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

[Johnny Ma]

Yeah, but most SpaceX news at Ars Technica is written by Eric Berger - who is a fair reporter:

SpaceX may begin testing its Starship spacecraft this week
But Timothy B. Lee is on an anti-Tesla and anti-Elon mission for unknown reasons.

Berger is great. That's what's so shocking about Gitlin's hatred for Musk. He could just ask his colleague his expert opinion and Berger would set him straight.

The ars crowd is woefully undeducated when it comes to Tesla/EVs, but they can be reasoned with. They're generally smart and open to changing their minds. But most of them have an anti-Elon/Tesla outlook.

 

[Pras]

I am not a lawyer, but I can see a problem with claiming somebody tweeted “will make 500K” when they actually tweeted “about 500K”. I think most people can. Open and shut case, right there.

It’s the sort of truth twisting stunt you might try in a high school debate. In a court of law judges love having something as black and white as this on which to base the verdict. It makes their job easy and their ruling incontrovertible.

Edit: Note that there are two zeroes in 500, just one significant figure, thus about 500K is anywhere from 450K to 550K. The two expressions are very different.

The range is within the context of 0 to now 500k. So this is nowhere near the 499-501k type range. It is a broad number and a reasonable person would think in a broad number scale only.

The other context is in the earring call he did mention the figure in 350k to 500k model3. So that gives you another range of +- 75k to the “about 500k”.

 

[Fact Checking]

But most of them have an anti-Elon/Tesla outlook.

Which outlook was IMO carefully cultivated by Timothy B. Lee over the past few years - he is the primary gateway of Tesla news at Ars Technica.

I.e. he is 80-90% of the source of FUD on an otherwise excellent tech news site - while Gitlin is a minor author not really covering those topics, right?

Anyway, just wanted to document this detail - Tesla FUD is a very rich topic with many, many branches.

 

[EVNow]

Berger is great. That's what's so shocking about Gitlin's hatred for Musk. He could just ask his colleague his expert opinion and Berger would set him straight.

For all you know its really a fight between Gitlin & Berger

 

[homer214]

OT, but isn’t he lovely?

View attachment 388026

Such a photo is never off topic. It’s the future of our freaking world.

Feeling bullish about Q1 production and delivery numbers.

 

[Fact Checking]

The Judge granted the SEC motion to file a reply the same day it was requested. Late last night Elon’s Attorneys filed a request for a sur-reply, I find it interesting that the Judge has yet to accept that request. Perhaps, she is currently judging the case on its merits, and may issue a summary dismissal to not waste any more of the courts time. Probably a very low likelihood, and I am not a lawyer so have no idea if such a thing would be possible. The optimist in me wants to think that is what is happening though.

I wouldn't try to read too much into it - for all we know Judge Nathan might have been busy with a trial today, or was researching case law to robustly deny the motion by Elon's lawyers.

This is close to the point of maximum risk in this litigation I believe.

Also note that should Judge Nathan grant Elon's motion later today or tomorrow (which is by no means guaranteed), it would (normally...) delay the filing deadline to Monday or Tuesday (they asked for three days yesterday) - and would give Elon's lawyers two more weekend days to work on the reply.

The usual outcome would be for Judge Nathan to grant Elon's motion for a sur-reply, and maybe give the SEC an opportunity for a re-rebuttal reply, but this is IMHO far from a usual case ...

 

[KarenRei]

Has anyone saved screenshots of the various "bear raid" / short-and-distort tactics that keep happening again and again?

Michael on Twitter

I should have started a screenshot collection long ago :Þ

 

[TNEVol]

You don't think there's a factual dispute when the SEC asserts that Musk wrote "will make 500K" in a particular tweet (using quotation marks) and in actual fact that is not what he wrote? While Musk says, accurately, that he wrote "around 500K"?

That looks like a factual dispute to me. Two claims, in quotation marks, about exactly what was tweeted. One claim is true, one is false. Enter evidence of the tweet to resolve the dispute.

Actually the recorded language is clear fact. What is presented by the SEC is a misquote. This is resolved by showing the Judge in brief, as an exhibit or in argument that the SEC has nisrepsented the actual language. Their misquote hurts their argument so it would be better for them to admit the error. I am assuming there probably be oral argument where these types of issues are addressed without witnesses.

 

[Doggydogworld]

... it does not then automatically follow that Musk is in contempt.

I shouldn't have flatly said the judge will find him in contempt. Rulings are unpredictable and judges usually try to find a middle ground.

There still remains the question of materiality of the tweet.

The question is whether the tweet "reasonably could be material", per the settlement and Tesla's own policy.

I just don't see how that tweet can be considered material, given that it is well within the implied production and delivery guidance (360-600k total vehicles delivered), when taking into account both the 10k and conference call,....

Tesla very clearly guided for 360-400k deliveries in 2019. The pre-approved conference call talking points also said 360-400k. Neither the 10-K nor the prepared statements said anything about 360-600k.

During Q4 call Q&A, Musk said "Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year" in partial reply to a question. Conference call Q&A is not pre-vetted (obviously) and is covered by extensive safe harbor statements that give execs leeway to talk imprecisely about possible outcomes which don't constitute official guidance. Musk has said nutty things in calls before (e.g. 100-200k Model 3s in 2H17), investors know to ignore these off-the-cuff hypotheticals when they conflict with official guidance.

We'll see what the judge says.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Interesting... It was my question on SAY.

OK, it was a direct reply to my tweet, but I took it personally

Hmmm, why don't I have a screenshot of that tweet to hand, mumble, grumble... Too late to go digging...

 

[gringotuanis]

My take is that the design studio was not designed / tested for high volume. They probably never did any volume related perf testing at all ! After all the expectation was there would be some 5k to 10k orders per week i.e. one order every one or two minutes.

But how did they process all the preorders for model 3 when they had 400k in like 24 hrs? FYI I've changed sides on Tesla now. Sorry I'm a bear and buying puts.

 

[KarenRei]

The Judge granted the SEC motion to file a reply the same day it was requested. Late last night Elon’s Attorneys filed a request for a sur-reply, I find it interesting that the Judge has yet to accept that request. Perhaps, she is currently judging the case on its merits, and may issue a summary dismissal to not waste any more of the courts time. Probably a very low likelihood, and I am not a lawyer so have no idea if such a thing would be possible. The optimist in me wants to think that is what is happening though.

She already gave both sides until the 26th to agree on whether or not to have an evidentiary hearing. I can't imagine that offer somehow getting "retracted".

 

[Antares Nebula]

Honestly, if I was the judge (okay I'm biased), I would be like why is the SEC even bringing this case and wasting the court's time. It's such a trivial tweet that didn't move the stock price. I think with all the waste in government, most Americans would agree that this is such an outlandish waste of govt resources. Yeah, Musk has a fraught history, but bring me (the judge) something with more meat, some blatant violation, not trivial BS. I really cannot believe that this case is actually being adjudicated.

With this said and in preference to the Moderator's recent warning, no one should be surprised with a guilty (contempt) outcome. Personally I will be (pleasantly) surprised if Musk is NOT found in contempt. I don't have much faith in the system. The media has colored this case so badly, I don't have much faith that the judge won't just go with the flow. I just pray that the penalty will not be too harsh as to significantly pressure the stock further. Life is not fair, and we all know that.

 

[sparcs]

The usual outcome would be for Judge Nathan to grant Elon's motion for a sur-reply, and maybe give the SEC an opportunity for a re-rebuttal reply, but this is IMHO far from a usual case ...

Why would the judge allow the SEC the opportunity for an additional rebuttal? The SEC already received one extra reply that they didn't really deserve since they should have made their case in the original complaint.

 

[gringotuanis]

This makes sense because their ordering system would not have changed really by simply adding new products (the Y). Whereas the reservation system they set up for the 3 years ago would have been a separate system. So not really comparable. Companies don't plan or pay for more bandwidth/processing than they need. Very possible that they likely underestimated the surge in demand. But it's also possible that they are extending the "sale" for a few days. Nothing wrong with that. It's a very minor sale, but Americans love their sales.

Nah I think this is an excuse like Fred thought. Elon has built plenty of websites, it'd be easy for Tesla to fake website crashes. This is what we're trusting for self driving? Kinda scary thought.

 

[riverFox]

Nah I think this is an excuse like Fred thought. Elon has built plenty of websites, it'd be easy for Tesla to fake website crashes. This is what we're trusting for self driving? Kinda scary thought.

Lol, it's not the same development team. Not even close. FUD

 

[Fact Checking]

investors know to ignore these off-the-cuff hypotheticals

I'd like to ask everyone to stop and marvel at the double standard that calls specific numeric guidance "off the cuff hypotheticals" which were given in an official Earnings Call, TWICE, because a different analyst went back and asked about the 350,000-500,000 range which Elon confirmed for a second time - while calling Elon's "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019" celebratory tweet "material information" ...

To quote the controlling precedent:

(“In reviewing forward-looking statements, courts are instructed to consider the total mix of information and are supposed to bear in mind that disclosure requirements are not intended to attribute to investors a child-like simplicity. Rather, investors are presumed to have the ability to be able to digest varying reports and data.”

Plus:

We'll see what the judge says.

I don't think the judge will be nearly as amused about the SEC's flawed, perverse and harmful logic as me...

 

[Doggydogworld]

But how did they process all the preorders for model 3 when they had 400k in like 24 hrs? FYI I've changed sides on Tesla now. Sorry I'm a bear and buying puts.

Reservations are different than orders, you don't choose a configuration, options, etc. They used a different system which only really needed to track your name and credit card number.

 

[gringotuanis]

With this said and in preference to the Moderator's recent warning, no one should be surprised with a guilty (contempt) outcome. Personally I will be (pleasantly) surprised if Musk is NOT found in contempt. I don't have much faith in the system. The media has colored this case so badly, I don't have much faith that the judge won't just go with the flow. I just pray that the penalty will not be too harsh as to significantly pressure the stock further. Life is not fair, and we all know that.

He should be held in contempt, but just because he isn't following the agreement to pre-approve possibly material tweets. Tweets about production rates would be material for sure and the agreement states reasonably could be material. Definitely met that threshold and should have had prior approval. I don't think consequences will be too severe though, maybe a fine and the judge asks for more documentation on ongoing basis showing the review process or something like that.

 

[gringotuanis]

Lol, it's not the same development team. Not even close. FUD

Hehe well I do hold puts as of yesterday so yes. But think about it...don't you think Tesla is just bull_-#&#&#+ing? I mean really... even if I still held my calls I would suspect the same.