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

[Antares Nebula]

Thanks Mobius. Happy to be hear!

Like many people here, I'm sick and tired of all the fracking FUD!! Musk and Tesla are in the right here.

 

[KarenRei]

I also think Elon trying to justify his tweet with the conference call statement to be highly disingenuous unless he honestly thinks 500k is a possible 2019 production target, which he already said he didn't actually mean with the first tweet!

Well, "he" as in "the statement his lawyer made him write".

I do agree that Elon was probably jumbling up figures, both in the conference call, and the exact same way when writing that tweet. But regardless of how you put it, the number was already out there as public, non-retracted information released through official channels (the earnings call), and thus not material. And indeed, the lack of a market response showed how non-material it was.

 

[Fact Checking]

Presumably, you must then believe that the SEC is being “grossly and wilfully false” when they write in their complant that “Significantly, a violation need not be wilful in order to find contempt.”?

Now you are being willfully obtuse.

The SEC's legal theory is based on an interpretation of events that Elon's first tweet of "around 500k" was "inaccurate material information".

What the SEC missed is that Elon's "around 500k" tweet was based on information pre-approved by the Disclosure Committee and provided during the January 30th conference call, Elon did not believe it needed to be reviewed again.

I.e. Elon's and Tesla's point is that the first tweet was not material information.

Which is supported by:

• The actual CC transcript
• The market non-reaction of less than 10k shares traded

If the judge agrees with Tesla's version of events then the SEC's legal argument is poisoned by a flawed interpretation of facts: garbage in, garbage out.

But even if the judge leans towards the SEC's reading of facts, she would look at the market non-reaction to see harm and at intent to decide on any remedies. It appears the existing Disclosure Committee protocol prevented harm even in that scenario.

Even the SEC allows amended filings to fix mistakes that cause no harm, despite filings being material information.

Not examining intent and not looking at the small level of harm is a pipe dream of the SEC and the shortz.

 

[Mobius484]

We all obviously don’t sleep.
Also, you all know much more about finance and law than I, but I do follow Tesla obsessively. I thought is was odd when Andrew skorka on CNBC was so upset abou this tweet during the Katherine wood interview, I didn’t find it a problem. He just seemed to be reiterating the Q4 conf call and letter details and providing adjustments. I hope the judge is voice of reason here.

 

[SPadival]

3) The waiver for pre-approval on information previously approved extends for only 2 days. The tweet was 20 days later.

That's not what the policy says (from SEC's 'I am telling mommy' complaint):

Point ii is the relevant section that Mr cleanair is referring to - this should be correctly interpreted as requiring pre-approval AGAIN if there is a delay > 2 days BETWEEN getting pre-approval AND releasing MATERIAL information. (or as per point i, if there are further edits)

Once the material information is released, only an idiot would interpret as material, re-releasing the same info again! This is as good as saying a photocopy is the same as the original.

SEC is deliberately misinterpreting and worse, misrepresenting information.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Hope you don't mind - I used that graph in a tweet

Not at all, please do, and thank-you for your service.

While you're tweeting, how about you tell Robert Bollinger that Elon wants him to sign up to use the Supercharger network.

Robert's original tweet (link above) requesting access to Superchargers unfortunately was drowned out on same the day as the New York Times hit-piece that shaved $30 from TSLA (Thu, Aug 16, 2018).

It's just that Bollinger has to use the Supercharger network 'as-is' (ie: don't ask for a bunch of changes to suit his interests). TIA!

Cheers!

 

[schonelucht]

Point ii is the relevant section that Mr cleanair is referring to - this should be correctly interpreted as requiring pre-approval AGAIN if there is a delay > 2 days BETWEEN getting pre-approval AND releasing MATERIAL information. (or as per point i, if there are further edits)

Good point. You are correct.

 

[Artful Dodger]

SEC is going to get slapped by the judge on this IMO. An after hours comment that lines up with verbal guidance (Q4 call) as well as written production forecasts (Q4 letter) is public info and so can not require approval. Complete overreach.

 

[KarenRei]

 

[CorneliusXX]

We all obviously don’t sleep.
Also, you all know much more about finance and law than I, but I do follow Tesla obsessively. I thought is was odd when Andrew skorka on CNBC was so upset abou this tweet during the Katherine wood interview, I didn’t find it a problem. He just seemed to be reiterating the Q4 conf call and letter details and providing adjustments. I hope the judge is voice of reason here.

I think we are all just armchair lawyers here, making deductions from the information at hand.

While the discussion is logical there could easily be precedent cases that throw our logic out the window.

 

[Fact Checking]

View attachment 380658

WOW!

GF3 production lines installation completed by September?

If they are mostly copies of the Fremont lines then ramp-up could be a lot faster.

 

[KarenRei]

WOW!

GF3 production lines installation completed by September?

If they are mostly copies of the Fremont lines then ramp-up could be a lot faster.

The thing I think people keep missing is the assumption that "Tesla is going to build the GF3 structure, and then they're going to start tooling." Rather than what any company would do in such a rush situation, which is tool offsite while the building is being built, then relocate the hardware. What they're not going to do is just sit idle and wait for the building to take shape.

 

[Fact Checking]

The thing I think people keep missing is the assumption that "Tesla is going to build the GF3 structure, and then they're going to start tooling." Rather than what any company would do in such a rush situation, which is tool offsite while the building is being built, then relocate the tooling.

Is this practical or even possible, without having large factory floor space available?

Is it even necessarily, if all they do is copy the Fremont tooling, with fewer factory space saving quirks?

I'm still wondering whether we'll see basically three GA4 lines, with more manual stations. In China this would be cost effective to reach 3k/week. Fremont GA4 "Sprung Tent" has a capacity of about 1k/week.

 

[CuriousSunbird]

Now you are being willfully obtuse.

I am not sure that a simple insult constitutes a useful response (and the rest of your post was clearly not relevant to the importance of intent.

Before I let this go, I would like to request your help on one point. You kindly opined that "your argument that Elon's intent doesn't matter to the court's adjudication of the SEC's motion is a grossly and willfully false statement." (my emphasis).

I have been looking for where I made that argument. I found a post (#17,098) where I said that intent is not required for a contempt finding, and a post where I said (agreeing with you) that intent does matter (my emphasis) - #17,108 - in the penalty phase (apologies, I should have said remedial phase), but I have not found a comment where I said it doesn't matter.

If you could either point to the post or withdraw the comment, I would much appreciate it. My opinions differ from those of the majority here, and while I am quite prepared for disagreement with things I write (and abuse for them, from the more intemperate members), I would prefer not to be abused for things I haven't written.

 

[Antares Nebula]

Also, all this nonsense about 2 days and 20 days does not apply. It only applies to material tweets. If Musk decides to tweet tomorrow that Tesla made a profit in Q3 and Q4, he would not need pre-approval, as this is non-material public knowledge. Similarly if he tweeted that Tesla makes only electric vehicles and not ICE vehicles. This is all public knowledge and does not need pre-approval. (Nevermind 1st amendment rights). As I and others have already argued (see above posts), the 500k *produced*, which was mentioned in the first tweet, is well within an approx 400 to 600k delivery, as already stated in Q4 Investor Letter and CC (and thus already public knowledge and non-material). For the SEC to make their case, they would have to claim that the CC call is not an acceptable channel of disclosure for material information, which is patently false (and ridiculous).

The 2 and 20 scenario would be something like this. If Musk all of a sudden realized that Tesla could sell one million cars this year (this being new non-public knowledge), and then he got approval from Tesla legal to tweet that. But then for some reason, he didn't tweet it. And now it's 3 days since the approval. Now before sending that new non-public material tweet, Musk would have to get permission again from Tesla legal. Basically the consent agreement stipulates that the legal clearance is only good for 2 days. (I could be wrong, but this is how I'm interpreting the agreement.)

 

[KarenRei]

Is this practical or even possible, without having large factory floor space available?

No. They will need significant floor space to do so.

But this is China, the world's factory. I cannot imagine them having trouble finding floor space. Tesla also has some sizeable chunks of available floor space at Lathrop and GF1.

 

[SPadival]

SEC is going to get slapped by the judge on this IMO. An after hours comment that lines up with verbal guidance (Q4 call) as well as written production forecasts (Q4 letter) is public info and so can not require approval. Complete overreach.

Yes. I can't wait to see this SEC interpretation (underlined) laughed out of court by the judge. SEC's literal interpretation, taken to the extremes, means Elon has to seek approval again in 2022 if he wants to republish material information that was published in 2019. .. American TMCers, please call congress to either increase funding for the SEC or abolish it

 

[Artful Dodger]

FWIW, TSLA just touched $290 in Pre-market trading.

 

[Fact Checking]

I am not sure that a simple insult constitutes a useful response

That you are willfully obtuse when it suits your narrative is a simple fact to any rational observer of your trolling here.

the rest of your post was clearly not relevant to the importance of intent.

Again I believe you are either being willfully obtuse or have reading comprehension problems, which is a common ailment of trolls here.

The rest of my post didn't deal with intent, because I outlined the inherent factual flaws in the SEC's factual arguments, from which the SEC created a flawed "garbage in, garbage out" legal argument.

The "intent doesn't matter" part of the SECs legal argument is in the "garbage out" half.

In the real review the court is going to perform (according to my imperfect interpretation), "intent" looms large in 80% of the decision tree, and the SEC has no path to victory without the judge examining Elon's intent. I posted that analysis already, no need to repeat it, you could have chosen to reply to it honestly but you didn't.

Instead you continue to ignore these essential elements of my argument, because I suspect it's fatal to the false anti-Tesla narrative you are trying to peddle here.

 

[Sunlight]

For me it is the meaning of "IN" within that tweet.

Did it mean/ imply "within" or "during"? In which case if the annualized production could be 500k vehicles at some point in 2019, it is creditable.

It did not say the 500k would happen over 2019 in total. Unless one wishes to read it so.

So it is ambiguous and Elon clarified within hours.

Were NO Teslas produced in 2011 at all or just at the beginning or end.

Storm in a tea cup. And as many say the share price is more affected by the SEC comments than Elon's - they really should get a life....