They're taking the correction as proof that the Tweet wasn't approved.
-
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
Or they thought it wasn't material since it was all in the letter, but then headlines were all telling readers that Elon revised guidance so he had to make a clarification.
Agreed. Larry has already called his accountant(s)......and then called EM: Larry:'Hi Elon, it is time'.
EDIT: I would like more but will probably have to settle for $400/share
Per Elon
“
SEC forgot to read Tesla earnings transcript, which clearly states 350k to 500k. How embarrassing …
L
Twitter
“
SEC forgot to read Tesla earnings transcript, which clearly states 350k to 500k. How embarrassing …
L
I think the judge has to agree, based on a clear and convincing evidence standard. Likely consequence to Musk and Tesla would be fines. Ban from acting as a director/officer for Musk is possible. Depends a lot on what the SEC decides to ask for.
Seriously? He is doubling down in a fight with the federal government.
Whatever else you say about this guy, he has balls.
500k wasn’t in the letter - the letter said 360k-400k. Elon said up to 500k number on the conference call though.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Do you realize that the CBS "60 Minutes" quote Elon purportedly made disparaging the SEC was invented in its entirety? It was a cropped, misleading out of context quote that changed the meaning of what Elon really said. To recap:
TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable
60 Minutes should really not be allowed to get away with this - this was clear-cut bad-faith manipulative editing that changed this statement Elon made:
Elon Musk: "So essentially I could just pull for a shareholder vote and get anything that I want provided I could get support for at least a 1/3 of the other shareholders. At the end of the day the shareholders pull the vote."
60 Minutes cut out the section in bold, changing the nature of the statement Elon made materially.
60 Minutes should really not be allowed to get away with this - this was clear-cut bad-faith manipulative editing that changed this statement Elon made:
Elon Musk: "So essentially I could just pull for a shareholder vote and get anything that I want provided I could get support for at least a 1/3 of the other shareholders. At the end of the day the shareholders pull the vote."
60 Minutes cut out the section in bold, changing the nature of the statement Elon made materially.
The only mistake Elon made was to grant "60 Minutes" an interview.
Last edited:
Per Elon
“
SEC forgot to read Tesla earnings transcript, which clearly states 350k to 500k. How embarrassing …
L
Wow that's ballsy. In Elon we trust.
I am so fed up with the fud is day after day after day.
These are recent Twitter replies by Elon. He continues to give stinkeye to the SEC but also continues to show respect to judges. It's a bit of a dangerous game, however.
As Kimbal said to his brother: (paraphrasing) <<Everyone stabs themselves in the leg occasionally but why do you have to twist the knife?>>
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Yeah, it was Henry Ford in 1919. We've speculated about this possibility here on TMC before. If starlink was operational now, Elon could take Tesla private himself, without needing outside investors (though I'm sure he'd keep a few insiders).
The other interesting topic raised today was moving TSLA to a different Exchange, outside the clamy handz of the SEC. @neroden how pausible is this?
My best guess on the worst case result from this latest kerfuffle:
The judge asks the SEC what it wants. They respond, "A fine and a closing of Musk's twitter account." The judge agrees.
Then for marketing, Tesla will either have to start advertising, or Elon will have to start agreeing to media requests for more frequent interviews.
The judge asks the SEC what it wants. They respond, "A fine and a closing of Musk's twitter account." The judge agrees.
Then for marketing, Tesla will either have to start advertising, or Elon will have to start agreeing to media requests for more frequent interviews.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
BTW., today's PUT options volume and general price capping market action was weird: did the SEC lawyers illegally leak their planned action against Tesla again, enabling illegal market manipulation by shorts?
Not technically impossible but you would lose a lot of retail investors and some funds only buy US listed shares.
Singer3000
Member
It's pretty clear that the second tweet wasn't a correction but a clarification of a misunderstood statement. Elon has made clear many times that he doesn't think in calendar month cut-offs but in moving calendar blocks (i.e. annualised production per week rather than production in a calendar year).
This exchange from the 30 Jan call shows exactly that, clarifying the earlier comment of: "Yes. Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year".
.
There therefore seems at least a very reasonable case that the first tweet did not represent a material change in guidance and did not need pre-approval. Whether that is good enough for a judge, I'm not sure many of us here are qualified enough to say.
The fix for the tweeting issue of course, is that any tweet concerning Tesla in any way should be made from the corporate account (or a second corporate account with a slightly online identity). Musk can then retweet this to his 25 million followers without further comment.
What I think is almost certainly true whatever the outcome of this latest case, is that it nudges Elon back towards privatisation. Which would be very sad, not only because it would be a distraction for management. But also because of the severe undervaluation of the stock versus fundamentals, the amount of time many of us have spent to confirm this thesis, and most importantly the capital we've risked during Tesla's trickiest development phase (including during multiple capital raises, credit downgrades and missed production milestones). I don't want out at 400 or 420, I want to stay invested and support this venture for the long term.
This exchange from the 30 Jan call shows exactly that, clarifying the earlier comment of: "Yes. Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year".
.
Emmanuel Rosner
Okay. And, I guess, my follow-up would be on the demand side. So you're talking about 50% increase this year. You said a few times that it could be higher than this. I think you just mentioned in the previous question 350,000 to 500,000, if I understood well. So what is sort of like what drives the cautious outlook that's in your letter? Because it feels like it's the - it's just basically four times the fourth quarter run rate, which would imply sort of 50% for the full year but not really a lot of growth versus what you just accomplished. So, I guess, how do we think about the total demand for 2019, especially if you introduced this - the cheaper version?
Elon Musk
Well, we need to bring the Shanghai factory online. I think that's the biggest driver for getting to 500K plus a year.
Okay. And, I guess, my follow-up would be on the demand side. So you're talking about 50% increase this year. You said a few times that it could be higher than this. I think you just mentioned in the previous question 350,000 to 500,000, if I understood well. So what is sort of like what drives the cautious outlook that's in your letter? Because it feels like it's the - it's just basically four times the fourth quarter run rate, which would imply sort of 50% for the full year but not really a lot of growth versus what you just accomplished. So, I guess, how do we think about the total demand for 2019, especially if you introduced this - the cheaper version?
Elon Musk
Well, we need to bring the Shanghai factory online. I think that's the biggest driver for getting to 500K plus a year.
There therefore seems at least a very reasonable case that the first tweet did not represent a material change in guidance and did not need pre-approval. Whether that is good enough for a judge, I'm not sure many of us here are qualified enough to say.
The fix for the tweeting issue of course, is that any tweet concerning Tesla in any way should be made from the corporate account (or a second corporate account with a slightly online identity). Musk can then retweet this to his 25 million followers without further comment.
What I think is almost certainly true whatever the outcome of this latest case, is that it nudges Elon back towards privatisation. Which would be very sad, not only because it would be a distraction for management. But also because of the severe undervaluation of the stock versus fundamentals, the amount of time many of us have spent to confirm this thesis, and most importantly the capital we've risked during Tesla's trickiest development phase (including during multiple capital raises, credit downgrades and missed production milestones). I don't want out at 400 or 420, I want to stay invested and support this venture for the long term.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
