Paracelsus
Member
Let's not overlook the likelihood that Elon and perhaps Hiro Mizuno may have intentionally seized this moment to fire up the Spanking Machine on Level 11. And this isn't just because of the relative puny size of this meager $5B offering to provide less than 10% of the shares that will be bought during the S&P500 inclusion run-up by adding less than 1% dilution. This may be the ultimate "Go away or I shall taunt you a 2nd time" from behind Tesla's moat on top of their ever-growing castle.
IMO it was 1 week ago when Michael Burry essentially admitted to the world that he had 'Burryied' himself financially and 'Burryied' his reputation with his large TSLA short position when he announced through Twitter:
Burry refers to Elon as a 'Good Guy' in the Tweet, despite the fact that he was revealing his large Short position against TSLA......essentially revealing he had taken a position that benefits when TSLA fails. And he does so by pleading with Elon to "issue 25-50% of your shares at the current ridiculous price". Elon owns roughly 34 million shares - so Burry is asking him to sell between 8.5 million and 17 million shares, and doing so while claiming that the price at that time (approximately $575) was a "ridiculous price".
Now 1-week after Michael's plea for a Elon to sell some of his own shares............we see Elon/TSLA issue a statement that TSLA intends to raise $5Billion in Capital with the sale of 'NEW' shares (not Elon's), and the number of shares that will be sold at even higher prices than Burry's rediculous $575 plea will be approximately equal to 25% of Elon's shares that he personally holds. And at current prices that amount of shares is almost Exactly the low end number of shares Burry was pleading with Elon to sell!
Yes, Elon definitely Burryied Burry with the irony of that play IMO. And he did so without significantly reducing his control of the company in any way, shape of form. That is also significantly important IMO. I will be respectful of @AudubonB request to avoid further discussion of Elon's net worth and its impact on the future of TSLA, so I will only mention that historically Elon had to hold as many shares as he does or risk a hostile takeover by others, and that this isn't the first time we have seen people calling Elon a bad person for having so many shares....and that those moments usually coicided with Shorts getting a little too much squeezed in their ever tightening Short Shorts
IMO it was 1 week ago when Michael Burry essentially admitted to the world that he had 'Burryied' himself financially and 'Burryied' his reputation with his large TSLA short position when he announced through Twitter:
Burry refers to Elon as a 'Good Guy' in the Tweet, despite the fact that he was revealing his large Short position against TSLA......essentially revealing he had taken a position that benefits when TSLA fails. And he does so by pleading with Elon to "issue 25-50% of your shares at the current ridiculous price". Elon owns roughly 34 million shares - so Burry is asking him to sell between 8.5 million and 17 million shares, and doing so while claiming that the price at that time (approximately $575) was a "ridiculous price".
Now 1-week after Michael's plea for a Elon to sell some of his own shares............we see Elon/TSLA issue a statement that TSLA intends to raise $5Billion in Capital with the sale of 'NEW' shares (not Elon's), and the number of shares that will be sold at even higher prices than Burry's rediculous $575 plea will be approximately equal to 25% of Elon's shares that he personally holds. And at current prices that amount of shares is almost Exactly the low end number of shares Burry was pleading with Elon to sell!
Yes, Elon definitely Burryied Burry with the irony of that play IMO. And he did so without significantly reducing his control of the company in any way, shape of form. That is also significantly important IMO. I will be respectful of @AudubonB request to avoid further discussion of Elon's net worth and its impact on the future of TSLA, so I will only mention that historically Elon had to hold as many shares as he does or risk a hostile takeover by others, and that this isn't the first time we have seen people calling Elon a bad person for having so many shares....and that those moments usually coicided with Shorts getting a little too much squeezed in their ever tightening Short Shorts
Last edited:
