TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[SW2Fiddler]

At the end of the press conference, they mentioned the names of the people that did the investigation. I found that very strange, is that a common practice? To me that seems like a bunch of people trying to benefit from the situation by trying to get famous or by trying to improve their reputation.

CNBC newsreader let slip riiight before the presser, that the SEC's end-of-fiscal-year is 30 September, that it sounds cynical but it seemed the SEC was "timing this to justify their existence." Is that true about 30 Sept? If so, is this their way of Window Dressing?

For our part, is it not the time and place to employ some Jiu Jitsu? Use the heightened visibility of pretrial to shine some light on the sus timing of hit pieces and manipu-trades?

I dunno, I'm just a sentient cat with some questions.

 

[larmor]

11.6 million shares and basically flat this morning. Safe to assume a large number of sell orders around 271 and no one selling at market?

News articles come up on the stock app, and since the work of bringing negative news and headlines had been completed, now attache settl article came up advising shorts to close their positions:

http://n.webull.com/page/news?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestreet.com%2Finvesting%2Fstocks%2Fthere-is-still-time-to-close-out-your-short-position-in-tesla-14726949%3Fpuc%3Dyahoo%26cm_ven%3DYAHOO%26yptr%3Dyahoo&theme=2&color=1&hl=en&sp=1

Curious timing from sec and article, production numbers and sales in Target which means profit coming very soon for Tesla...

 

[RAM_Eh]

So Trump tweets about the economy doing really really well just before NFP (non farm payroll) and that moved the currency markets dramatically and nothing happens to him.

Elon tweets about possibly doing something and the stock really doesn't do anything and he actually didn't sell any stocks to benefit and they are looking for a lifetime ban?

 

[Tslynk67]

Yeah I saw that. The court filing doesn't include fraud, but the press releases do. Which one counts there?

Sounds reckless to me...

You know what, we've dropped less that when a CAO and HR chief left, that seems pretty good to me.

I cannot see this running very long. Tesla aren't implicated at all, even if Musk got kicked-out, he would continue to run the company from the shadows.

Looking forward to Q3 results!

 

[Toolsmack]

I bought more stock today and I sent tweets to SEC enforcement stating I do not agree that they are protecting investors with this suit.

I am also sending tweets to ValueAnalyst to retweet to a larger audience in support of Tesla.

I hate Twitter, but it was time to get in the ring and show my support more publicly than here on the boards.

 

[lklundin]

We should be pleased Elon is fighting this. The guy has conviction which is why I invest in Tesla. I believe in him more than I believe in myself which is why I have invested as much financially and emotionally in Tesla as in my own business. He has a lot more expert knowledge than I have, is more highly skilled and works way harder!

The drama on the Tesla share price is annoying, but I will take this as an opportunity to buy a few more shares (I don't have much cash left!) and be on my merry way.

Also, don't forget that when SpaceX was not allowed to even bid for the launches under the National Security Space Launch Program, 44-year-old Musk just took the discussion to the Senate so that things could be straightened out,

I think he will overcome the issues that SEC has brought forward - although it may take some time.

 

[emir-t]

Loaded more on TSLA on discount. 9K shares, 1K calls. I hope to see this dip resolve quickly now that I'm aboard more.

 

[bdy0627]

Yeah tried to enter a short order, rejected. No, wasn't really shorting unless it magically popped to 300 in 2 seconds.

Think SP is really being helped here by shorting shut down. Look for renewed and vicious attacks early next week. Think the magic number for them is 250. If they bust through that...

This couldn't have worked out any better in terms of limiting the damage. Shorts are limited today, then a weekend for the news to settle, then another trading day with the shorts limited, then we hit deliveries. I'm not saying TSLA won't go down further. I have no idea, but I can't imagine a better way for this to have played out once we were going to get hit with the news.

 

[lklundin]

CNBC reporting that:

• The settlement would have barred Musk as Chairman for 2 years
• Fined Musk and Co.
• Required company 2 new independent directors
• Required Musk neither admit nor deny culpability

I am guessing that the last point by itself was a show stopper for Musk.

 

[Garlands]

Loaded more on TSLA on discount. 9K shares, 1K calls. I hope to see this dip resolve quickly now that I'm aboard more.

9kshares+1k calls more? WOW

 

[dqd88]

Typically, in the stock market or anywhere else, the malicious people are a few minority. In case of TSLA, the longs seem to imply that the entire media, analyst community, big hedge funds, sovereign wealth fund and even SEC is malicious. How can so many people be malicious and only a small bunch of retail investors trying to save Earth are righteous? Just doesnt add up.

They are malicious because they have a short position. They make money when price goes down. So they are incentivized to spread fear and lies in hopes that people will sell. get it?

 

[Wooloomooloo]

I disagree with your legal opinion here. That is not SEC's position. Their entire 23-page complaint contains ZERO instances of the words intent, intended, intentionally, etc. Zero. SEC's position is that Musk knowingly misled with known false statements. They are silent regarding intent. Clearly, they do not believe intent is relevant to the violation alleged. A court could disagree, but SEC's position on the matter is clear.

Good point, I think you're right. However it is implicit in their allegation "Musk knew, or was reckless in not knowing" that there is intent. If you knowingly mislead someone, there must be a motive. If there is a motive there is intent. It's a technicality but I think the argument will be had there. And Musk can easily argue he truly believed this was a very real possibility, given shareholder consent. It will be difficult to prove he didn't.

The other allegations like "done nothing to investigate [if shareholders could remain as investors]" is going to be difficult to make stick, given he only said "my hope is".

My contention with their charges is mostly the extrapolation of motive that's simply not there, and neither does it jive with the vague language Musk actually (probably deliberately) used.

 

[jeewee3000]

I disagree with your legal opinion here. That is not SEC's position. Their entire 23-page complaint contains ZERO instances of the words intent, intended, intentionally, etc. Zero. SEC's position is that Musk knowingly misled with known false statements. They are silent regarding intent. Clearly, they do not believe intent is relevant to the violation alleged. A court could disagree, but SEC's position on the matter is clear.

Also read the entire complaint and liked your post since their isn't an "Agree"-button.

The SEC does not once state that Elon had the intent of harming investors. Their case is hinged entirely on recklessness = he should have know that behaving the way he did could have harmed investors.

To be clear, the behavior = stating misleading facts or omitting facts that would make the statement misleading.

 

[SpaceCash]

Also read the entire complaint and liked your post since their isn't an "Agree"-button.

The SEC does not once state that Elon had the intent of harming investors. Their case is hinged entirely on recklessness = he should have know that behaving the way he did could have harmed investors.

To be clear, the behavior = stating misleading facts or omitting facts that would make the statement misleading.

Of course the inherent irony here is that what the SEC has done HAS harmed investors. At least for a blip of time. They are not credible. They don't do their job. They are corrupt.

 

[lklundin]

I sent Pamela Anderson a msg on her instagram to meet today at noon for some coffee and casual conversation.

Better you than me.

 

[Lessmog]

This couldn't have worked out any better in terms of limiting the damage. Shorts are limited today, then a weekend for the news to settle, then another trading day with the shorts limited, then we hit deliveries. I'm not saying TSLA won't go down further. I have no idea, but I can't imagine a better way for this to have played out once we were going to get hit with the news.

Multidimensional chess.

To underline an important point Fact Checker made earlier (sorry, have been attending other pressing bizniz like food, securing funds etc) it occurs to me as a rank amateur and furriner to boot, that the incursion on First Amendment Speech by a Federal entity against a natural person could BY ITSELF be sufficient for quick dismissal of SEC's case. And if that can occur to me within 24 hours, it's not surprising if it did occur to Elon&Team much quicker. Question is why Team SEC's PROFESSIONALS did not see that.

Am I just being stupid again?

 

[lklundin]

Has any of those "legal analysts" noted that the SEC trying to dictate the format of truthful statements of Elon where he informs shareholders creates prior restraint on speech by a federal agency, which is highly frowned upon on constitutional grounds, as it violates the First Amendment? Prior restraint of speech falls under the most stringent review under the First Amendment, with very few exceptions granted in general.

Just to see how strong the prohibition against prior restraint of speech is, here's the SEC requiring a convicted fraudster to restrain his speech, in the "Lowe v. Securities and Exchange Commission" precedent:

Lowe v. Securities and Exchange Commission​

Even that restriction of someone who was convicted of misappropriating client funds was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (!)

The SEC requiring Elon to format truthful speech in a certain manner and punishing him for truthful speech is unprecedented, and in obvious conflict with the First Amendment, IMO.

Also, why did the SEC only ask for a 'slap on the wrist' settlement with a symbolic fine, if their case is so strong?

I've read their complaint and I think their case is weak for various other reasons as well, FWIIW.

I am unsure what your day job is, but have you considered joining the legal team of Elon Musk?

 

[jeewee3000]

I agree with the notion that defending Elon's actions is a waste of time. Let's stick to the fact that the SEC brought a frivolous suit against Musk at a turning point in the company's history, and has been colluding with shorts very obviously. FUKK the SEC

No disrespect, but isn't this a contradiction?

If the SEC suit is frivolous, wouldn't that mean you agree Elon is on the right side of the argument here?

 

[jeewee3000]

Of course the inherent irony here is that what the SEC has done HAS harmed investors. At least for a blip of time. They are not credible. They don't do their job. They are corrupt.

I agree.

 

[Driver Dave]

SEC accusations read like they were based on click bait headlines rather than actual facts.

Can the SEC be sued for stock manipulation?