MikeQ
Member
He could easily still work for Tesla, just not CEO. It would be the same setup as SpaceX and I suspect Elon would enjoy the work more.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
He could easily still work for Tesla, just not CEO. It would be the same setup as SpaceX and I suspect Elon would enjoy the work more.
So Elon will fight. If we can fight big oil and big auto, throw in the SEC.
I’m leaning towards temporary removal as ceo and promotion of straubel. Separating all the drama is one unfortunate action. It would allow Tesla to have a clean slate, and any short term issues would have a fall guy.
Elon knows he has to fall on the sword - he nearly said as much during (was it MK’s interview? - he said the worst was yet to come for him but Tesla would be fine operationally). But he can play this out where everything continues as planned with the possibility of a normal return aka Steve Jobs.
Tesla needs a solid voice and once with a technical background will ease the temporary transition. I think JB named within next 24 hours. Just a guess.
Mod: Don't you think this is a bit premature, especially for serious investors either short or long?
Last edited by a moderator:
it is "opinion" of Harvey Pitt. Dude was kicked out of SEC during Busch presidency He became famous by making his buddy Webster a chairman of SEC Oversight board. The irony was that Webster himself was a target of SEC fraud investigation.
Pitt is now one of the paid clowns on CNBC and other channels. First statement can become true, the rest is typical bs. Tom Randall is not mild in his words, he is just a bit smarter than the rest of the pack so less repulsive.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
BTW., in case anyone has any doubts about the SEC's purpose here, here's how the SEC writes gushingly about short 'investors':
So shorts are apparently investor who did not own the stock 'at that time'. Good to know!
So is it the SEC's position that it's now the fiduciary duty of Tesla board members to hurt the company, to help these short 'investors'?
https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfser..._Exchange_v_Musk__nysdce-18-08865__0001.0.pdf
"In 2018, stock analysts and investors increasingly began to question whether Tesla could meet its previously announced production targets and begin to earn sufficient cash in order to sustain its operations and pay its existing debt load. By August 2018, more than $13 billion worth of Tesla shares were being “shorted,” meaning they were sold by investors who did not own them at the time of the sale. Investors who sell stock short typically believe the price of the stock will fall and hope to buy the stock at the lower price to cover their short positions and earn a profit. If the price of the stock rises, short sellers who then exit their short positions by purchasing the stock at the higher price will incur losses"
"In 2018, stock analysts and investors increasingly began to question whether Tesla could meet its previously announced production targets and begin to earn sufficient cash in order to sustain its operations and pay its existing debt load. By August 2018, more than $13 billion worth of Tesla shares were being “shorted,” meaning they were sold by investors who did not own them at the time of the sale. Investors who sell stock short typically believe the price of the stock will fall and hope to buy the stock at the lower price to cover their short positions and earn a profit. If the price of the stock rises, short sellers who then exit their short positions by purchasing the stock at the higher price will incur losses"
So shorts are apparently investor who did not own the stock 'at that time'. Good to know!
So is it the SEC's position that it's now the fiduciary duty of Tesla board members to hurt the company, to help these short 'investors'?
If this happened in Belgium, it would be easy to stall this for 20 years (remember Lernhout & Hauspie).
From the press conference it seemed that the SEC was saying that removal as CEO was NOT in the cards unless that's what the board/shareholders want. As upset as I've been with his irresponsible tweeting I would not want him removed. Hoping that I'm understanding that correctly.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Yes, but suing to bar him from acting as an Officer of the Corporation too. If Elon wants to buy Tesla, now's the time to do it (or on Monday).
Good point, are they Outversers? Divesters? Devesters? Maybe a contraction, sinvestors?
Can we have an emergency vote of the shareholders? That should cause at least a little of the shorted shares to be recalled and we can find out what the actual investors want to do!
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Shorts are anti-investors: when investors gain then shorts lose, when investors lose shorts gain.
It's the SEC's job to protect investors, and thus, by definition, it's the SEC's job and duty to protect them from anti-investors...
Paypal in the way it was sold to Ebay was the product of Thiel. Thiel financially is smarter than Musk and has his history of making companies.
Seriously, wtf are you doing here?
Not disagreeing. But I think if Elon finds out his chance of being removed is high, he will try to take the company private again.
Trying to manipulate the market. Maybe he can get some weak longs to sell.
I did not hear that, I only heard that Elon can remain CEO untill a court decision (or the board) decides otherwise.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Or maybe because no American company or workers would benefit from tariffs on Chinese made smartphones and parts. Because there is no American company that makes smartphones in America.
Only Korean companies and Korean workers at the expense of American companies and American/Chinese workers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
