TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[ZachShahan]

I believe we can reliably say Tencent won't be selling.

More news. Bailie Gifford's manager, James Anderson, thinks the $420 is a LOWBALL bid.

Also, Bailie Gifford's largest client, Scottish Mortgage, could keep their stock, but he's worried their other clients couldn't.

Baillie Gifford's Anderson questions Musk's Tesla valuation

There is a SERIOUS chance of a no vote, guys. If Musk doesn't figure out how to let Bailie Gifford's other clients keep their stock, James Anderson could well oppose the deal. Similar things will happen at Fidelity.

If it's messaged well, this could be good.

If it's messaged poorly, this will suck.

If this happens, Tesla & supporters need to be very loud and clear that the deal fell through because shareholders thought Tesla was worth FAR MORE than $420 but couldn't stay on as shareholders for technical reasons.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

CNBC coverage of that SEC phone call:
"Elon Musk said to be cooperating with SEC investigation of possible fraud, according to source familiar with the matter."

“SEC said to be moving forward to next step of investigation”

 

[Dan Detweiler]

“SEC said to be moving forward to next step of investigation”

"SEC wins another NCAA football crown."

...oh wait, sorry.

Dan

 

[winfield100]

The problem is that they own mouse nuts of SpaceX. I'm not willing to buy a fund full of other junk to get 0.5% of the investment invested in SpaceX!

Someone has found that most mutual funds are allowed to have up to 15% in unlisted equity. So most of those funds could keep their Tesla, except the heavily concentrated ones.

yes, except it's a first iteration of owning SpaceX.
I would absolutely love to own SpaceX and Tesla and Tesla Energy and Mars Colony in a private, non-volatile company.
I would love for the FUDsters vanish, and if possible repay their ill gotten gains at a penalty of 5x to 10x to help fund.
still slowly accumulating, in multiples of 2, so my kids won't argue over who gets the odd share

 

[wipster]

"SEC wins another NCAA football crown."

...oh wait, sorry.

Dan

Thanks for the levity Dan!

 

[aubreymcfato]

#Tesla registered 311 new #Model3 VINs. Highest VIN is 95880.

 

[ZachShahan]

Thanks...I don't follow many on Twitter...was just looking at EM account.

Keep it that way.
(Seriously)

 

[Blip]

The IV on options are changing constantly. Completely random (so it seems).

 

[schonelucht]

These are commitments from potential investors to Elon as a leader of an effort to go private. They are not yet commitments to Tesla, nor has Tesla made any commitments. No 8k is required yet.

No, it doesn't work that way. He is the CEO and chairman of the board. He can't dissociate his communications that easily from the company.

 

[mongo]

“SEC said to be moving forward to next step of investigation”

Closing it?

 

[lunitiks]

$ 356...

 

[schonelucht]

Price action suggest someone knows something positive about the funding.

 

[ZachShahan]

Adam Jonas theory of Tesla of how to go private

"We believe Tesla could consider an auction for its shares in the private equity market, financed by existing shareholders, new strategics, divestiture of valuable captive assets (Tesla autonomous/shared), and possibly some help from SpaceX."

Problem is — it's a little hard to believe an Adam Jonas theory after last week.

 

[Moderatefan]

".....currently dominant power systems cannot long survive in space; beyond a certain technological level a degree of anarchy is arguably inevitable and anyway preferable.
To survive in space, ships/habitats must be self-sufficient, or very nearly so; the hold of the state (or the corporation) over them therefore becomes tenuous if the desires of the inhabitants conflict significantly with the requirements of the controlling body. On a planet, enclaves can be surrounded, besieged, attacked; the superior forces of a state or corporation - hereafter referred to as hegemonies - will tend to prevail. In space, a break-away movement will be far more difficult to control...."
Mars would, perhaps, be the first 'break-away movement'
A Few Notes on the Culture, by Iain M Banks
try to understand Musk's mindset. i __think__ this gives a tiny glimpse. i keep harping on "think long term 20-40 years and longer.

you have to love this movie, unquestionably and wide eyed
WANDERERS -Short Film

Thanks, somehow never came across Banks in my reading, but been noticing it in Elon's tweets. On my future to-read list.
Poor Elon. Such pressure on him to colonize Mars and he has to deal with Tesla shorts and digging tunnels for daily commute.

 

[Sudre]

Again, no. Any institutional investors who can't take part in a private Tesla have an effectively limitless amount of shares that they need to get rid of. They have the choice:

A) $420, during the buyout; or
B) Greater than $420, selling to shorts

So obviously, they want (B). The problem is that their supply vastly outpaces the number of shorts that needs to cover.

The problem with B is they can not sell shares they do not own. In your scenerio, first that institution has the recall all the shares they loaned out. They can not sell shares they do not own to the shorts. It simply does not work that way. SO they do not have an unlimited amount of shares. They have at best a small 9% they own MINUS what they loaned out. There are no institutions that I know of that have more than that who would not be interested in holding thru to the private company.

You simply do not understand how things work.

 

[bdy0627]

I'm curious why some think a recall of shares for the vote would cause a huge short squeeze. IIRC, shares were recalled in February for the vote on Elon's compensation. The stock rose but it wasn't anything dramatic. Why would it be different this time?

 

[Matias]

Help me think about this strategically from Tesla's side. Everyone keeps talking about the price racing up to 420 and possibly higher in the case of a short squeeze. This seems like a bad thing if you are attempting take the company private. If you're objective is to put a deal together where you have to buy a large number of public shares to go private, wouldn't you want to keep the current public stock price from jumping to 420 or worse exploding to some super high number? As long as the stock trades significantly below 420, the better chance to take the company private at the said 420/share price.

Right now, it feels like the only thing keeping the stock from jumping up is lack of information of where the funding is coming from. Despite all the ridicule, if I were Musk or one of the funding partners to take Tesla private, I would want to keep my mouth shut to keep the buy price at a more reasonable level. Then, I would only reveal funding sources just before taking it to a quick vote over say ... a weekend when the stock will not change and go too high to take it private. I am yet to see in all these ton of posts someone taking this angle. There must be something wrong with my logic. Ok, shoot away.

Law. You can’t withhold material information in public company.

 

[ruralectric]

To anyone considering selling out at $420 (because they don't want to have their investment blocked for 6 months at a time) : I think it would still be important to consider keeping at least 1 share, just to have a foot in the door in case you want to invest again.
Because I'm pretty sure once you're "registered" among the private investors, it'll be easier to then just add, than if you need to do all the process.

What are you basing this assumption that a single share will "keep your foot in the door" for access to future stock purchases?

I have never pretended to know anything about investing, but having worked at two privately held companies I can tell you that one characteristic of both was that as an employee my access to shares was limited to what I was granted as part of an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) and when you left the company you were bought out over time. No option to remain in the stock. I can easily imagine a model where any existing shareholder is allowed to convert to the private stock, but future purchases/ options are granted only to employees and selective qualified buyers, and for everyone else no access to future purchases and once you're out you're out for good. I think it presumptuous to assume that holding a single share of the private stock will guarantee you access to future purchases.

edited for clarity (maybe)

 

[Tslynk67]

Help me think about this strategically from Tesla's side. Everyone keeps talking about the price racing up to 420 and possibly higher in the case of a short squeeze. This seems like a bad thing if you are attempting take the company private. If you're objective is to put a deal together where you have to buy a large number of public shares to go private, wouldn't you want to keep the current public stock price from jumping to 420 or worse exploding to some super high number? As long as the stock trades significantly below 420, the better chance to take the company private at the said 420/share price.

Right now, it feels like the only thing keeping the stock from jumping up is lack of information of where the funding is coming from. Despite all the ridicule, if I were Musk or one of the funding partners to take Tesla private, I would want to keep my mouth shut to keep the buy price at a more reasonable level. Then, I would only reveal funding sources just before taking it to a quick vote over say ... a weekend when the stock will not change and go too high to take it private. I am yet to see in all these ton of posts someone taking this angle. There must be something wrong with my logic. Ok, shoot away.

Basically what I said yesterday - Elon is a genius!

 

[CuriousSunbird]

No, it doesn't work that way. He is the CEO and chairman of the board. He can't dissociate his communications that easily from the company.

Don't agree with that. Provided he keeps a clear and written division between Musk Chairman and Musk Acquirer I think he's fine.