Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Even CNBC picked up on it...

6B7A7B7D-B719-4DF1-AC7B-4B1803FEFD77.jpeg
 
There are ways to steer folks to the higher trims.

This happens ALL the time in sales, especially in car lots. People come in to look at the cheap 2019 Canyonero, only to find out it doesn't have the 6 cupholders and butt massagers that the Canyonero LE has. The $35k Model 3 will get more people in the door, more people to start considering a Tesla, and more people talking to their friends about "that insane Tesla for only $35k". Several times that I was in the Tesla Store at the mall, I saw people who came in to see the Model 3 end up sitting in a Model S or Model X instead, and ended up ordering one. Would you say the Model X "Osborned" the Model 3? In the long run, short sellers are going to be short sellers, and skew the narrative any way they want. The fact is that Tesla/Elon is delivering on a promise, and I am fine with that.
 
A user on SA asked me why did Tesla legal and Musk correct the original 500k tweet if it was correct. I actually wondered the same thing, and I think Tesla legal is now also wondering the same thing. It's a very nuanced issue. I wonder if it was never corrected, whether there would have been any issue. There is clearly a wide range there implied by the CC, from 360-600k. But 10k said 360-400k. If I were Tesla legal, I would have phrased the correction something like this instead:

"While it is possible Tesla will produce anywhere from 360-600k total vehicles, as implied by Mr. Musk's 350-500k M3 production estimate in the CC, our conservative estimate still remains approx 360-400k as stated in the 10k, with the possibility of greater production depending on the timing of the Shanghai factory and other factors as stated previously in the CC."

Regardless, the SEC (and even Tesla) would be in error if either claimed that the 500k was inaccurate, as clearly the CC implies otherwise. The only way that that is not the case is if the CC is not considered material info, which is patently false.

Thoughts? @Fact Checking, anybody?

Tesla claims that the second tweet 'clarified' the first tweet. It's the SEC's narrative that it was a correction of an unapproved tweet that published material non-public information.

The SEC's argument is that the first tweet was 'not accurate material non-public information', which is false.

Tesla's argument is very likely going to be that the first tweet was using already public, non-material information which information was released on January 30 (the ER call), which information was already approved and published and didn't need a second approval.

The second tweet was clarifying the broad ranges in the guidance out there, and it was approved.
 
Trying to think of a reason for why order would be blocked. It can't just be Hardware 3.0 because there would be no reason to block all orders since that would just be an added benefit. If I ordered a Tesla right now and found out in 2 hours that there's new hardware for FSD, that doesn't fundamentally change my order. It's just a benefit and plus.

Only thing I can think of is the Short range model 3 along with the S and X refresh all at the same time. But my mind would be blown if they actually synchronized that...….all on the day before the bond payments lol
 
Trying to think of a reason for why order would be blocked. It can't just be Hardware 3.0 because there would be no reason to block all orders since that would just be an added benefit. If I ordered a Tesla right now and found out in 2 hours that there's new hardware for FSD, that doesn't fundamentally change my order. It's just a benefit and plus.

Only thing I can think of is the Short range model 3 along with the S and X refresh all at the same time. But my mind would be blown if they actually synchronized that...….all on the day before the bond payments lol
The answer must be related to interior. Non-pup plus S/X refresh.
 
A lawyer for Mr Musk had confirmed that the first tweet was not pre-approved, as required by the court-approved settlement, the SEC said. It added that the second tweet was only sent after a lawyer noticed the first message and approached Mr Musk to correct it.

The debate may be whether that tweet needed to be pre-approved since it was information already disclosed in the conference call. It's not new information. Nor is the follow up tweet.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Artful Dodger
They just pulled the M3 ordering system offline. So it must be the SR right?

m3.PNG

No necessarily - for the last 6 years Apple has used their excess cash to remove a significant number of shares from the market:


Shares outstanding is 4.7b today, while it was 6.7b shares in 2013 - +40% higher.
Sure, but it's hard to imagine that they will let the company slowly fade away rather than investing into something new. I'm sure they can stay super profitable on just IPhone sales for many years to come but do they want to just move to a perpetual harvest mode?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Artful Dodger
Nahh can't be that. I thought about that, and every time I think something is going to happen, is never happening .. so... u_U

I see what you did there, are you trying to reverse jinx a short squeeze?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. The "Force of Jinxing" knows your deepest desires and works against them, regardless of what your words are. Sorry!! :(
 
Last edited: