This is, apparently, true. However, the SEC still hasn’t cited a single example of a tweet that should have been reviewed in that period. Despite having been called out for exactly that in his response.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
This is, apparently, true. However, the SEC still hasn’t cited a single example of a tweet that should have been reviewed in that period. Despite having been called out for exactly that in his response.
Because EM had already self filtered out tweets that he should not be tweeting?
Hmm, if/when this goes to court all the defense needs to do during their opening statement is "press play"
dgodfrey
Member
And from what we've seen so far, none needed to be reviewed. Do you have some tweets you can share you feel violated the "material" aspects of the settlement? As others mentioned, the agreement wasn't requiring every tweet to be pre-approved unless I missed something. Maybe you can clarify if I'm mistaken.
why are you getting so worked up over wildly unsubstantiated claims from one person on the internet?
might want to take a break from this topic versus getting this angry.
Nafnlaus on Twitter
Comedy from @SEC_Enforcement - the following tweets from @elonmusk are given as examples of "written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the company or its shareholders"
Comedy from @SEC_Enforcement - the following tweets from @elonmusk are given as examples of "written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the company or its shareholders"
Larmor, If you'd like to PM me I can refer you to my insurance broker. I am currently Insuring a Model S85D, a Model 3 MR and a P3D all for under 2k a year. This is with half million dollar across the board coverage, rental car, full glass, etc etc.
The fact that they emphasize that total vehicle production wasn't disclosed is correct - Musk didn't cite total vehicle production, only Model 3. But they've of course cited S+X production figures elsewhere many times. The SEC is basically saying that "adding two public numbers together" is material information.
The SEC seems to argue in a footnote that he never actually said that.
OT: Somebody mentioned the Bolt as competitor (yea, I, too appreciate a sense of humor!) - just FYI, as of last Saturday the Model 3 with its "1-month-only-deliveries" outsold all the Bolts ever sold in Norway (called Opel Ampera-E over there).
EDIT: Also really liked this post here: Tesla Model 3 vs. US Incumbents — Gun In A Knife Fight Or Fair Fight? | CleanTechnica
On Price of competition vs. Model 3
and then sales last year:
(I would have chosen a different chart to visualize this but I think the point is still pretty clear).
There is massive potential! This kind of post I would like to explore more and see more in the media!
I find it unusual many are comparing model 3 to “luxury” category - isn’t $35k entry price far below what is considered luxury?
I know the high end trims are decidedly luxury, but surely now with SR & SR+ we are solidly looking at the mid-priced car segment? Especially as various fed & state subsidies in the US and aroud the world bring that down to the low $30k’s or less.
Last edited:
mutle
Member
If those tweets require pre-approval, how is this not a restriction of his free speech? Also, when are they going to apply the same standard to Trump’s Twitter Account which can move the entire market?
They’re also apparently arguing that suggesting total vehicle production would be >= production of a subset of said vehicle production is material...
It seems fit for purpose, the core of the issue is that Elon Musk uses Twitter to disclose inside information (which is appropriate, because it is widely publicly disseminated) but although Musk has used Twitter in lieu of SEC filings, doesn't stop those twitter statements from being equivalent to SEC filings.
On a more basic level, SEC is full of administrativa whose job is to check that SEC filings fulfill the letter of the law and regulations. Once every CEO communicates share price sensitive information via twitter, SEC's work load will expand an order of magnitude. They need these twitter statements to be checked by a company's lawyers first, whether the company is Tesla or happy Joe frackers in the Permian basin.
A key point, Elon Musk has excellent guanxi, his taking private tweet at $420 was simply....something that would have significantly more profound implications for lesser CEOs.
Nafnlaus on Twitter
Comedy from @SEC_Enforcement - the following tweets from @elonmusk are given as examples of "written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the company or its shareholders"
The SEC is smoking some real crack if they think that's material information. There are so many first amendment implications in what they are trying to do that it is laughable.
They totally screwed themselves by putting this into the court system. They had way more leverage to tie up the Tesla legal team in knots trying to appease the SEC before it moved to some sort of formal complaint.
SEC response? I’m not seeing that. It appears the only thing you shared is a giant steaming pile of dog *sugar*. Please don’t do that anymore, thanks.
$35k base defines the entry level luxury class. 3 series, A4, C class et. al.
mutle
Member
Not share material news in a thread about current market movements?
The SEC's main argument - which they make over, and over, and over again - is that the agreement doesn't state that Musk is allowed to determine what's material, so he can't.
It also doesn't say that he's allowed to breathe, so I guess he's not allowed to do that either.
As a reminder, here's what the SEC agreement actually says:
And here's what policy Tesla implemented:
Nothing... anywhere... about who must determine it. Yet the SEC is basically saying, "well, of course Musk can't", even though they never banned him from doing so.
I'm sorry, but contra proferentem, SEC.
Also, here's the worst part:
Except that Musk did not write - IN QUOTATIONS - "will make 500k". It was about 500k. The SEC is misquoting Musk, leaving out a critical adjective which hurts their argument, and doing so in quotation marks, as though it's a direct quote of Musk's tweet.
Are we seriously supposed to presume good faith here? I hope Musk's lawyer rips them to shreds over this.
It also doesn't say that he's allowed to breathe, so I guess he's not allowed to do that either.
As a reminder, here's what the SEC agreement actually says:
And here's what policy Tesla implemented:
Nothing... anywhere... about who must determine it. Yet the SEC is basically saying, "well, of course Musk can't", even though they never banned him from doing so.
I'm sorry, but contra proferentem, SEC.
Also, here's the worst part:
Except that Musk did not write - IN QUOTATIONS - "will make 500k". It was about 500k. The SEC is misquoting Musk, leaving out a critical adjective which hurts their argument, and doing so in quotation marks, as though it's a direct quote of Musk's tweet.
Are we seriously supposed to presume good faith here? I hope Musk's lawyer rips them to shreds over this.
Last edited:
Nafnlaus on Twitter
Comedy from @SEC_Enforcement - the following tweets from @elonmusk are given as examples of "written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the company or its shareholders"
Ah, I missed that they actually cite something now. So yes, this would imply that any tweet(or other communication) about anything, whatsoever, would need to be reviewed according to the SEC. Heck, one of those is just a re-post of a public article written citing a public Tesla safety disclosure...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
