This isn't how this works. When they buy back the shares they need to then give them back to whomever they borrowed them from. They don't end up with anything after that transaction unless they originally sold the shares they borrowed for more than they bought them back for.Yes, but once the shorts purchase the shares needed to cover, do you think they will roll into TSLAP? Cynically, maybe they do an about face and see it as the best chance to cover their losses, but that seems a little too ironic. In which case, the "investors" will need to pay them their $420 per share, adding back the $13B they spent to buy out the institutional shareholders.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Not yet. Forming a commitee to evaluate Musk's proposal to take the company private is the next step. Dell went through the same thing in 2012 and 2013.
Of course. Forgot they "borrowed" the shares in the first place. Which means...total needed is likely closer to the $12-13B figure - which makes it seem much more doable!
ZachShahan
Active Member
I don't understand your point. Elon never HAD to assert 'funding secured'. But he DID assert it, so the issue is whether the assertion is true. The market seems to have been very uncertain on that question, and no new evidence has yet materialized, one way or the other.
I think Gene Munster's estimates that most retail investors will want to stay in and that 50% of institutional investors will stay in and the rest will sell are reasonable. Since retail investors are a relatively small percentage of the total even if he is off by a bit for retail investors it won't make much difference.
Either way, shorts will be forced to buy 34-35 million of those shares, which is pretty sweet. Genius you might even say.
I also believe shorts will do as much as they can to try to confuse the issue because at this point they are toast.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
So tallying everything up. My share count is now double that of my previous max during 2013.
All new shares funded by shorts. Thanks for all the fishes.
All new shares funded by shorts. Thanks for all the fishes.
More precisely it's 2000 "shareholders of record." Which can be a lot less than the number of individuals who think of themselves as shareholders.
The JOBS Act in 2012 increased the threshold number of "record shareholders" of a class of equity securities that triggers registration and reporting requirements under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act for companies with more than $10 million in assets from 500 to 2,000.
“Record holders” or “shareholders of record” of a company are those listed on its books and records. Many shareholders of publicly traded companies are not individually counted as record holders, because they may own their shares “in street name” through a broker. The broker would be listed as a single record holder of the issuer, even if many of the broker’s clients are beneficial owners of the issuer’s shares. Although the JOBS Act increases the record shareholder thresholds, it does not affect the distinction between record holders and beneficial owners who hold their shares “in street name.” In other words, the JOBS Act does not “look through” brokers and other record holders to the ultimate beneficial owners of shares for purposes of determining whether the threshold number of shareholders is reached.
Yes totally normal for the board to ask the controlling shareholder to recuse themselves while they consider. That is what happened in the Dell go private.
Good question. The press will never even ask this pretty obviously relevant question, or even understand the fairly simple rule.
You already found that Item 1.01 of Form 8-K requires that, within four business days of entering into a material definitive agreement, a public company must disclose certain information concerning that agreement, such as the date of the agreement, the identities of the parties, and a brief description of its terms and conditions.
Another rule is that, subject to certain exceptions, Items 601(b)(2) and (b)(10) of Regulation S-K require that material plans of deals and material contracts not made in the ordinary course of business, respectively, be filed as exhibits to, among other things, registration statements (Reg S3) and periodic reports (10Qs).
In other words, there is no requirement (as far as I can tell -- not an expert on this, just a good google scholar) to file an 8k or otherwise disclose deals in the planning stages, in between your 10-Qs or when you are doing another regisrtation statement for an issuance. Musk probably made the KSA PIF wait to send him their funding commitment email, or phone call or whatever, until after the 10-Q.
hence nothing in the 10-Q, and no 8-k at this stage, and there doesn't need to be any disclosure until there is an agreement, or the next 10-Q. But reporters will never understand that, or certainly not bother to report it or quote one of their sources that tries to explain it to them.
But to the extent you do say anything, such as Musk's tweet, and the Board statement (and btw, not just the company but also shortseller tweets and our posts here etc.) those statements must not be fraudulent or manipulative under the relevant fraud and manipulation rules.
Edit to add: They might also do a voluntary 8-k disclosure under Item 8.01 "Other events" But that is strictly voluntary when not required by the other items. https://www.sec.gov/files/form8-k.pdf
And edit to add: Even that "funding secured" arrangement, whatever it is, isn't an agreement by Tesla or even a plan by Tesla the company. It is a plan/proposal/twinkle- in-the-eye by two or more shareholders, and such plan is really covered by other rules in Rule 13e-3 re go private transactions or Schedule 13D and other rules that apply to shareholders and their plans.
Last edited:
He would have to recuse himself. Just as he had to do with the takeover of SolarCity. He is not an impartial party to the move to go private so he has to recuse himself. Michael Dell had to do the same thing when he took Dell private in 2013.
ZachShahan
Active Member
I feel like a girlfriend I'm deeply in love with says she wants to leave me, but the day after she says she needs time to think and now she's kind of sure about ending our relationship.. I don't wanna sell my shares
I remember when I first sold all of my shares in June 2013, I felt so bad that the day after I went all in again.
Rule n1 of trading: never fall in love with a stock.. I guess with TSLA everything is different
But she also said she'll come back in 10 years or so if you stick with her.
Board made a public announcement, but not an 8k. Conservatively, I would think they would file, even if it didn't add any new facts (like who the investors are) to avoid a technical violation - simply because the transaction is SO material they couldn't legitimately claim it wasn't important enough to warrant an 8k. Even more conservatively, they might even disclose the identity of some of the investors. That is probably wishful thinking on my part, but..."Funding Secured"! Would provide cover for their leader and get the burn started in earnest.
It would also seem relevant to me to make that disclosure sooner rather than later if a material part of the investors are foreign (Saudi, SoftBank, tencent, etc.). There may well be regulatory limitations on foreign ownership percentages in de-listed US corporations.
TintDepot.com
Member
The China angle is interesting:
- Tesla just negotiated a new factory in China (or is negotiating) - Gigafactory 3
- China is the largest EV market on the globe
- China is the largest car market on the globe (super high growth rate)
- China likes premium cars
- As mentioned above; China wants to accelerate into EV, renewable energy (needs to)
- China wants to lead the world in renewables & EV
- China Inc has a lot of cash
johnnybgood888
Member
Or maybe, this IS a real bid from the start. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Krugerrand
Meow
Stop the fear mongering.
Don't worry Dan all the best brains over at $tslaq are figuring out how Elon is going to end up in jail over this.
One has to be extremely stupid to have short position on Tesla at the moment, two choice , you want little bit pain then get out now, if you want lot of pain then wait for clarity and cover it at $420.00 or higher.
Yet another BS headline. The article just stated that the same SEC guys that are asking questions about stated production rates (an inquiry not an investigation) are now also asking questions about the tweet. This is the same inquiry that WSJ reported on yesterday.
So no intensification.
ROFL.... Musk never wanted a Chinese JV partner because of control issues. You really think he would let them get a majority stake in Tesla now? No way in hell.
Interesting thoughts. EM was just in China. He seemed very happy with that visit. Could it be that they discussed more than a new GF? That said, I still think the other major players will be US-based, more specifically SV-based.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
It only requires insiders plus top 7-8 investors to declare a "yes" vote for the tally to cross 50%.
Once the vote is a certainty, every "no" will sell above $420:
- arbitration traders will push the price all the way to $419.9 - any lower price is free money,
- and the combined force of new investors interested in a private Tesla and the shorts covering will certainly push the stock price well past $420.
In the end Elon might not have to spend a single dollar on the buyout.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
