-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
One gets used to pretty much anything over time.
bhtooefr
Active Member
Why do I feel like this is primarily politically motivated by oil interests...
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
That has been recognized for a while as the main recourse to slow Tesla down (witness all the headlines calling for Musk to be removed). And then the SEC sues to have him removed? It would beggar belief if I had any left...
bdy0627
Active Member
Crap. How many black swan events can we get in 1 quarter??
Just read through the brief -- there definitely weren't "ill gotten gains" on Elon or Tesla's end so that's kind of a moot point in terms of financials. The most I can see happening is Elon's tweets not being recognized as a form of official communication for TSLA anymore
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And what has this action by the SEC caused?
Well be under 250$ tomorrow for sure
your insinuation is that tesla is in the toilet? ok well it’s working as long as the stock can be manipulated by the establishment.
and yeah elon made that possible by making an incredibly stupid mistake. he’ll pay.
but you clearly don’t know jack about the product otherwise you’d probably be a fan instead of an ignorant @sshole, which unfortunately, can’t be remedied.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think this is some wide conspiracy. I don't think oil industry thinks of Musk as a threat. For them regulations are a bigger threat.
This is SEC acting on complaints by some Wall St power brokers, IMO.
Xenius
Active Member
That would be a simply amazing opportunity.
I thought these things were supposed to take years anyway, seems mighty quick, and nicely timed just before the end of their most important quarter ever.
At lest Tesla isn’t implicated, but what a complete crock of *sugar*!
At lest Tesla isn’t implicated, but what a complete crock of *sugar*!
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I've just read through the complaint:
Their case looks weak to me, because it ignores the August 8-24 time period, where Elon secures funding. It ignores the presentation Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs gave to the Tesla board, where they present 30 billion dollars of funding and outline that they think the going-private transaction can be pulled off.
Here's the contemporary Wall Street Journal report:
"Wednesday" was August 22, two weeks and one day after the tweet.
This falsifies a central claim of the SEC's lawsuit, outlined in the very beginning:
So Elon was virtual certain that funding was secured, and two weeks later 30 billion dollars of funding was indeed not just secured but committed as well. So Elon's belief, which the SEC claims to be false, was demonstrated to be correct within 2 weeks. The SEC has no case that I can see.
A lot of bluster in the SEC lawsuit, an ask-for-the-moon request to bar Elon from being a CEO (this could be pressure tactics to force Elon to settle), and some interesting details: it looks like the Saudis indeed offered Elon to take Tesla private a couple of days before his tweet.
BTW., a side note, the SEC lawyers writing this complaint are visibly biased in favor of shorts in the lawsuit, they describe them as 'investors', almost as victims, so it should IMO be investigated separately who leaked to shorts from the SEC: today's price action was very weird: NASDAQ rose but Tesla was shorted like there was no tomorrow.
Their case looks weak to me, because it ignores the August 8-24 time period, where Elon secures funding. It ignores the presentation Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs gave to the Tesla board, where they present 30 billion dollars of funding and outline that they think the going-private transaction can be pulled off.
Here's the contemporary Wall Street Journal report:
Public Bravado, Private Doubts: Inside the Unraveling of Elon Musk’s Tesla Buyout
"By Wednesday evening, they had a presentation for Mr. Musk, proposing a roster of deep-pocketed investors, including Volkswagen and Silver Lake itself, that had agreed to contribute as much as $30 billion, people familiar with the matter said."
"By Wednesday evening, they had a presentation for Mr. Musk, proposing a roster of deep-pocketed investors, including Volkswagen and Silver Lake itself, that had agreed to contribute as much as $30 billion, people familiar with the matter said."
"Wednesday" was August 22, two weeks and one day after the tweet.
This falsifies a central claim of the SEC's lawsuit, outlined in the very beginning:
"Musk’s statements, disseminated via Twitter, falsely indicated that, should he so choose, it was virtually certain that he could take Tesla private at a purchase price that reflected a substantial premium over Tesla stock’s then-current share price, that funding for this multi-billion dollar transaction had been secured, and that the only contingency was a shareholder vote."
So Elon was virtual certain that funding was secured, and two weeks later 30 billion dollars of funding was indeed not just secured but committed as well. So Elon's belief, which the SEC claims to be false, was demonstrated to be correct within 2 weeks. The SEC has no case that I can see.
A lot of bluster in the SEC lawsuit, an ask-for-the-moon request to bar Elon from being a CEO (this could be pressure tactics to force Elon to settle), and some interesting details: it looks like the Saudis indeed offered Elon to take Tesla private a couple of days before his tweet.
BTW., a side note, the SEC lawyers writing this complaint are visibly biased in favor of shorts in the lawsuit, they describe them as 'investors', almost as victims, so it should IMO be investigated separately who leaked to shorts from the SEC: today's price action was very weird: NASDAQ rose but Tesla was shorted like there was no tomorrow.
Ludalicious
Active Member
Stil
I wouldn't exactly call it amazing for all. Especially individuals who don't have access to after hours trading. My stop order doesn't mean anything if my sellers are at home sleeping.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
It doesn't take that long when you don't mind smearing Musk/Tesla -- the complaint uses as evidence of harm that stock went up ~10% following the announcement. It conveniently leaves out that the boost was very temporary and that it fell back and *never completely recovered*.
There are no facts to support Musk making a false announcement for intent to defraud. But they don't need that, they just "need" to tank the stock. For friends, like Bob "for the" Lulz.
SEC seems fraudulent to me.
much more than the chance that Elon is/was
I assume no one involved in the SEC has any friends that have any interest in TSLA. that would be illegal right?
much more than the chance that Elon is/was
I assume no one involved in the SEC has any friends that have any interest in TSLA. that would be illegal right?
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
