste. Please, either join our effort in a constructive way or channel your energies elsewhere. Your constant pestering and pessimism has grown very, very old. Thanks.
Last edited:
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Last edited:
I'm late getting into this thread (out of country) but my feelings are more oriented to RICO and conspiracy to violate. This might defeat the "free Press" argument so frequently advanced. As I move through the thread I may see how this is not relevant.
Ulmo
Active Member
I'm currently sending queries out to collect evidence about investigating something I saw the morning of October 3. I wish I had known I was going to report it at the time; I could have screenshotted it then. However, the data may be incoming soon, so I'll post it here and ask what I can do with it.
This is a good example of the attempt to separate the journalist from the scofflaw. If the journalists action has a pattern or an unexpected consequense from a market mover there should be a reason for an investigation. This is a conspiracy IMO.
Papafox Is there a formal complaint process (not tips) we could use to file a complaint and have it signed by a lot of TMC folks on a specic instance? I am thinking of the recent SEC headline that almost triggered the circuit breaker or maybe one of the market sales pre Goldman release the next day?
*Tips and complaints to SEC are fled by clicking the "submit a tip" button at this top of this SEC page
* Here's the list (reproduced below) of topics that may justify a complaint to the SEC from the link above:
- Fraudulent or unregistered offer or sale of securities, including things like
- Theft or misappropriation of funds or securities
- Manipulation of a security's price or volume
- Insider trading
- False or misleading statements about a company (including false or misleading SEC reports or financial statements)
- Failure to file required reports with the SEC
- Bribery of, or improper payments to, foreign officials
- Fraudulent conduct associated with municipal securities transactions or public pension plans
Thanks Papa. I had a chance to look at the formal rules of practice and was surprised that there does not appear to be a formal complaint process other than possible Equal Access to Justice. So I guess the tip and complaint process you listed is the best. Of course we will likely never hear about it again since they don't have to respond. How about the Ombudsman? Does anyone have any experience there?
Where?
Don't you love these "people". They are just harmless gamblers and the attacks they do on twitter, complains in SEC etc. is just a harmless amateur noise.
Small reminder. Tesla pays much more in stock options than other companies. Cash part of the salary is actually less than medium in the car industry. Stock level of TSLA is critical for current attitude on factory floor.
Musk said it in frustration. Volatility is nor a rational neither healthy part of the stock market. It is never a result of purely random factors. It is always result of speculations on the short side by definition.
There is no reason to expect Tesla to bankrupt or even slow down in their expansion.
In fact there was no reason to expect Tesla to go down in 2016 either.
It is no coincidence than shorts love to mention Enron. Because they don't have to show much of anything else, and even Enron was not a shorts success it was successful bailout of one of the Enron directors.
Misreporting preliminary investigations as actual is a crime, spreading misinformation with the intent to cause harm is a crime, quoting long time ago disproved or expired events as current is misrepresentation which can easily described a libel and is a crime.
this temporary market manipulation is a way of existence of TSLA since 2012, or over-blowing during first 4 years or suppressing like last two. None- stop. As I was writing credit ratings are determined by this volatility in no small part.
Junk ratings for TSLA.
Discounted cash flow analysis is applicable only for stable financial institutions and is useless in case of Tesla.
As they write themselves :"Small changes in inputs can result in large changes in the estimated value of a company"
Tesla is still in the phase of initial growth.
False information has to be. That is it. If you do it much and often enough it will stick to the person even if there no real substance. Classical cases for Tesla are "injuries reports", "deaths by autopilot", "massive defects", "bad fit&finish"etc. etc.
Rebuttal becomes a trial, and every explanation will be dissected reinterpreted and lied upon.
Apple approach didn't grow from nothing.
only FBI can do that. Sometimes, because even for them accessing proper shorts information is difficult. Or better said next to impossible.
This is not true.
Sure "catch me if you can".
Niice.
Last edited:
There are plenty of NYT articles about Tesla of the same quality.
There are plenty of things which can be done only by opening hood of Tesla.
This is BS. As many cases show much can be done, especially against american residents, or citizens of continental Europe.
LOL.
LOL
LOL
CNBC is on in any reception room of any company I've ever entered.
Insider trading includes use of any information not available publicly. In case of Tesla it was synchronization of the reports about SEC and short attacks. It also could be used for trades synchronized with misreports or media attack.
NYT article about crying Musk definitely fits in.
Let check relevant NYT article named:
"
Tesla Reports Progress on Model 3 Car Production
"
Here we go:
It starts with obvious "marijuana" and SEC, then it goes with undeniable 80k produced in Q3, and immediately follows with the question:
"Nevertheless, the company faces many challenges, one of which is: Can it make money?"
I believe they wanted to ask can Tesla make profit? And the answer is obvious: yes they can, they have to slow growth in order to do that, and it's exactly what is happening now.
Then again:
"In the 15 years since it was founded, Tesla has never reported an annual profit. Mr. Musk based his forecast for profits in the third and fourth quarter on production of at least 5,000 Model 3s a week. The company said it fell short of that in the third quarter, averaging about 4,100."
He never said that, he said that the Model 3 becomes profitable at the rate 5000.
then again:
"Perhaps even less certain is whether Tesla can continue making money one quarter after another. Next year, it is supposed to start making a more basic version of the Model 3 priced at $35,000, and Mr. Musk has acknowledged that Tesla would lose money on that car if the company produced it now."
"now" was in June.
Then again
"While Tesla has increased production of Model 3s, it has run into a new problem: It can’t seem to deliver all the cars it is making to its customers. Mr. Musk has called this “delivery logistics hell.”
Banal comparison of the numbers for produced and sold cars shows that the delivery problem is solved quite effectively. The sold more than produced. Typical example of misrepresentation by mentioning expired cases and problems....
"Tesla reported that it had 8,048 Model 3s and 3,776 other cars in transit to customers at the end of the third quarter."
Less than 2w production volume in transit.... If this is not an effective delivery system what is?
There is interesting article addressing incompetence of NYT when writing about Tesla
Why The New York Times Tesla Model 3 Review Is Nonsense
but the writer is missing the point of these articles. They are made to produce FUD: the language, positioning of arguments, injection of lies, misreports, shortly everything is built using known rules for persuasive communication.
"
Tesla Reports Progress on Model 3 Car Production
"
Here we go:
It starts with obvious "marijuana" and SEC, then it goes with undeniable 80k produced in Q3, and immediately follows with the question:
"Nevertheless, the company faces many challenges, one of which is: Can it make money?"
I believe they wanted to ask can Tesla make profit? And the answer is obvious: yes they can, they have to slow growth in order to do that, and it's exactly what is happening now.
Then again:
"In the 15 years since it was founded, Tesla has never reported an annual profit. Mr. Musk based his forecast for profits in the third and fourth quarter on production of at least 5,000 Model 3s a week. The company said it fell short of that in the third quarter, averaging about 4,100."
He never said that, he said that the Model 3 becomes profitable at the rate 5000.
then again:
"Perhaps even less certain is whether Tesla can continue making money one quarter after another. Next year, it is supposed to start making a more basic version of the Model 3 priced at $35,000, and Mr. Musk has acknowledged that Tesla would lose money on that car if the company produced it now."
"now" was in June.
Then again
"While Tesla has increased production of Model 3s, it has run into a new problem: It can’t seem to deliver all the cars it is making to its customers. Mr. Musk has called this “delivery logistics hell.”
Banal comparison of the numbers for produced and sold cars shows that the delivery problem is solved quite effectively. The sold more than produced. Typical example of misrepresentation by mentioning expired cases and problems....
"Tesla reported that it had 8,048 Model 3s and 3,776 other cars in transit to customers at the end of the third quarter."
Less than 2w production volume in transit.... If this is not an effective delivery system what is?
There is interesting article addressing incompetence of NYT when writing about Tesla
Why The New York Times Tesla Model 3 Review Is Nonsense
but the writer is missing the point of these articles. They are made to produce FUD: the language, positioning of arguments, injection of lies, misreports, shortly everything is built using known rules for persuasive communication.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
My advice is to find a securities law expert (or an expert on journalism law or libel law), and ask them what is legal versus illegal. Don't take my word for it.
Ditto for stock market-related topics: ask a finance expert. For example, about volatility.
Ditto for stock market-related topics: ask a finance expert. For example, about volatility.
Here's a quote by @Chickenlittle in the market trading thread that bears repeating. When financial stocks are being threatened, the first line of defense of the SEC is to discontinue the shorting. Now we have an otherwise-resilient stock, TSLA, being battered by significant short-selling tactics. The right thing for the SEC to do is to diminish the tools the shorts have at their disposal and rather than turning off all short-selling for TSLA, a better strategy would be to set up a semi-permanent restriction on short-selling that limits the ability of shorts to manipulate but still allows them to place a bet regarding the direction of stock movement. Thus, instituting the SEC circuitbreaker (alternate uptick rule) on a semi-permanent basis would restore some fairness to the market, but still allow short-selling. It's the right move at this time.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
This is just not true. It's not the "first line of defense", it was a desperate measure taken at a time of national crisis. In 2008, there was a real and legitimate fear that the economy would cease to function. Take, for example, the commercial paper market. If the Fed had not intervened, companies may have not been able to buy supplies or pay their employees — on a mass scale. Once companies can't stay open, people don't have income and the government doesn't have revenue. Basic goods and services can't be provided. It's like a hurricane, a flood, or a power blackout, but on a national scale. With no definite end.
That's why government institutions like the Fed and the SEC were willing to take emergency measures that they would not take in normal times. The actions of the SEC during a crisis is not a template for how the SEC should act during a normal time.
Furthermore, the SEC decided after a few weeks that the ban on short selling was not helping, and lifted it. So, not only was this an emergency measure, it was an emergency measure that the SEC decided was not effective.
This is a dubious claim. How can you isolate the intrinsic uncertainty, disagreement, and volatility of TSLA from the effect of "short selling tactics"? Academic research finds that most daily price movement is random. Since this is established, the burden of evidence should be on whoever wants to claim that certain daily price movements aren't random.
Moreover, with TSLA specifically, we should expect higher volatility than the market average for good reason. The sell-side analysts that NASDAQ.com tracks have an equal number of buy, hold, and sell ratings on TSLA, indicating a high level of uncertainty and disagreement. It is typically believed that the higher the level of uncertainty about a stock, the more volatile its price will be. Volatility is taken as an indicator of risk. Most (if not all) of Tesla's most vocal advocates, such as Pierre Ferragu and Galileo Russell, acknowledge that TSLA is a high-risk stock. If TSLA's price is more volatile than average (and apparently it is or isn't, depending on what timeframes you measure), that's the stock market behaving as you would expect.
Technical analysis is a popular way of looking at stocks, but my suspicion is that technical analysis is mostly (though perhaps not entirely) pseudoscience. Here's an academic study that compared five common technical trading strategies to random trading. It concluded:
"Our main result, which is independent of the market considered, is that standard trading strategies and their algorithms, based on the past history of the time series, although have occasionally the chance to be successful inside small temporal windows, on a large temporal scale perform on average not better than the purely random strategy, which, on the other hand, is also much less volatile."
Another study looked at 5,000 technical trading strategies and found none performed better than chance.
This is a great study that simulated a stock market where prices moved 100% randomly. Lo and behold, they found some of technical traders' favourite patterns in the random data:
"To demonstrate why traditional technical analysis falls short, we applied the standard methods to a synthetic market generated by a random walk. Although the market data is engineered to be pure noise, technical analysis "discovers" strong features such as accumulation/distribution patterns, upward and downward trends, support and resistance levels."
So, if you are using the tools of traditional technical analysis to find evidence of market manipulation or "short selling tactics", you are probably attributing meaning to noise. Confirmation bias, the gambler's fallacy, and survivorship bias often lead people to feel confident about techniques that perform no better than chance.
Apparently, some prominent proponents of technical analysis are also advocates of astrology, and believe that astrology can be used to predict stock price movements. That's maybe a sign that technical analysis lacks scientific rigour.
You can also ask: 1) if traditional technical analysis worked, why wouldn't high-frequency trading algorithms have arbitraged all the alpha away by now? and 2) if it worked, why doesn't technical trading have a billionaire poster child, like Warren Buffett for value investing?
Last edited:
Ulmo
Active Member
That's only true from the perspective of those who are in large companies and think they provide everything and that smaller companies and families can't open more business market share to fulfill those needs: Commercial Paper is a way to buoy up the licensing structure of government picking winners and losers, and for large companies to undercut small companies on a mass scale. You decry the lack of gas, but I point at that and say you don't need to drive to talk to your neighbor who has just opened a business selling you his vegetables. (Never mind that our temporary one century blip of not having our own farms for cartage fuel is finally coming to an end; we used to have hay for our horses, and now we have solar panels for our electric vehicles, both farms turning sun into cartage.) You decry the lack of paychecks from the big companies, and I say, yes, that's true, but those employees can go to work for themselves, and set up IOU systems of their own with their neighbors for what they grow in their back yards.
Granted, the urban areas would once again be subject to the slavery of being dependent on far away landowners because urban dwellers don't fully own themselves because they don't have enough land. But that's almost always been the case. Suburbs could still farm in their back yards for food and their rooftops for solar. Rural areas have all the options (except for those who are subject to communist anti-landowner laws).
At the time of your commercial paper story, government picked winners and losers, and I was a big loser: I was fired, almost couldn't cash my paycheck, I almost couldn't buy a used car (because government picked winners and losers there too) except that I finally got over that hump and got my first near-zero value Mercedes (too foreign and too "luxury" to be a winner of the government, paired with super fast depreciation), I had to enter the black market to survive and have a place to live, even the California Unemployment system was made useless to me because I invested a lot into a new career but Obama extended the claim I had on an old wage basis that was half a decade outdated FOR TWO YEARS locking me into no real UI, I had to fight all the other people that were my neighbors in that black market job and living place and half of them were illegals and I had to tell drug dealers and mobsters to leave, and I endured 8 years of darkness under Obama during a destopian nightmare I felt us sinking into ever since the election of the first POTUS Bush, with a temporary reprieve during the last 3 years of that darkness as we all made way to fight the darkness, made only light by Donald Trump and the recoveries he has brought.
So, you talk about Commercial Paper as an example of how there was an emergency need, but I don't think anybody except established entities really benefitted from the extra stability caused by stepping in and fixing up that system, the very established entities that themselves were causing most the trouble to begin with. I experienced most of the problems you claimed would happen anyway, and I would have been better off had the economy reorganized, the illegals jump ship, and new job markets opened up within months rather than a decade later or never.
Fair trading on the marketplace is more of a fairness regarding short term trades on long term values of companies for retirement and capital expenditure planning, I think a much removed discussion from how government picks winners and losers for commodoties and living needs.
Today's academics are literally jokes. That's bad for you and me, since it means we have to cite actual studies so that we can cut through the jokes, but there it is. But you go on in that paragraph to explain that people who don't know the story behind the stock price of Tesla don't understand the story, therefore it must be fine; that's the silliest argument I've seen in a while that isn't trying to just be an outright lie. You then throw a bunch of mud at it in an effort to cover everything up.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I think most Americans would not be as sanguine as you about an economic collapse so devastating that it forced the country to revert back to a pre-industrial form of organization.
Consider these three pieces of evidence:
Tesla Faces Deepening Criminal Probe Over Whether It Misstated Production Figures
And now Tesla's reply:
Tesla says has not received subpoena on Model 3 production
and the effect upon TSLA stock price:
The SEC needs to look into this apparent case of stock manipulation by the Wall Street Journal. According to Tesla, there's no additional information being asked for in the probe about M3 production numbers. Please help me get the SEC on this case. Thanks!
Tesla Faces Deepening Criminal Probe Over Whether It Misstated Production Figures
And now Tesla's reply:
Tesla says has not received subpoena on Model 3 production
and the effect upon TSLA stock price:
The SEC needs to look into this apparent case of stock manipulation by the Wall Street Journal. According to Tesla, there's no additional information being asked for in the probe about M3 production numbers. Please help me get the SEC on this case. Thanks!
Similar threads
