-
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
Note that the context of the post you’re replying to is a hypothetical where the first two tweets about the announcement, before it was clear it was about Tesla, would classify as “material” and require Musk to clear them before posting.
Curious if people here think there will be buying pressure from the convertible note holders getting paid in cash. What percentage of those holders will take that cash and turn around and buy shares?
An interesting note, when the 60 minutes episode was taped was before the court mandated deadline to put those processes in place. So very easily those processes were instituted after the 60 minutes episode, and have been in place since. Just a possibility.
An interesting note, when the 60 minutes episode was taped was before the court mandated deadline to put those processes in place. So very easily those processes were instituted after the 60 minutes episode, and have been in place since. Just a possibility.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Intent matters for the hypothetical that was offered by the grandparent poster.
In the real case intent would also loom large in pathways that lead to Tesla losing this round, IMO. Willfullness or even perceived willfullness would influence the severity of any sanctions.
In pathways that lead to Tesla/Elon prevailing against the SEC, intent probably won't matter much: if the tweet was not material then intent doesn't matter.
Right, the SEC is bringing that to the judge as evidence that Elon or Tesla is not serious about the oversight because "people makes mistake". The point of the oversight is to reduce mistakes.
The CNBC thing, while plugged as though it was going to be FUD, turned out not to be. Phil Lebeau was the host:
----
"They will be making this payment."
"Raises the question: well, is there a cash crunch at Tesla? That was a concern 6-9 months ago... [not any more] ... ... they've got the money to make this bond payment."
"As you look through the rest of the year, the question will be how does this liquidity hold up?"
"They've said the first quarter is not likely to be cashflow positive." [Actually, that's not what they said - they said that they think it'll be positive but aren't sure - but hey, by all means play down expectations!]
"There is a lot of focus not only as Tesla makes this payment, but as it heads into the second quarter... there will be news tomorrow in the afternoon. We'll have to wait."
----
So, in short:
UPDATE Anchors SET Credibility = Credibility + 1 WHERE Name = 'Phil Lebeau';
----
"They will be making this payment."
"Raises the question: well, is there a cash crunch at Tesla? That was a concern 6-9 months ago... [not any more] ... ... they've got the money to make this bond payment."
"As you look through the rest of the year, the question will be how does this liquidity hold up?"
"They've said the first quarter is not likely to be cashflow positive." [Actually, that's not what they said - they said that they think it'll be positive but aren't sure - but hey, by all means play down expectations!]
"There is a lot of focus not only as Tesla makes this payment, but as it heads into the second quarter... there will be news tomorrow in the afternoon. We'll have to wait."
----
So, in short:
UPDATE Anchors SET Credibility = Credibility + 1 WHERE Name = 'Phil Lebeau';
Read my mind, exactly what I was thinking. This proves just by tweeting a date and a location, the SP moves... yet by tweeting a possible production number, which had already been stated on paper and verbally, the SP is unaffected. So how can the later tweet be a violation of the agreement with the SEC?
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I believe the SEC put the 60mins drama into their filing to air an unspoken accusation that Elon wanted to flout the settlement intentionally. They were careful to structure the filing with this character attack left last.
The SEC also offered case law to the judge to avoid the hassle of having to proving Elon's intent and bad faith, which they know would be incredibly difficult to prove. (Not the least because their accusation is false.)
(IMHO the SEC's key citation is inapposite and the "undisputed" materialness argument will be credibly disputed, but I digress.)
Last edited:
Man, they're doing better than I thought!
Alphacrux
Member
Tesla United (with) Space eKs?
I don't believe ET ever mentioned an announcement did he?
LeBeau appeared to be speaking for himself. The anchors appeared to be reading material written by their producer and displayed on a teleprompter. I worked in that business and did things both ways, but more often in the manner of LeBeau.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
If you meant that as a metaphor, agreed.
I think what was confusing for the host during the 60mins interview was, how come most of Elon's tweets are not reviewed? Elon clearly has a difference of opinion of what he, his counsel, or the SEC considers as material or not. The SEC's mandate was to bring more objectivity to the matter vs just having Elon be the judge of that. If Elon thinks something can move the stock, he'll probably stop the tweet himself. If he didn't think it'll move the stock but did anyways, then the SEC can point to Elon being incompetent at judging material information again hence the mandate in the first place.
So if all of Elon's tweets were reviewed, then the SEC wouldn't have a case because the mandate is being followed correctly. I know not every tweet needs to be reviewed because only material information needs to be. The SEC's point is, how did Elon know prior to tweeting that his tweet wasn't material since he's so bad at judging material information in the first place?
Exactly. They put out an article that also mentions the smaller debts that are do in 2020, 2021, and 2022, and says that Tesla will probably need to raise capital by selling stock or refinance the debt. They don't seem to be aware that they will have over 4 billion in free cash flow this year, and even more each year after that.
Market closed at 314 and change.
OT
OT
I almost had my wife talked into a red P3 until we remembered that our daughter and her fiancée want a Y. Apparently, the future "Grandma" needs to drive something cooler than the parents so a refreshed X is in our future.I got my dad a M3 for Christmas and the Q4 numbers. TSLA is a thankless beast, we can never do enough.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
Makes sense. Yeah, I've seen the pattern before, esp the shorter the call duration. Part of the reason I sold it. Short duration calls can be extremely volatile, so IMO you book profit when you can. And if the shares take a dip tomorrow (along with the IV), I may be able to buy these back at a sig discount.
One thing that I hope Elon's lawyers remembers is that the 60 min piece was heavily edited to fit a narrative. The edited content would definitely change the tone of Elon's position. Hopefully that gets included so that the judge sees how entrentched public bias has become against him.
Alternatively, couldn't the full interview transcript be used to show that the SEC isn't operating with the correct facts?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
