Yeah. Notice who gave his post a "Love". It's quite pathetic.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Yeah. Notice who gave his post a "Love". It's quite pathetic.
A verbal agreement means secured according to the M&A lawyer with 30 years experience quoted by ArsTechnica (in an otherwise pessimistic article). Good enough for me.
Yeah, I'd expect the Saudis to head for 20% unless they had a verbal agreement with Elon not to.
Dead wrong. They absolutely can. Now everyone knows that the Saudis are the big investor, now they can buy stock -- there's no inside information involved! They'll have to file, of course, which they in fact will do.
bdy0627
Active Member
Could everyone please just place this new FUDster on ignore. There's enough crap as it is these days...
Honestly, shorts should be terrified. I have no idea why people are so in doubt of Elon getting the funding but he will most definitely get the funding he wants. But lets say you are a short and don't foresee that happening. Well guess what..., its not needed. Q3 is going to show profitability and demonstrate that Tesla does not need public markets for funding. In addition to that there is Saudi funding, which based on timeline of his tweet, the fact that they tried for 2 years to take Tesla private, and how new shares were not issued by Tesla to have the Saudis buy in shows me that Elon is not that interested in their money. I feel more than ever he is trying to generate a short squeeze (and not in a bluffing kind of way but a legitimate there're no shares to buy to cover because no one is selling kind of way. - EM would probably use first principles and not intuition and bluffing)
IMO his tweeting is two-fold. Firstly, it was to generate buying pressure, both by the long investors who believe in the mission and want to go private with Tesla as well as the Saudi's (ask yourself why they would buy shares for 420$ or whatever premium is to your liking, when they can buy at 350$). As for the shorts, well they don't really matter, the tweet was never meant to spook them because its already so heavily divided in that longs will go to war with Elon, and shorts will say whatever will make him appear in a negative light. Second was to get the conversation away from the company itself so that negative news about the company falling about, which obviously isn't the case, would stop being run daily. Also analysts still do not expect a profitable Tesla, so that's really going to be a big positive surprise.
The above is my own opinion but I think its the most logical way to think about it for me based on the information that is available. I think taking Tesla private may or may not happen and I really think that getting into the weeds is just a distraction. The whole point is to take out the short sellers, either through a huge loss or taking the ability to short sell away from them. Both require significant buying. I believe that a short squeeze has a non-negligible chance of occurring. Finally, there's the why. EM hates short sellers, which is evident is his tweets and preoccupation with them, and is extremely petty against people he doesn't like. He will do his best to ensure that short sellers will lose and that should terrify them. For that reason, I wouldn't bet against him and Tesla.
IMO his tweeting is two-fold. Firstly, it was to generate buying pressure, both by the long investors who believe in the mission and want to go private with Tesla as well as the Saudi's (ask yourself why they would buy shares for 420$ or whatever premium is to your liking, when they can buy at 350$). As for the shorts, well they don't really matter, the tweet was never meant to spook them because its already so heavily divided in that longs will go to war with Elon, and shorts will say whatever will make him appear in a negative light. Second was to get the conversation away from the company itself so that negative news about the company falling about, which obviously isn't the case, would stop being run daily. Also analysts still do not expect a profitable Tesla, so that's really going to be a big positive surprise.
The above is my own opinion but I think its the most logical way to think about it for me based on the information that is available. I think taking Tesla private may or may not happen and I really think that getting into the weeds is just a distraction. The whole point is to take out the short sellers, either through a huge loss or taking the ability to short sell away from them. Both require significant buying. I believe that a short squeeze has a non-negligible chance of occurring. Finally, there's the why. EM hates short sellers, which is evident is his tweets and preoccupation with them, and is extremely petty against people he doesn't like. He will do his best to ensure that short sellers will lose and that should terrify them. For that reason, I wouldn't bet against him and Tesla.
Hope your short position isn't too big, or you'll be living in a tent. Under a bridge. But your tent won't be a sprung structure, that's far too fancy for your needs.
Last edited:
That would be a win for Tesla -- it would chase away the Saudis and remove the risk of a hostile takeover from them.
Actually, he played it the only way he could. Either the Saudis come in as a friendly investor on terms which encourage other billionaires to join, or they *don't* come in and he doesn't have to deal with them.
Fred at Electrek said that this might either be a deal funded by the Saudis or that the announcment might have been to fend off the Saudis but that it couldn't be both. Of course, he was wrong. It absolutely could be both. A "friendly embrace" which helps prevent the Saudis from getting even more control.
And apparently it wasn’t coincidental. Question is, did you do the 180 already?
I never believed the big oil conspiracy theories, but it’s fun to see the pirouettes on the forums right now
Although the intra-day swings typically cause my TSLA position to change in excess of my (stable) monthly salary, I am absolutely not going to try to cash in on this by day-trading. With my ability to predict these intra-days swings, day-trading would surely ruin me real quick - which may be of some consolation to you.
So you're saying you don't know jack *sugar* about SEC rules, mergers, acquisitions, tender offers, or anything related. Good to know.
Wooloomooloo
Member
I think the obvious joke some folks are missing is this. Many of the Shorts were banking on Tesla going bankrupt. Even if the $420 offer is BS and even if funding is 'far from secure', there is no way Tesla is going Chapter 13 because they'll get bought before then.
The shorts are arguing contradictions... either the company is worth at least $420 (in which case their trading strategy is crap) or they're not, in which case the price will naturally fall to a point where they're brought out.
Did they simply think Tesla would simply disappear, with all their IP, infrastructure and and customers? I understand shorting on a volatile stock for short-term gains, but as an over-sized bet on complete failure, that strategy was always moronic.
The shorts are arguing contradictions... either the company is worth at least $420 (in which case their trading strategy is crap) or they're not, in which case the price will naturally fall to a point where they're brought out.
Did they simply think Tesla would simply disappear, with all their IP, infrastructure and and customers? I understand shorting on a volatile stock for short-term gains, but as an over-sized bet on complete failure, that strategy was always moronic.
Ulmo
Active Member
I just read this morning's letter:
Update on Taking Tesla Private
Since this started at the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency, obviously this is a well integrated approach to this issue.
I think Elon Musk decided to go through the necessary process of making profitability work before subjecting anyone to a huge investment situation. I believe that was a mature and wise thing to do. While it is unfortunate in terms of timing opportunities lost, in the long run, it may have been a good decision to keep financial management disciplined and start the profitability phase of the company on the right path. I say this knowing full well that it is a revenue-funded growth plan, and that they may take options to grow outside the range of their current revenue, as well. Note that I'm perfectly aware profitability was just proven, and not in the fake minds of the shorts.
Update on Taking Tesla Private
Since this started at the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency, obviously this is a well integrated approach to this issue.
I think Elon Musk decided to go through the necessary process of making profitability work before subjecting anyone to a huge investment situation. I believe that was a mature and wise thing to do. While it is unfortunate in terms of timing opportunities lost, in the long run, it may have been a good decision to keep financial management disciplined and start the profitability phase of the company on the right path. I say this knowing full well that it is a revenue-funded growth plan, and that they may take options to grow outside the range of their current revenue, as well. Note that I'm perfectly aware profitability was just proven, and not in the fake minds of the shorts.
larmor
Active Member
Now that the curtain has been pulled back I'm sure someone else such as Apple could sneeze and come up with that kind of cash for a controlling interest...
I think we've already decided the market is boneheaded, and we're leaving.
Increased my position today.
And yet, it got resolved.
Based on his blog post this morning, I don’t see that Elon did anything against SEC rules. Indeed, the Tesla board asked him to violate Reg FD when they asked him to talk to a few large shareholders. Elon, correctly, thought that the right thing to do before that was to inform all shareholders. All this talk about rules violations is just crap.
Got a quote? It seems to be paywalled.
I found this:
Congress finalizes CFIUS reform bill to broaden national security reviews of foreign investments | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm
This seems to indicate that CFIUS can review whatever it wants to?
The "non-passive" restriction here seems to mean that declaration of passive status is a permanent way to avoid CFIUS for a <20% investment. But I haven't seen the text of the bill.
We also get something regarding investments with a "substantial interest", which is super vague. But apparently the definition of substantial interest specifically is "excluding investments with a less than 10 percent voting interest." Is that where you're getting 10% from?
The Saudis could get non-voting shares. That gets around that.
Ulmo
Active Member
Wooloomooloo
Member
It doesn’t burn cash (anymore), and raising money privately isn’t hard these days for future factories (see Uber).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
