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

[mongo]

But what happens if the SEC, Tesla, and Elon can't come to an agreement? Does the entire settlement about the "funding secured" tweet get thrown out?

Judge Nathan goes Judge Judy on them....

 

[jerry33]

I asked him for any basis suggesting they "...have a cell with 10% volumetric energy density hiding somewhere they haven't used?"

He wasn't wondering if they could do it. He was asserting they could.

Yes, I was the one wondering.

 

[lklundin]

Still in the process of catching up, but the next international shipment from Pier 80 is likely under way
with vehicle carrier 'Glovis Sonic' reporting its destination as San Francisco, from Richmond, CA,
GLOVIS SONIC Current position (Vehicles Carrier, IMO 9798387) - VesselFinder

 

[myt-e-s-l-a]

Tesla's First-Quarter Deliveries Plummet
.......
Does NOT look good.

I expect tsla to retrace all of its gains the last 5 trading days.

Looking at $270 SP tomorrow.

Current SP is 269.82$

Pretty close ?

Still holding my tsla 190426 250 put short (3x) thru earnings.

 

[M3Rider]

Note that the "include the SEC concerns" is Bloomberg's spin, it should say: "include Elon's concerns". The judge replied to Hueston, when he outlined the concern of the SEC jumping the gun.

I don't want to jinx it, but this is looking bad for the SEC so far.

I don't see why either side would be willing to "work it out". Elon certainly doesn't want more restrictions on his free speech after they removed those attempted restrictions from the settlement.

SEC will not want to add anything that removes their right to bother.

How can this be resolved other than by a judge?

 

[oneday]

Looks to me like Bloomberg got a memo to not release much of Elon’s Attorney’s statements.

 

[Tslynk67]

Huh? What about all those tweets they put as evidence in one of the filings? I thought they declared them as further material tweets?

Are they wilfully misleading or just a bit crap at being lawyers?

Matt Robinson Financial Regulation Reporter robinsonmatt
Judge Nathan asks about what other Musk tweets might have violated the SEC agreement.
Crumpton says the agency has not made a determination on the other posts but that they're looking at the Feb. 19 tweet as the ``clearest'' example of a violation.

 

[Fact Checking]

After asking the SEC attorney, Judge Nathan is now asking Musk's lawyer what ``reasonably could contain'' means in terms of materiality. He says he's not sure and that the burden is on the SEC to clarify.​

Good answer, because whatever Elon or Tesla decides is not good enough for the SEC.

So the SEC should tell. But here's the First Amendment trap: how do they define it without content based prior restraint?

 

[jhm]

Even though these ideas have been turned to hateful purposes in politics, and I hate it, the greed in me likes this for Tesla. Elon is beyond greed, along with Yoga instructors, so I still love you both.

It need not be motivated be greed. Rather, the mission to accelerate sustainable transport is enough motivation to say: if we've got capacity to build another 13k Model S/X this quarter, let's get in touch with people who will be delighted to own them. Of course, greed works too in this case.

 

[Fact Checking]

In 20 minutes of SEC arguments Bloomberg sent out 10 live updates.

In the last 20 minutes of Hueston's argument they sent out a single quote only ...

 

[lklundin]

They definitely need 3 gigafactories, one on each continent. China one sounds like it will be finished super quick.

On this day of triggering the uptick rule I wanted to share my idea of how Elon Musk's January visit to the GF3 site had something lost in translation:

Elon Musk: "This year we may already want to install a production line here at GF3".
Translator speaking Mandarin to high ranking official: "We want to install a production line here at GF3 already this year in May".

Cheers to all longs, now is not the time to be weak.

 

[azaz]

Absolutely, about the 4th update where they are actively misreporting and spinning.

Also, the printed the SEC's misleading arguments minute by minute - while only a few arguments from Hueston.

Right now there's zero updates for 12+ minutes from Hueston's arguments which are ongoing, just editorializing ...

The moment it was clear that the judge is critical of the SEC's approach they stopped updating - despite both sides having 45 minutes of arguments.

That's Bloomberg reporting for you ...

it's truly a never ending conspiracy with you, huh?

 

[Tslynk67]

Whoops...

8:59:54 pm
Chris Dolmetsch Legal Reporter ChrisDolmetsch
"The order doesn’t self-execute, it refers to the Tesla policy and that’s where the rubber hits the road," Hueston says. As for Tusk's discretion to decide what's material: "That’s exactly what Tesla negotiated for and got."

 

[Fact Checking]

Judge Nathan asks Musk's lawyer in what scenario would the CEO be violating the SEC accord and what role she would have in determining whether he did or not. He says he can't think of one.

``You're not very imaginative,'' the judge says.​

LOL, but good answer by Hueston: their argument is that content based filters are unconstitutional, so he clearly shouldn't volunteer "acceptable" censorship ...

​

 

[Pras]

Seriously, no updates. Basically the world is funny, Bloomberg can decide how to relay material information but Elon can’t.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

In 20 minutes of SEC arguments Bloomberg sent out 10 live updates.

In the last 20 minutes of Hueston's argument they sent out a single quote only ...

Any way of letting Bloomberg know our disappointment in their obviously biased coverage of the hearing?

Dan

 

[Doggydogworld]

After asking the SEC attorney, Judge Nathan is now asking Musk's lawyer what ``reasonably could contain'' means in terms of materiality. He says he's not sure and that the burden is on the SEC to clarify.​

Good answer, because whatever Elon or Tesla decides is not good enough for the SEC.

I think this was a gaffe. He admits Tesla crafted their policy to implement the settlement without understanding the key phrase in the settlement.

LOL, but good answer by Hueston: their argument is that content based filters are unconstitutional, so he clearly shouldn't volunteer "acceptable" censorship …

Same thing here. Tesla designed the policy. The judge asked which Tweets it's designed to prohibit. Hueston basically said "none". In other words, there is no policy. Musk can tweet what he wants.​

 

[Fact Checking]

it's truly a never ending conspiracy with you, huh?

It's not a "conspiracy", I cited the examples where Bloomberg put their negative spin on it, and the timestamps are easy to see and verify.

 

[ggies07]

To be a long term investor and understand the energy transition that is taking place, you must harness the good energy, block out the bad. Every quarter can't and won't be the EPICS of EPICS.

Repeat after me: Harness, energy, block, bad.

 

[Unpilot]

it's truly a never ending conspiracy with you, huh?

It's factual...and it does not strike you as odd?