Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Pras]

Stopped by to see what the other side is thinking and just had to laugh. You people dont think the following things are extremely obvious:
- $420 funding secured was an unsubstantiated stock pump. There was never any evidence that he had anything close to funding secured.
- Elon agreed to the settlement rather than fight and face whatever consequences those were. He decided abiding by the agreement was the best thing for him and Tesla.
- Settlement said he had to get "pre-approval" of any communications that could reasonably move the stock.
- He tweeted numerous tweets that could move the stock, but one in particular where he said Tesla "will make around $500K (cars) in 2019". The stock could reasonably move based on a production forecast that is both higher and later in the year than previous guidance. You might not thing it is, but Wedbush used this forecast to update their investment recommendation so unless you think they are completely unreasonable, then the tweet affected the stock.
- None of the tweets were pre-approved. Not one per Elon.
- So his violation of the court approved agreement is clear.
- First amendment rights have no application to commercial speech. None. Its ridiculous to even raise the idea.
- Elon does not respect the SEC. And now, apparently he does not respect the agreement that he made or the court that he made it in.

I dont know what his punishment will be, but his last one was so small that he said paying $40M was worth it. This one is going to be a lot harsher.

Buddy, here most of us are toughened up. We have our doubts, weak moments, but the resolve is strong. All your points are well debated and understood here. So thanks but no thanks for your point of view.

 

[Brian121]

What's the most interesting about the Tweet from Tesla is actually for me to see the SEXY 4 cars lining up.

Up till now I felt that Model Y was kind of small than a regular CUV and just a little puffed up version of Model 3. But that lineup really shows that Y is actually bigger than I thought.

This is good. Cause I was wondering how that 7 seats will work. Tesla should post SEXY lineup more.

 

[Todd Burch]

Yeah, this is the first substantial bounce since the $295 levels days ago, and I'm wondering what the trigger is.

It was clearly the social media post from Tesla that due to high order volume, the sale was extended to Wednesday.

 

[mongo]

i don't think we have seen this being a guarantee. I know there have been elon tweets, but nobody has said that "anyone who buys FSD now will get the HW3 at some point in the future for free" We're still parsing words and statements and that last point - as much as it has been brought up in many places before - just hasn't been stated.

Having bought FSD for 2K on Sunday, I'm for SURE hoping it means we'll definitely get the HW3 hardware update for free. It will make the entire AP experience (regardless of when FSD is available in the wild - which will be a while yet) better.

Dude, Q3 2018 earnings call. FSD -> free upgrade.
Ignore the poor transcription, should be purchase, not patron.
Also note Q2 for HW3...

Elon R. Musk -- Co-Founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & Product Architect

Right. So, it's very important to emphasize that people shouldn't (inaudible) if you want to wait until that comes out, but there's no need to wait till it comes out because it's just a very simple plug-and-play change to get the full-self driving. And anyone who is patron for self-driving option, we'll just get it done for free. And anyone who saw once to order full-self driving at this point, it's just an off menu item, you can still order it. But we took it off the order menu just because it was really creating a lot of friction in the sales process, and people didn't understand the difference between enhanced autopilot and full-self driving. So, just to simplify the order process we switched that off and anyone who asks for it can certainly get it and it really ends up being a discount on future capability. But to be clear, there's definitely no need to wait until Q2 to order a car. We want to make just completely seamless process. So, there's no advantage ordering now versus Q2. Andrej, do you want to --

 

[lklundin]

If common sense prevails, looks like SEC's twitter rules is a violation of 1st amendment.
EM paid the fine. He should be allowed to tweet what he wants, and if there is issue with any tweet SEC or any group should have the right to penalize EM again.

BTW, I am still waiting for some lawyer group to announce that they are sueing the SEC on behalf of investors (here's an idea)

The two times 20M $ is peanuts, the impact on the stock price is orders of magnitude above that.

A class action lawsuit alleging that SEC's overreach financially damaged exactly those that it is supposed to protect could be centered on that.

 

[tivoboy]

Yeah, this is the first substantial bounce since the $295 levels days ago, and I'm wondering what the trigger is.

$263.5 isn't a particularly significant technical level that I can see, macros are not swinging such levels, so this smells like some sort of hidden fundamental news being traded on - or simply short price action is exhausted?

@tivoboy or @Papafox might have a better idea.

259$ is a significant level, these things do tend to get adjusted a bit directionally. I would have though it could be lower than that, but could be 1% higher.

Personally, I think any bounce today is a head fake

 

[tivoboy]

Dude, Q3 2018 earnings call. FSD -> free upgrade.
Ignore the poor transcription, should be purchase, not patron.
Also note Q2 for HW3...

Again, not definitive. We'll see.

 

[AudubonB]

...

Respectfully submitted,

s/John C. Hueston John C. HuestonCc:Counsel of Record​

Note that it was HIGHLY improper for the SEC to do this: introducing new evidence and new legal arguments on a motion they started is close to professional misconduct if I'm interpreting the rules correctly. If the SEC wanted to use these pieces of evidence and these legal arguments they should have done it in their first motion. "Surprising" the other party in a supposedly last filing before a hearing is not only not allowed, it's prejudicial and against procedure and basic trial etiquette.

Also note that the motion was submitted by John C. Hueston, the founding partner of Hueston Hennigan:

John Hueston - Hueston Hennigan Founding Partner

John Hueston has been described by Chambers as “the best lawyer of his generation” with a “commanding reputation for his trial advocacy.” Rated one of the nation’s top trial lawyers, Mr. Hueston has been recognized twice as a “California Lawyer of the Year,” including for his recovery of $5.15 billion after trial.​

Hueston-Hennigan are putting all their weight behind this - you don't often see a founding partner of a law firm filing a procedural motion ...

...

I've no claim to be an attorney, either, but I can read about them. I thought this group might find it interesting to learn that Mr Hueston has prior history in spanking the SEC. The following is lifted from his corporate bio:

• Secured termination of SEC investigation of high-level PIMCO officer relating to allegations of misleading investors about the performance of fund and alleged failure to accurately value certain fund securities.

• Reversed initial SEC charging decision and terminated insider trading and tipping investigation into Goldman Sachs banker with alleged ties to Galleon Group (see “U.S. SEC, in about-face, Ends Probe of Goldman Banker” Reuters).

 

[mongo]

Again, not definitive. We'll see.

Stop moving the goal posts

I know there have been elon tweets, but nobody has said that "anyone who buys FSD now will get the HW3 at some point in the future for free"

not tweets
somebody said it...

 

[ReflexFunds]

- He tweeted numerous tweets that could move the stock, but one in particular where he said Tesla "will make around $500K (cars) in 2019". The stock could reasonably move based on a production forecast that is both higher and later in the year than previous guidance. You might not thing it is, but Wedbush used this forecast to update their investment recommendation so unless you think they are completely unreasonable, then the tweet affected the stock.

He already gave equivalent production guidance on the Q4 call - hence not material new information.

Are you sure Wedbush used this information to change their model? I think is unlikely given it would be extremely stupid and if they had the SEC would have cited them in their filing.

 

[Fact Checking]

$420 funding secured was an unsubstantiated stock pump.

It wasn't.

There was never any evidence that he had anything close to funding secured.

He didn't have to: he has a successful track record of dozens of successful funding rounds, he is making such deals all the time.

Elon agreed to the settlement rather than fight and face whatever consequences those were. He decided abiding by the agreement was the best thing for him and Tesla.

Here's a list of innocent people pleading guilty and spending a combined 150 years in prison for crimes they did not commit:

When the Innocent Plead Guilty - Innocence Project​

There's a lot of reasons for people to settle, and the fact that Elon and Tesla settled under the duress of SEC blackmail is no surprise and was advised by many who were and are convinced that Elon's tweets were entirely legal and appropriate.

Settlement said he had to get "pre-approval" of any communications that could reasonably move the stock.

First time I agree with you, but:

He tweeted numerous tweets that could move the stock, but one in particular where he said Tesla "will make around $500K (cars) in 2019". The stock could reasonably move based on a production forecast that is both higher and later in the year than previous guidance. You might not thing it is, but Wedbush used this forecast to update their investment recommendation so unless you think they are completely unreasonable, then the tweet affected the stock.

It didn't affect the price of the stock and was thus immaterial as laid out by expert opinion from an MIT professor.

None of the tweets were pre-approved. Not one per Elon.

Because Elon, as explained in his filing, chose to comply with the settlement by applying self-censorship and was not tweeting material information.

And he didn't, SEC bluster aside.

Since he didn't tweet anything material he wasn't required to pre-approve any tweets via the Disclosure Committee.

So his violation of the court approved agreement is clear.

That's only clear in your imaginary TSLAQ world.

First amendment rights have no application to commercial speech. None. Its ridiculous to even raise the idea.

The SEC's interpretation is not limited to commercial speech. Pretty telling they haven't even raised the idea you are proposing here, probably because they know that it's a non-starter.

Elon does not respect the SEC.

I don't respect the SEC's blatantly unlawful actions against Tesla and Elon either, and I can say that under the First Amendment without any agency of the U.S. government punishing me for it.

Elon did say he respects the judicial system and respects the settlement.

And now, apparently he does not respect the agreement that he made or the court that he made it in.

Again, only in your imaginary TSLAQ world.

I dont know what his punishment will be, but his last one was so small that he said paying $40M was worth it. This one is going to be a lot harsher.

Due process requires there to be a crime before any "punishment", and since Elon did nothing wrong and both him and Tesla was trying hard to comply with the settlement I find it unlikely the judge would find it necessary to "punish" him either.

What made you come here - did you enjoy that ~$10 bounce from the bottom too?

 

[Garlands]

271 in Norway, the daily record will probably be broken today

 

[Todd Burch]

Oh wow, right back to +0% again. Call me shocked.

 

[Huskyf]

Stopped by to see what the other side is thinking and just had to laugh. You people dont think the following things are extremely obvious:
- $420 funding secured was an unsubstantiated stock pump. There was never any evidence that he had anything close to funding secured.
- Elon agreed to the settlement rather than fight and face whatever consequences those were. He decided abiding by the agreement was the best thing for him and Tesla.
- Settlement said he had to get "pre-approval" of any communications that could reasonably move the stock.
- He tweeted numerous tweets that could move the stock, but one in particular where he said Tesla "will make around $500K (cars) in 2019". The stock could reasonably move based on a production forecast that is both higher and later in the year than previous guidance. You might not thing it is, but Wedbush used this forecast to update their investment recommendation so unless you think they are completely unreasonable, then the tweet affected the stock.
- None of the tweets were pre-approved. Not one per Elon.
- So his violation of the court approved agreement is clear.
- First amendment rights have no application to commercial speech. None. Its ridiculous to even raise the idea.
- Elon does not respect the SEC. And now, apparently he does not respect the agreement that he made or the court that he made it in.

I dont know what his punishment will be, but his last one was so small that he said paying $40M was worth it. This one is going to be a lot harsher.

Just one question for you, what are you a member of a owner tesla club If we don't suport Tesla ?

 

[winfield100]

It wasn't.



He didn't have to: he has a successful track record of dozens of successful funding rounds, he is making such deals all the time.



Here's a list of innocent people pleading guilty and spending a combined 150 years in prison for crimes they did not commit:

When the Innocent Plead Guilty - Innocence Project​

There's a lot of reasons for people to settle, and the fact that Elon and Tesla settled under the duress of SEC blackmail is no surprise and was advised by many who were and are convinced that Elon's tweets were entirely legal and appropriate.



First time I agree with you, but:



It didn't affect the price of the stock and was thus immaterial as laid out by expert opinion from an MIT professor.



Because Elon, as explained in his filing, chose to comply with the settlement by applying self-censorship and was not tweeting material information.

And he didn't, SEC bluster aside.

Since he didn't tweet anything material he wasn't required to pre-approve any tweets by the Disclosure Committee.



That's only clear in your imaginary TSLAQ world.



The SEC's interpretation is not limited to commercial speech. Pretty telling they haven't even raised the idea you are proposing here, probably because they know that it's a non-starter.



I don't respect the SEC's blatantly unlawful actions against Tesla and Elon either, and I can say that under the First Amendment without any agency of the U.S. government punishing me for it.

Elon did say he respects the court and respects the settlement.



Again, only in your imaginary TSLAQ world.



Due process requires there to be a crime before any "punishment", and since Elon did nothing wrong and both him and Tesla was trying hard to comply with the settlement I find it unlikely the judge would find it necessary to "punish" him either.

What made you come here - did you enjoy that ~$10 bounce from the bottom too?

Good lord?!! You respond amazingly fast, unless you think at electron speed and not neuron speed, almost like an AI or....<gulp>

 

[Joe F]

Model 3 prices are still the same

So you were ordering a M3 today and took advantage of the lower price, right? Good for you! You're gonna love the car.

 

[Radpioneer]

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.

.......Because the FUD is working ...? My god people who is the enemy here.....? Or is the problem greed?

 

[winfield100]

OT (sorta) or how to power our EV’s
MARCH 19, 2019
Or read as Terawatt hours, figuring US uses ?what? ~5,000/yr (4,500?) (help pls)
U.S. renewable electricity generation has doubled since 2008

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Renewable generation provided a new record of 742 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2018, nearly double the 382 million MWh produced in 2008. Renewables provided 17.6% of electricity generation in the United States in 2018.

Nearly 90% of the increase in U.S. electricity between 2008 and 2018 came from wind and solar generation. Wind generation rose from 55 million MWh in 2008 to 275 million MWh in 2018 (6.5% of total electricity generation), exceeded only by conventional hydroelectric at 292 million MWh (6.9% of total generation).

U.S. solar generation has increased from 2 million MWh in 2008 to 96 million MWh in 2018. Solar generation accounted for 2.3% of electricity generation in 2018. Solar generation is generally categorized as small-scale (customer-sited or rooftop) solar installations or utility-scale installations. In 2018, 69% of solar generation, or 67 million MWh, was utility-scale solar.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Increases in U.S. wind and solar generation are driven largely by capacity additions. In 2008, the United States had 25 gigawatts (GW) of wind generating capacity. By the end of 2018, 94 GW of wind generating capacity was operating on the electric grid. Almost all of this capacity is onshore; one offshore wind plant, located on Block Island, off the coast of Rhode Island, has a capacity of 30 megawatts. Similarly, installed solar capacity grew from an estimated less than 1 GW in 2008 to 51 GW in 2018. In 2018, 1.8 GW of this solar capacity was solar thermal, 30 GW was utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), and the remaining 20 GW was small-scale solar PV.

Growth in renewable technologies in the United States, particularly in wind and solar, has been driven by federal and state policies and declining costs. Federal policies such as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and the Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credits for wind and solar have spurred project development.

In addition, state-level policies, such as renewable portfolio standards, which require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable sources, have increasing targets over time. As more wind and solar projects have come online, economies of scale have led to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which has led to continued cost declines.

 

[VValleyEV]

- He tweeted numerous tweets that could move the stock, but one in particular where he said Tesla "will make around $500K (cars) in 2019". The stock could reasonably move based on a production forecast that is both higher and later in the year than previous guidance. You might not thing it is, but Wedbush used this forecast to update their investment recommendation so unless you think they are completely unreasonable, then the tweet affected the stock.

I assume you mean the tweet from Elon on Feb 19 that is the source of the new SEC complaint, where he said, literally: “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019”.

This was information previously released publicly from the Tesla Q4 earnings call, so is not new public information, which means it is not material and should not move markets. If someone, investor or investment firm or SEC, did consider this new information, they have not done the most minimal amount of homework, or have some completely different agenda, for example profiting by shorting the stock.

I suggest that if you are actually interested in the details and merits of the SEC vs Elon case, you should read the insightful comments and analysis here from the user @Fact Checking.

 

[neroden]

OK, I tried to stay out (and I'm going to shut up again), but this is such ridiculous price action. Bottom-up valuation models say Tesla's worth more than this even if it fails at a bunch of what it's doing (which it will not). I'm trying to figure out whether I can round up money to buy more. Wall Streeters are dumb.

"
Indeed, Musk offers no explanation of how he arrived at the
counterintuitive conclusion that pre-approval was not required. Conspicuously absent from
Musk’s submission is any citation to a prior public disclosure that Tesla would make around
500,000 cars in 2019. This is because no such disclosure had ever been made prior to the 7:15
tweet."

...WHAT?

OK, I can't resist stepping in here.

The SEC just stepped in it, big time. The prior public disclosures were, in actual fact, cited in Musk's reply brief. The SEC has just disputed a question of fact, and has now opened themselves up to a fact-finding hearing. In fact, the judge is obliged to have a fact-finding hearing now, since this is a disputed fact.

musk never running a tweet by the securities counsel Is a really bad look. shows that he wasn't really making a good faith effort to comply with the settlement he signed.

True, and the SEC would be in a better position to argue that if they weren't making false claims of fact.

They're doing bad legal work.

Signing out again.