-
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
Alphacrux
Member
I know this has been discussed previously, but any new thoughts on the odds of Buffet injecting cash into the company with an elephant-sized' acquisition - either full or in part? A partial injection would allow Musk, excuse me, Tusk, to rapidly product multiply models - the Y, the pickup, and in several geographic locations (ie. Europe..)
I think Buffet bought part ownership in a railroad before he purchased the entire railroad.
I think Buffet bought part ownership in a railroad before he purchased the entire railroad.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
That's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' argument in support to issue an order to show cause ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which separate issue will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies.
To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
The SEC's legal argument was not relied on by the judge to make her minimal ruling ordering Elon to reply. The willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory, and the judge did not make any ruling on the merits of the case.
Furthermore, even cursory review of the SEC's legal theory shows that it's flawed, because the case they cited (Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984)) relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement.
No such admission exists in this case (the SEC only purports that such an admission exists and I fully expect Tesla to dispute it), so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite (i.e. will probably be rejected by the judge) on its face.
The federal judge presiding over the case did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
A judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
Last edited:
mekberg
Member
I swear I read yesterday that AJ said fundamentally overvalued and strategically undervalued long term - and I was like "What the Fusk"
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Off Topic...That's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' in support to issue an order to show cause to issue an ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies. To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
Furthermore, the willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory the judge did not make any ruling on. The SEC's legal theory is flawed, because the case they cited relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement. No such admission exists in this case, so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite on its face.
The judge did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
The judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
Where in God's name did you find that disgusting GIF? EWWW!
Dan
I am not offering anything new here but wanted to document my prediction.
The cash settlement on the loan repayment is not news to anyone paying attention.
I am hoping it is the announcement of the 35k Model 3 (with profitability)
That would pull the domestic demand lever for the last month of the quarter and fill in the gap for the 3s being shipped overseas.
Of course, I am wrong more than I am right (especially with Tesla news)
Carry on
The cash settlement on the loan repayment is not news to anyone paying attention.
I am hoping it is the announcement of the 35k Model 3 (with profitability)
That would pull the domestic demand lever for the last month of the quarter and fill in the gap for the 3s being shipped overseas.
Of course, I am wrong more than I am right (especially with Tesla news)
Carry on
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
LOL, I've edited the comment to hide it behind a spoiler tag.
BTW., the GIF itself probably only shows later stages of wine fermenting:
That stage is "disgusting" due to the bubbles and the foam, but the wine clears out later once the fermenting process is complete. A GIF showing the true nature of the troll would not have been safe for this family friendly forum.
Last edited:
Musk is not Buffet's type of guy and I don't think he understands the implications of the tech. Munger does understand (BYD) but apparently he is not a fan of Musk either. I think the chances of a BH investment in Tesla is remote.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
That way he can say he was correct no matter which way the SP ends up. Brilliant.I swear I read yesterday that AJ said fundamentally overvalued and strategically undervalued long term - and I was like "What the Fusk"
The difference between analysts and investors is that analysts have no scratch in the game. Much like the reporter and the soldier, one comments on the fight and the other is in the fight.
As investors, we have to make a choice in what to do with our assets. Hanging onto cash is investing in the one asset that is guaranteed to lose value, every single year. Analysts can sit idly by and criticize every company, and still make money.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
NASDAQ Composite dipped -0.5%, TSLA is down -0.35% at the moment, so still stronger than the NASDAQ reference.
Usually a -0.5% NASDAQ drop would result in a -1.0% (intraday) TSLA drop.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Amusing if illogical.That's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' argument in support to issue an order to show cause ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which separate issue will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies.
To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
The SEC's legal argument was not relied on by the judge to make her minimal ruling ordering Elon to reply. The willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory, and the judge did not make any ruling on the merits of the case.
Furthermore, even cursory review of the SEC's legal theory shows that it's flawed, because the case they cited (Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984)) relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement.
No such admission exists in this case (the SEC only purports that such an admission exists and I fully expect Tesla to dispute it), so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite (i.e. will probably be rejected by the judge) on its face.
The federal judge presiding over the case did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
A judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
If the judge had decided that wilfulness was required, and had therefore declined to issue an order to Musk, how would that be prejudicial to Tesla?
This showed up in my newsfeed:
I put Tesla's high-performance Model S and Model 3 up against the BMW M5 and M3 to see how they compared — here's the verdict
BI said M3P is better than M3, I think it’s unusual for BI to say anything positive about Tesla, lol.
I put Tesla's high-performance Model S and Model 3 up against the BMW M5 and M3 to see how they compared — here's the verdict
BI said M3P is better than M3, I think it’s unusual for BI to say anything positive about Tesla, lol.
Other way around, if the judge had decided wilfulness was required, and issued the order as such, it would be prejudicial.
@Fact Checking :
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
