Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am certainly no expert on financial law by any means but it seems to me that if Elon had not publicized his thoughts on taking the company private and that he had discussed and potentially "secured" funding, then he would have been guilty of withholding information from retail investors and thus giving unfair advantage to the large investors he had discussed it with. Isn't the SEC's purpose to protect the interests of all retail investors, including the small guys?

Seems to me that his infamous tweet was insuring that he was following common practice by ensuring the dissemination of information and intent to all public parties. I don't get it.

Dan
Just to confirm..
Any underway negotiations between Tesla/Board/CEO and potential investor(s), which result could change position of existing investors, must be declared in advance, to protect you also. Tesla is public company. Still...;)
Elon`s tweets were real perfect storm in every way..:)
 
What’s wrong with stating the price if he had backing for that? In Monday’s blog post he explained that he wanted to discuss the go-private plans with some of the big investors and take their temperature on whether they would participate in TSLAP. Price is obviously an important part of the equation — they might feel differently if the price were $350 v. $420 v $500.

More broadly, I don’t get why people are criticizing Elon for announcing the deal when he did. Would you have preferred being kept in the dark while he informed the big investors about it? Talking to them was obviously an essential step in the process of figuring out how much cash needs to be raised.

Do people like being kept in the dark while the big fish are fed valuable information?

People can debate the words that were used but I really don’t understand why some seem to think it would be better to have less information or get it later than big institutional investors.

Because I believe announcing 420 seriously diminishes the chance of a short squeeze and there are some of us that don't know yet whether we'll be able to stay with $TSLAP - in my case because I'm in Europe. So if we are to be forced out then I would have liked to have had maximal chance of a good sell to the detriment of the shorty-shorts.

There was no need at all to announce a price, this would be part of the private negotiations with the current/potential investor pool.

I'm not against the announcement at all, I think to make the concept public to everyone essentially together was the right thing to do. But the announcement was poorly worded, leading to the turmoil we have right now and giving a price away was a bot reckless IMO.
 
Because I believe announcing 420 seriously diminishes the chance of a short squeeze and there are some of us that don't know yet whether we'll be able to stay with $TSLAP - in my case because I'm in Europe. So if we are to be forced out then I would have liked to have had maximal chance of a good sell to the detriment of the shorty-shorts.

There was no need at all to announce a price, this would be part of the private negotiations with the current/potential investor pool.

I'm not against the announcement at all, I think to make the concept public to everyone essentially together was the right thing to do. But the announcement was poorly worded, leading to the turmoil we have right now and giving a price away was a bot reckless IMO.

As I mentioned in my post, one reason he needed to disclose the price is that to get a sense of whether the largest institutional investors would stay in under TSLAP, he needed to tell them the price. If he is going to tell the large investors, it is only fair that all investors be told so they are on equal footing.

As far as a short squeeze, I personally doubt that withholding information on the price would have had much impact but in any case am glad Elon put retail investors on equal footing with large institutions so we can make investment decisions. My decision was to invest more money for TSLAP while the price is at a big discount to $420.

As far as the wording of the announcement, I think the press would have raised a fuss regardless and their actions prove it. We now have a lot more details from Elon's blog post Monday, obviously reviewed by the lawyers, and it hasn't made any difference. The press threw shade on Elon just for announcing his team. The press suggests the funding is a pipe dream and will not materialize. Last weekend, Reuters published a false report denying the Saudis were even in discussions with Tesla. One of the most important pieces of information that has come out in the past couple days -- a second interested investor (Silver Lake) -- gets ignored or buried by most reporters. And so it goes.

It's really annoying, but all the irrationality whipped up by the press is also an investment opportunity IMO.
 
Last edited:
Talking about thinks that matter:

"Tesla seems well on the way to achieving a steady weekly production rate of 5,000 to 6,000 units per week," analyst George Galliers wrote Thursday. "We are incrementally positive on Tesla following our visit. We have confidence in their production. We did not see anything to suggest that Model 3 cannot reach 6k units per week, and 7k to 8k with very little incremental capital expenditure."

An analyst just toured Tesla's Model 3 facility and said everything's going great despite Musk turmoil
 
"And you feel it why? according to what? "

He shouldn't have tweeted anything, until everything is prepared.
He tweeted when everything was ready.
Tweet is an open offer with proposed price visible to everybody, retail investors included.
Now his team prepares offer, waits a cool down period, and makes an offer. Unlike in Dell case he does everything openly, and instead of mass-media "leaks" he is using twitter and his name. He buys his company. And it is very telling to see the Wall Street reaction on this. He doesn't even to say anything anymore, the Wall Street "voices" made the case clear and the necessity to escape this swamp obvious.
I'm not fed with the narrative. I just want to be able to invest every time I want and benefit from the stupidity of the market. This will be more difficult now. That's why I said I accept this deal, but selfishly I don't appreciate it.
Dude he is leaving public market because of people like you. He is not interested in speculating, his company being in the middle phase of quick growth unprecedented for independent auto company is very susceptible to speculation and the last thing he wants is to be in the middle of the battleground between bulls and bears....
 
One thing that still seems a mystery is the low Q3 guidance of Model 3 production of 50-55k - which suggests a manufacturing rate of 3,850-4,230/week - well below 5k/week sustained.

Is this:
  • Due to the Panasonic cell manufacturing bottleneck at the Gigafactory?
  • Due to a planned shotdown in Q3 for upgrades, which would lower the rate?
  • Or is it simply conservative guidance they expect to beat? (Which would be a first for Tesla, so color me sceptical ...)
As best as I can tell, the July average was around 3,500 per week. It's pretty tough to have that average for 1/3 of the quarter and still hit 5k/week as an average over the entire quarter. I'm personally expecting an average for the quarter around 4,500/week.
 
"And you feel it why? according to what? "

He shouldn't have tweeted anything, until everything is prepared.
I'm not fed with the narrative. I just want to be able to invest every time I want and benefit from the stupidity of the market. This will be more difficult now. That's why I said I accept this deal, but selfishly I don't appreciate it.

There's plenty of other (tech) stocks that allow investors/traders to benefit from the stupidity of the market. $MU, $NVDA, $FB ... If I can stay privately invested, I'll sleep soundly knowing my investment goes up steadily instead of having to stomach the rollercoaster ride that is the Tesla stock price.
 
One thing that still seems a mystery is the low Q3 guidance of Model 3 production of 50-55k - which suggests a manufacturing rate of 3,850-4,230/week - well below 5k/week sustained.

Is this:
  • Due to the Panasonic cell manufacturing bottleneck at the Gigafactory?
  • Due to a planned shotdown in Q3 for upgrades, which would lower the rate?
  • Or is it simply conservative guidance they expect to beat? (Which would be a first for Tesla, so color me sceptical ...)
CNBC article:

An analyst just toured Tesla's Model 3 facility and said everything's going great despite Musk turmoil

Except the last part of the title, very good news !!
 
There's plenty of other (tech) stocks that allow investors/traders to benefit from the stupidity of the market. $MU, $NVDA, $FB ... If I can stay privately invested, I'll sleep soundly knowing my investment goes up steadily instead of having to stomach the rollercoaster ride that is the Tesla stock price.

Yes, SpaceX has had similar or even better returns than TSLA but it has been a nice smooth ride up. From $3.88 a share in 2008 to $169/share earlier this year. None of the crazy volatility we see in TSLA.

General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable
 
I am certainly no expert on financial law by any means but it seems to me that if Elon had not publicized his thoughts on taking the company private and that he had discussed and potentially "secured" funding, then he would have been guilty of withholding information from retail investors and thus giving unfair advantage to the large investors he had discussed it with. Isn't the SEC's purpose to protect the interests of all retail investors, including the small guys?

Seems to me that his infamous tweet was insuring that he was following commpractice by ensuring the dissemination of information and intent to all public parties. I don't get it.

Dan

Dan I think you have a very good track record of well considered posts. But I'm not sure this is one of them.
After reading hundreds of posts around taking Tesla private, it seems to me that Musk announcing he is considering taking the
company private the way he did, was not yet one more masterful well planned tactic to a brilliant goal, but more likely impulsive and shooting from the hip.
Maybe I missed a TMC post very early after his tweet, but why it was better that he announced this in the middle of a trading day rather than waiting a few hours until trading was done?

I suspect how he executed what could be a great change to further the company mission was a good deal different from how other large privatization plans have been initiated in the past. Were all of the execs and lawyers involved in those guilty of withholding information to damage retail investors? (No doubt some were) Would Elon really have been guilty of this if he had some exploratory discussion with large Tesla investors before going public? Having more discussion with the board of directors prior to going public might also be seen as being prudent and 'normal'.
In a privatization attempt, I guess it's valid to say you are fully distinct from the company and its BoD, therefore only owe them a week advance notice. But even a team of PR experts would have a hard time making that understood when the company and it's founder and CEO have been joined at the hip since the company began.

There have been many superb posts on how this will all work out okay after the dust settles. I think and pray it will. But that doesn't prove Musk's approach to getting the effort off the ground wasn't one more instance of a self inflicted flesh wound.
 
Dan I think you have a very good track record of well considered posts. But I'm not sure this is one of them.
After reading hundreds of posts around taking Tesla private, it seems to me that Musk announcing he is considering taking the
company private the way he did, was not yet one more masterful well planned tactic to a brilliant goal, but more likely impulsive and shooting from the hip.
Maybe I missed a TMC post very early after his tweet, but why it was better that he announced this in the middle of a trading day rather than waiting a few hours until trading was done?

I suspect how he executed what could be a great change to further the company mission was a good deal different from how other large privatization plans have been initiated in the past. Were all of the execs and lawyers involved in those guilty of withholding information to damage retail investors? (No doubt some were) Would Elon really have been guilty of this if he had some exploratory discussion with large Tesla investors before going public? Having more discussion with the board of directors prior to going public might also be seen as being prudent and 'normal'.
In a privatization attempt, I guess it's valid to say you are fully distinct from the company and its BoD, therefore only owe them a week advance notice. But even a team of PR experts would have a hard time making that understood when the company and it's founder and CEO have been joined at the hip since the company began.

There have been many superb posts on how this will all work out okay after the dust settles. I think and pray it will. But that doesn't prove Musk's approach to getting the effort off the ground wasn't one more instance of a self inflicted flesh wound.
I wasn't questioning that the chosen method of dissemination wasn't unorthodox or even potentially ill advised, just that I think he does have a responsibility of transparency to all of his investors. I was simply asking if the action he took could or does satisfy that requirement. There are certainly things about the way Elon runs the company that are questionable to me. I was simply trying to clarify the legal ramifications of his actions through the responsibilities of a CEO of a publicly traded company...nothing more.

Dan
 
Yes, SpaceX has had similar or even better returns than TSLA but it has been a nice smooth ride up. From $3.88 a share in 2008 to $169/share earlier this year. None of the crazy volatility we see in TSLA.

General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

It is also evaluated semi-yearly by independent experts. Not second by second by the general masses...
 
Aaaand Martin Tripp is gone from twitter.. To keep this on topic, this shorty whistle blowing did not even last one trading session.

https://twitter.com/trippedover

His Twitterlawyer was last seen.. :rolleyes:

DkuABFNVsAEcOl5.jpg


DkuAaNJV4AAb7CR.jpg
 
Aaaand Martin Tripp is gone from twitter.. To keep this on topic, this shorty whistle blowing did not even last one trading session.

https://twitter.com/trippedover

His Twitterlawyer was last seen.. :rolleyes:

DkuABFNVsAEcOl5.jpg


DkuAaNJV4AAb7CR.jpg

convenient story (the compromise of his account). but it also would explain a lot. either way, that nonsense had to stop. in what’s purley my opinion (and 100% not fair for me to say, but i don’t care) he even looks like a tool. so i wouldn’t doubt if he really did tweet all that and they are just trying to put a gag on the fool.
 
A tangential observation: Twitter is basically like text messaging (including the limit on number of characthers that used to exist with SMS) only you're doing it either a) to everyone willing to read it or b) to a specific person but for everyone else to see. Used correctly it can be a distilled and powerful form of communication (point in case is Elon's tweets) but in many cases it just makes me think either "just because a thought exists inside your own mind at a particular moment doesn't mean that it is of value to anyone else" or "why would the world be interested in your personal communication?".
 
You really, really can't. You'd have to have a lender who was willing to accept not getting their shares back, which means the lender has to be someone who is planning to get cashed out at $420. That's the thing about a deal where a large number of the shareholders are holding onto their shares....

We're not going to find out how many shareholders will be able to hang on during the transition to a private company for a while. We won't find out how many will *choose* to hang on until after that. If it's too many (see the math below), the short-sellers are in awful trouble. It probably won't be that many.

However, think about this: most of the lenders of shares are large institutions which are quite capable of holding and carrying private equity. All the borrowing is going to have to come from institutions which are capable of holding private TSLA stock and choose not to. Where's the supply of shares to lend going to COME from?

I expect an orderly exit; it's possible that the short-sellers who hang out until the bitter end of the go-private deal will borrow from an institution which plans to cash out all its shares merger-arbitrage style. But that institution has a strong incentive to demand more than $420 from the short-seller.


Hilarious.


I think there's not going to be a squeeze. But it's math. If 75% of the stockholders who aren't Musk, Saudi, or Tencent decide to stay on in the private company, *and* are able to do so, then there will be a squeeze. I think that's a bit too high to be likely.

If the deal falls through for whatever reason -- and I think it's unlikely since Musk is hell-bent on going private and has a lot of potential sources of funding -- the clear profits will definitely have some positive impact on the stock price, though the *insane disinformation campaign* seems to be neverending.

It's looking to me like Bailie Gifford can stay in and like they want to stay in.

This makes the math:
170.59 million shares outstanding
33.74 million shares fabricated by short-sellers
97.81 million shares held by institutions
(including 13.17 million held by Bailie Gifford)
33.74 million shares held by Elon Musk
roughly 1.7 million shares held by other insiders
8.17 million shares held by Tencent
Between 5.11 and 8.52 million shares held by Saudis, but call it 5.11

So, 57.80 million shares held by miscellaneous non-institutions (including us).

So miscellaneous non-institutions plus institutions which aren't Bailie Gifford (hereafter referred to as "miscellaneous stockholders") amount to 142.44 million shares. Of those, short-sellers will have to redeem 33.74. The remainder is 108.70 million shares. If all of them want out (which is ridiculous), it'll cost $45.65 billion dollars.

If half of the miscellaneous stockholders want out, that's 71.22 million shares, of which the short-sellers have to redeem 33.74, leaving 37.48 million for the go-private consortium to buy back; that's $15.7 billion.

If as Musk guesses "2/3" of all stockholders stay on, that means 1/3 * (170.59 + 33.74) = 68.11 million shares want out. This is surprisingly close to half of miscellaneous stockholders; the short-sellers have to redeem 33.74, leaving 34.37 million shares or $14.4 billion.

If only 25% of miscellaneous stockholders want out, that's 35.61 million shares; after the short-sellers redeem their shares, that's 1.87 million shares, or $785.4 million! This seems unduly low, though.

So there's your likely range of costs: $1 billion to $45.65 billion. Guessing $20-$25 billion seems eminently reasonable, though that may be on the high side.

-----

Despite the fact that it would seem to make sense to wait for the buyout at $420, I suspect a bunch of "weak longs" are bailing out now (perhaps because they don't trust Musk). This is probably something which makes Musk happy as he doesn't like to have traders who aren't committed in his stock.

But the *side effect* is that the new owners buying now are more and more likely to be owners who want to keep their shares through the go-private process. If they actually can keep their shares through this, this effect is continuously reducing the amount the go-private deal will cost. (As well as increasing the chances of the yes vote.)

The other sort of new owner who might be buying, of course, is merger arb traders who would want out. But I don't think that's particularly likely to be a large percentage of new buyers because most merger arb traders do very shallow research and bet on a lot of merger arbs, so they're likely to believe the FUD and not think the deal will go through. Only the sort who researches individual deals and makes big bets on them would be going in.

---
To be clear, I think Musk is hell-bent on going private and will do it if it is at all possible. If this means some of us are forced out, he'll do it (though he'd like to minimize that and has good reason to minimize that). If this means a higher deal price, he'll do it if he can line up the money. If it means a lower deal price, he'll do it. If it means borrowing money against his SpaceX stock, he'll do it. He is clearly stressed out and completely sick of the disinformation campaign, the short-sellers, the market manipulation, the lot of it. And I can't blame him at all.
MODS: how do you "pin" a post so it doesn't get "lost" in these ~28,000 posts?
 
A lot of speculation here but people get caught up in detail and forget a critical moment.

Musk is one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the century. When you start and sell successful companies of that caliber; fly the world in a swanky G650ER; meet the world's richest and famous celebrities, politicians, presidents of states and other businessmen; YOUR HANDSHAKE BECOMES YOUR CONTRACT. Your legal staff takes care of formalities afterwards.

Musk would never throw SA's Wealth Fund director under the bus unless they had shaken hands. It's 100% a minority stake but we all know that Tesla only needs about $20B. Musk can leverage his own wealth (again) to finance the rest. That's his thinking process. I suspect if he had a do-over with the tweet, he'd word it differently but it is what it is.

Tesla is going private and suits are on it as we speak. Goldman (Saudi side) and Silver Lake (Valley side) are still the best at it. Buy your TSLA now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.