TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[dqd88]

I hate to say it, but Mark Spiegel called Elon's bluff when the stock was at $380 and increased his short position.
The man has balls of steel for making that move. And he's on the winning side now

He may win a battle or two but he's definitely losing the war.

 

[tivoboy]

A boad member with serious car manufacturing experience preferably
Japanese. The Ex CEO of Honda or Toyota might be good contributors
If available.

I would probably pick someone from VW, last 10 years of overall company wide (which includes all the subs) manufacturing experience.
Want coverage of Manufacturing, SCM, QC, and probably the traditional "labor board", which is where Tesla should be from an HR standpoint

 

[AWDtsla]

The point is that taking TSLA private would force a sell by many/most retail investors.

That's not really certain, at least not if you take retail investors by total number of shares. A lot of TSLA retail investors are accredited investors. Further more, it seems there is an allowance for a limit number of non-accredited investors.

 

[Unpilot]

I for one am freeing up more powder. I am all in at this point.

As many here have stated the fact that EM was looking out for the common investor...ME...and most of you... is what makes this whole thing so hard to take. I have a very small twitter presence but did send a tweet to @ElonMusk to show my support.

I am saddened by the obvious attempt to remove one of the great innovators of our time from one of the most important company's of our time. Yet I am energized to do all I can to support the man and the mission.

I'M BUYING MORE STOCK! and suggest you all do the same if you can.

 

[jhm]

Yeah, I don't see that as too big of a deal, but I'd want more than just "figure heads" on the board. Would want people with very good industry experience that can actually help guide the company to realize its full potential. That is why I like someone like Jigar Shah.

Jigar Shah - Wikipedia. Shah has got strong entrepreneurial drive and experience. He was the CEO of SunEdison, perhaps the most ambitious clean tech company aside from Tesla. They got into serious financial trouble, and Shah had to leave as CEO. This might seem to disqualify him in some people's mind, but to my thinking this failure in the face of extreme entrepreneurial ambition is extraordinarily valuable experience. I'm confident that Shah has learned lessons that could not be learned otherwise. So I think he would still push Tesla to be a super fast growing company, but would help it avoid the same missteps that brought SunEdison down.

Let me open up this question:

Who would you nominate to the Board and why?

 

[mongo]

Let me open up this question:

Who would you nominate to the Board and why?

Perhaps a new thread?

 

[Boomer19]

Terms of Service Violation



Terms of Service Violation

 

[ZsoZso]

My investment account is already 100% TSLA (and no cash left), so I can't buy more today (unfortunately), but I am buying an AWD Model 3 tomorrow, so I still help where I can
My contribution will show up in Q3 results...

ps: forgot to add "Funding Secured" -- certified cheque in hand, signed

 

[Unpilot]

Boomer I like ya man...but I aint giving those rags a second of my time.

 

[Foghat]

The precise element required for 10b5 fraud is scienter, which is a fancy word for intent. But it does NOT require true normal intent. A constructive intent concept is implemented in the concept of "reckless". A good discussion of this is at: https://www.wsgr.com/PDFSearch/pleading_of_scienter.pdf

An element of any securities fraud claim is the defendant’s state of mind. In a claim brought under Rule 10b-5, the applicable question is whether the defendant acted with fraudulent intent (i.e., scienter) when he made the alleged false or misleading statement.​

the Second Circuit ... concluded that ... conduct that is ‘“highly unreasonable’ and ‘an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care . . . [such] that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it.’” was enough to prove recklessness and meet the scienter requirement.
​

For EM to defend himself he needs to show that the statements were true/not materially misleading OR that he wasn't reckless, i.e., he didn't depart from the standards of ordinary care such that he knew or should have known that his statements were misleading.

​

It's a close case that depends on the facts as to how much the funding was actually secured/committed/certain, and what other emails and texts did he write leaving a trail of how much care he took (or didn't take) to make sure his statements were accurate. Or whether there is any smoking gun evidence -- a text to a friend saying "this will show the shorts".

Lots of unknowns and uncertainty. A settlement where he could have stayed as a CEO -- basically an appropriate slap on the wrist for a relatively minor and victimless disclosure sloppiness -- was almost certainly better than taking the risks of this litigation.

There is a significant difference between not following proper procedure and intent to mislead. Apples and oranges. SEC is claiming he had intent to mislead. That is the case here. Not prodcural infractions.

The SEC has to prove intent, not Elon. The burden of proof is on them. There is not a centila of evidence to intent to mislead. Not one single insider trade. Not one single sold share by Elon. The stock traded within the normal 52 week trading range, and exhibited nothing outside historic daily percent changes, not even close to the highest daily, or multiday price jump up or down that Tesla has experienced this year.

There was no intent to deceive or mislead. None.

If Elon were to be fined for not following reporting procedure there would a stronger case for them to impliment that.

However, base on the “settlement” points, and charges that have followed, this is purely a shakedown and will be exposed as such.

 

[gene]

It was only 3 weeks ago I was buying shares at $264. So price wise it isn't the end of the world.

I am just furious that we have to put up with all the false news articles for years and years from the shorts with no investigation from the SEC. The fact that the SEC chairman is a Trump appointee is what makes me the most nervous.

 

[dqd88]

Apart from settling, I think Tesla should add two independent directors. The question is, who? I would kinda like to see Jigar Shah on the board. I think he can bring some really good leadership in the Energy space.

Also I get the impression that Kimbal may be taking a more visible role perhaps as a prelude to being named as Chair.

If the board were to move fast to add a few directors, it could also lower the stakes for the SEC suit. Naming Kimbal as Chair would take this further. There would be little upside for pursuing weak case in court, and the whole thing could be dropped.

But apart from how this would impact the SEC action, I think there are other benefits to enhancing the board as Tesla grows and expands into multiple industries.

I would love any of the following on the BoD

Eric Schmidt
Reid Hoffman
Bill Gates (don't laugh)
Sheryl Sandberg
Jeff Bezos (long shot)
Bob Iger

Thoughts anyone?

 

[elasalle]

How long before EMs legal team comes out with a statement, legal defence or counter sues SEC? I am waiting ..
EM's legal team should also go after all these bad Actors playing gmaes and manipulating stocks with the assistance from media ..

 

[TrendTrader007]

Elon is not going anywhere and $TSLA SP will be markedly higher next week than today
as long as calls expire 2020 or 2021 there is nothing to worry about.
i am extremely happy i rolled over all my J2019 $300 calls to J2021 $400 on 9-18-18 otherwise i would have lost everything today
as it is i am ready to take on vengeful SEC and malicious shorts they give it their best shot. they will not succeed and in a year from now i will be laughing my way to the bank when $TSLA is trading north of $700 and Elon will continue leading Tesla and all other automakers will be on verge of bankruptcy
i have 2 choice words for SEC and shorts but unfortunately they are unprintable but rhyme with Love You

 

[bhzmark]

There is a significant difference between not following proper procedure and intent to mislead. Apples and oranges. SEC is claiming he had intent to mislead. That is the case here. Not prodcural infractions.

The SEC has to prove intent, not Elon. The burden of proof is on them. There is not a centila of evidence to intent to mislead. Not one single insider trade. Not one single sold share by Elon. The stock traded within the normal 52 week trading range, and exhibited nothing outside historic daily percent changes, not even close to the highest daily, or multiday price jump up or down that Tesla has experienced this year.

There was no intent to deceive or mislead. None.

If Elon were to be fined for not following reporting procedure there would a stronger case for them to impliment that.

However, base on the “settlement” points, and charges that have followed, this is purely a shakedown and will be exposed as such.

The SEC doesn't have to prove "intent" in the normal layperson sense. So arguing against that is a strawman.

The SEC here, and the private plaintiffs in the class action litigations, have to prove "scienter".
"In the Second Circuit, “[t]he requisite scienter can be established by alleging facts to show either (1) that defendants had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud, or (2) strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.”

"Recklessness is defined as conduct that, at the least, is “highly unreasonable” and constitutes “an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it.” S. Cherry St., LLC v. Hennessee Grp. LLC, 573 F.3d 98, 109 (2d Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (quoting In re Carter-Wallace, Inc. Securities Litigation, 220 F.3d 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Chill v. Gen. Elec. Co., 101 F.3d 263, 269 (2d Cir. 1996) (“An egregious refusal to see the obvious, or to investigate the doubtful” can give rise to an inference of recklessness.”)."

 

[MarcusMaximus]

Some thoughts I'm having: maybe Musk figures he can drag this out for ~10 years. If he can, he might figure he can just move to Mars before the trial even finishes and avoid ever facing any potential judgement over it. (Yes, it feels a little weird to suggest that the CEO of this car company might not care about losing a civil case because he'd be living on MARS by then, but those are the times we live in)

 

[Foghat]

Let me open up this question:

Who would you nominate to the Board and why?

Non starter. Next.

 

[dqd88]

I think the main determinant for SEC to sue Elon Musk for lying about his funding secured tweet is that he didn’t follow through with going private. He fooled me and I lost a lot of money.

When Musk claimed his intent to consider going private, I thought it was duly considered and announced, and I put in a lot of money to TSLA to sell or hold at the 420 price point. When Musk turned out to be weak, margin ate most my money. I try to learn from this, but the main issue is the same SEC ‘s suit claims, that Musk wasn’t in earnest.

Now wirh the most promising transformative quarter for TSLA ever, once again, the SEC is causing me to lose a lot of money, and may make me homeless.

If you need any help let me know. Prob not much I can do but I am happy to talk.

 

[Ugliest1]

In Elon's case, SEC files against him in less than 2 months, mentions no fraud, only false and misleading statements, and no financial gain.

The woman at the podium during the SEC press announcement said (from memory) "return any ill-gotten gains". You're absolutely right... it's BS.

 

[SpaceCash]

Some thoughts I'm having: maybe Musk figures he can drag this out for ~10 years. If he can, he might figure he can just move to Mars before the trial even finishes and avoid ever facing any potential judgement over it. (Yes, it feels a little weird to suggest that the CEO of this car company might not care about losing a civil case because he'd be living on MARS by then, but those are the times we live in)

Based on my own analysis of Musk and his personality, I don't think that's his intent here. I believe he feels (correctly) that the suit is frivolous, unjust, insulting, and IMMORAL, and intends to fight for what's right, regardless of any timeframe. That's his M.O.

I bet he'd prefer an efficient and speedy conclusion, with judgment in his favor.