Its even more simple. Once EM refused to settle, SEC had no choice but to proceed with the suit. In my mind, that SEC wanted to settle, but EM didn't says SEC thinks their case isn't that solid and EM thinks he has a very good case. Only thing we don't know is whether EM just decided on his own or acted based on his lawyers advice. In this case, I'd trust his lawyers than him (celebrities always think they can easily persuade the jury etc, unlike the lawyers who would take less risks).
Well said, I am with you my friend. I would go down with Elon to the end for who he is and all he does for humanity. You can hardly find anyone as honest as him.
Pardon me, but that's the fourth time today I've seen an assertion along those lines. Can you provide any details? Name any of the affected entities? Links? I confess I'm a little skeptical, for two reasons. First, some of the posts were from accounts that have negative credibility in my eyes. That does not apply to you, I hasten to add. But when certain folks say the sun is shining, I get out my raincoat. Second reason: hasn't the SEC investigation around Musk and Tesla been going on for a month or so now? Wasn't it a rumor until today? Now I think we can say the investigation is over and the prosecution begins. Doesn't that create a logical problem? If there are entities that can't invest in a company if it or any of its officers are under SEC investigation... how do they find out? If they already knew about the investigation before today, shouldn't they have dumped their shares weeks ago? Maybe "investigation" isn't the right word? Anyway I'd like to learn more about this. It might just affect market action.
The prize for the SEC is to obtain Elon's resignation and removal from Tesla. Tell me how that negates Fossil interests?
Perhaps its time to do some digging to see if we could find any link between the current SEC and big oil/ Koch brothers/big shorts/Russia? Here’s the first interesting link: SEC chairman is Jay Clayton, nominated by Trump. His wife used to work for Goldman Sachs...
Let's see if I understand this correctly. I cited a prospective buyer (who bought actual shares on the open market), and your response boils down to "nuh-uh"! Although there weren't any formalized purchase agreement, you can't rule out a verbal one. More importantly, the SEC's claim is frivolous. Elon's exact words on Aug 7th, were "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420". Why does there have to be a signed purchase agreement in place for a CEO to "consider" persuing an action? If Marry Barra said that she was "considering" buying a chinese EV builder, would there need to be documents already in place for this? Is comprehension of the english language no longer a prerequisite when dealing with issues of law and regulation?
On January 4, 2017, President Donald Trumpnominated Clayton to be SEC Chairman.[14]Clayton's nomination was endorsed by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.[13]U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat representing Nevada, expressed concern that Clayton represented Swedish firm TeliaSonera in a proposed venture that would combine Russian telecommunications companies MegaFon and Altimo.[13]
I'm with you. My rule is I never use margin, and I always keep some cash so I can buy more in the worst case.
I have read the complaint It speaks to damage to investors and speaks quite a bit about shorts and doubts by analysts about Tesla’s revenues and so short sold stock they didn’t own and were damaged etc. In the end they ask for return of “ill gotten” gains. Are they not aware that that Elon was and is a major stock holder? What gains? Over the past few weeks as other arguments against the success of Tesla have been proven wrong one after another, the mantra switched to removing Elon as CEO as the way to “save” the company. The SEC seems to repeat the drumbeat of the shorts with allegations of innuendo of intent with no basis of motivation. They concede that at best his actions were reckless and he “should have known” even if he didn’t. The removal of him as CEO things just smells so bad as it follows the WS last mantra that one cannot avoid thinking that the SEC not acting without outside influence. Also, for the SEC to allege his actions caused mayhem in the market whilst completely ignoring what has been going on in the press dictated by interests against the success of Tesla’s mission is also pretty smelling. This action truly appears to me to be demonstrative action that indicates a lack of objective enforcement of securities laws, rather, it appears to be tortured interpretation of vague language in order to suit outside influence, political and otherwise. I pray our justice system is able to maintain its integrity and adjudicate these accusations properly. I believe Elon Musk is not guilty of the accusations leveled. I believe that Elon Musk remaining as CEO is material to the continued success of Tesla. I continue to support him fully as a shareholder as CEO of Tesla. Fire Away
I haven't looked at your petition, but I won't be signing it. Before throwing up something like this, folks should realize that there are many factors to consider before settling. No one here knows what the terms of any proposed settlement were and therefore can't say whether Elon should or shouldn't settle. This is a good article that puts forth some complicated considerations: Why Settling With The SEC Can Be Worse Than Losing At Trial The article notes that while most settlements include language that says "Without admitting to the allegations, blah blah blah, we believe it is in the best interests of our shareholders to bring this litigation to a quick resolution, blah , blah, blah," the SEC has been going after more settlements that require the defendant to admit to wrongdoing. Such admissions to wrongdoing can cause all kinds of other problems, like increased likelihood of being prosecuted criminally, increased likelihood of being sued privately by shareholders, etc. I'm seeing a lot of folks on the forum who seem to have no problem with spouting out their uninformed beliefs as if they actually know something. They act as if they know more than the high powered lawyers that are advising Elon on this matter. Sheez.
Elon has been under investigation for a few weeks now. So if that statement is true for some companies, wouldn't they already have divested?
No, of course not. Unless she went on to say that funding had been secured, and that the purchase was contingent only on a vote of stockholders. Then she'd probably want to have some documentation handy...
Because we don't know what was in the settlement that EM rejected. The fact that he considered it and finally rejected it tells me they were not asking him to step down. I won't be surprised if the settlement that was rejected gets leaked and it contained some language about admitting to some fault. "The prize for the SEC is to obtain Elon's resignation and removal from Tesla" <-- I hope you atleast realize that this is your opinion/speculation and not a fact.
So a settlement that's as worse as losing the court case? Because that's how settlements work??? OKAY.
Perhaps, but who was hurt by this now-famous tweet, investors or short sellers? I find it ironic that the SEC claims to be “The Investor’s Advocate”? They are advocating for something, but it’s not for the typical TSLA investor.
Connecting the dots: goldman recently predicts tesla starting to go down to $210 in coming months. Goldman Sachs Predicts Tesla Shares Will Start to Drop in Coming Months And SEC chairman Jay Clayton (and wife) is deeprooted in Goldman: Donald Trump Nominates Wall Street Lawyer to Head S.E.C. Just saying.
Dragging the lawsuit out for 2 years + is another good method. Until everyone forgets about it. The adverse effect is that the stock will be surpressed for at least 6 months.
Aaaargh, no one gives a rat's ass about "considering". For the nth time, it's all about the expression "funding secured".
I guess the real question of the day is how many new short positions, and how many deep out of the money Calls were opened. Specifically, was there abnormal bearish activity preceeding the SEC announcement? Maybe that's something @Fact Checking could quantify?