-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Elon Musk tweets that he is considering taking Tesla private. Update: Trading halted.
- Thread starter Thisman
- Start date
The alternative is that the company as a whole referred to a hero as a pedophile simply because he lived in Thailand.
With Musk's child-like outbursts and unstable posting habits there's tons of losses either individually or as a company.
The comment I replied to was specifically about the company, ie Tesla, outlets.
That would actually be really nice if the funding was secured in our hearts the whole time!
The beauty here is that even if there is no SEC action there will almost certainly be lawsuits. And then we can see if those plaintiffs prevail, and why. If everything that Musk put in his blog is true and he still losses the lawsuits, it's clear I was wrong in my interpretation. That's straight forward. If Musk lied and he loses, we all agree there. He should lose. If he wins we'll have to evaluate why. Settlements would be the least satisfying to everyone but even then we would have the benefit of a lot of expert commentary on whatever the case looked like up to that point. I'm sure we could still draw some conclusions even then.
Just to be clear I'm not arguing just to be contrary and I don't own a Tesla or any Tesla stock. I'm not motivated by anything other than my own opinion. I see and saw reactions here that I think are exaggerated or just wrong and too infrequently met with push-back or too frequently met with uncritical assent. One or the other by itself isn't really interesting but when both of those are true I generally engage.
So we'll just see how it ends, ok?
Just to be clear I'm not arguing just to be contrary and I don't own a Tesla or any Tesla stock. I'm not motivated by anything other than my own opinion. I see and saw reactions here that I think are exaggerated or just wrong and too infrequently met with push-back or too frequently met with uncritical assent. One or the other by itself isn't really interesting but when both of those are true I generally engage.
So we'll just see how it ends, ok?
I think we've had enough back-and-forth on this side conversation of "fraud" and "manipulation". Let's get back to talking about Elon Musk's tweet and the implications of taking the company private. Thank you.
If the meeting on July 31st happened. Why didn't Elon discuss this when Tesla released results on August 1st during the conference call or results ? Why did he wait and tweet during market hours and especially with the stock not halted. You would think a material statement like that would cause the stock to be halted pending news etc .?
Cocaine...
Definitely him attempting to trigger a short squeeze.
If you were trying to go private you would never try to inflate the price before you bought it...
Definitely him attempting to trigger a short squeeze.
If you were trying to go private you would never try to inflate the price before you bought it...
Goddamn man, I can feel your pain through the monitor as I read your posts, lol.
Thanks for your explanation, btw, you clearly know what you're talking about, your willingness to engage in spite of the necessity of breaking through a thick brick wall is immense.
To clarify, are you asking us to no longer discuss whether securities fraud or market manipulation was committed at all, or just that this "belief" derail end, where someone has pulled up an irrelevant example and someone else with clear domain knowledge has been trying to correct them.
Whether securities fraud and/or market manipulation occurred seem like a pretty relevant discussion to the tweets themselves and their content, given multiple class action lawsuits initiated, an ongoing SEC inquiry, and former SEC regulators making comments in the news? Even if one poster has created a derail.
Buy some popcorn. Either way the stock swings it'll be a clown show.
The "fraud" and "manipulation", in quotes, refer to those subjects in the context of the back-and-forth side conversation. The mod post is not limiting the subject or the OP, but calling for that particular back and forth to come to an end. You can use the reporting system if you encounter any subsequent issues.
Thanks for the clarification.
In relation to that then:
Also lol.
In relation to that then:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/the...-tesla-deal-after-ceo-reveals-saudi-link.html
Also lol.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...dvising-on-taking-tesla-private-idUSKBN1KY1HJ
Some good coverage coming from the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-saudi-arabia.html
On Saudi Arabia.
On the thought process or lack thereof behind the tweet disclosures. And Board knowledge.
Also in related news one of Tesla's largest institutional holders, Fidelity, quietly reduced its holdings by 20% or roughly $1 billion worth.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-stake-last-quarter-sec-filing-idUSKBN1KY2AI
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-saudi-arabia.html
On Saudi Arabia.
On the thought process or lack thereof behind the tweet disclosures. And Board knowledge.
More through the link.
Also in related news one of Tesla's largest institutional holders, Fidelity, quietly reduced its holdings by 20% or roughly $1 billion worth.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-stake-last-quarter-sec-filing-idUSKBN1KY2AI
How is this related news if Fidelity reduced its holdings before this all went down?
It's related to the broader story of Tesla supposedly going private? And the concoction wherein less capital is needed because existing owners would not sell out and follow into an illiquid private firm.
13F disclosures don't need to be filed until I think 45 days after end of quarter. So there's no way to tell exactly what large institutions hold right now (edit: I guess you could try and piece it together from different fund monthly reports). But a 21% reduction in a quarter is sizeable.
Even with that reduction Fidelity are still one of the largest institutional holders. So their remaining 7% or so would be important in any plan to roll into a private entity. And a large reduction in their stake in the liquid asset shouldn't provide confidence they would.
This all under the premise that they even could.
13F disclosures don't need to be filed until I think 45 days after end of quarter. So there's no way to tell exactly what large institutions hold right now (edit: I guess you could try and piece it together from different fund monthly reports). But a 21% reduction in a quarter is sizeable.
Even with that reduction Fidelity are still one of the largest institutional holders. So their remaining 7% or so would be important in any plan to roll into a private entity. And a large reduction in their stake in the liquid asset shouldn't provide confidence they would.
This all under the premise that they even could.
Last edited:
That's the same impression I was getting, the last pages of the thread have been really bizarre. The explanations given by Stooge have been great, I have learned a lot. Your posts were really informative, you have the patience of a saint.
I work in the industry and gave up on Harvey pages ago. I swear he may actually be Elon trying to grasp for straws.
His willingness to ignore the fact he knows nothing is absolutely amazing. The George gif is perfect.
They reduced because they didn't believe Tesla does have growth left in their stock. Part of that is due to having a mentally unstable CEO.
And how exactly would that be related to privatizing Tesla, again?
That transaction was finalized before this whole shebang even started.
If anything you could say they missed out on a ton of money because they sold before the stock price surged.
If there were any talks about going private they would've included the biggest shareholders as those are the ones that need to agree to such a thing. So if they sold, chances are pretty slim that they were aware of taking the company private. It was just Musk being Musk and trying to get back at one party without really thinking about the consequences.
Wouldn't that inevitably lead to illegal tradings based on insider information?
Insider trading is buying or selling (or making others buy or sell) because of insider information. Just talking about going private would be ok as long as they don't buy or sell afterwards. But in this case they sold without talking, otherwise they would not have sold.
Special committee has been formed.
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/n...ormation-special-committee-evaluate-potential
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/n...ormation-special-committee-evaluate-potential
Sure doesn't sound like funding has already been secured at $420 (dude weed lmao)
How do you evaluate investors after funding is secured?
:thinking.emoji:
This is going to end very poorly for them. I mean, they may now actually take the company private, but that doesn't retroactively correct the issues with the tweets.
Uh, that doesn't sound great for Mr. Musk. This feels like they are trying to pivot and claim that his tweet was as a potential investor in a going-private transaction and not as the CEO announcing a deal. I have no idea how you can wear those two hats without a shitload of disclosure. And now they are a week after the fact putting together a committee to evaluate a purchase offer that was made via Twitter by your CEO? A purchase offer that allows retail investors to remain shareholders in some magic world in which that is allowed?
This is super fucking weird.
The most plausible scenario is: Elon Musk was mad at his detractors, mad at the shorts, mad that the stock price was lower than he thought it should be. Probably had some pie in the sky plans to take it private that were not fully formed and then took to Twitter to prove his detractors wrong and "show them." Then he started talking about things he didn't understand (retail investors remaining shareholders in a private transaction) and attempting to reverse-engineer funding sources for a potential sale and the last 5 days has been some kind of Kabuki theater where the board and CEO of a publicly traded company are attempting to retroactively explain behavior that was extremely problematic away with some really odd statements that don't hold up under any form of scrutiny. And only now are they attempting to begin the process of taking the company private in order to further prove that the tweet was not a complete fabrication and/or they've hit a point where they almost need to go private.
Last edited:
Well, how does a 9 figure settlement with short positions help out with cashflow?
Based on various statements in Musk threads here:
It actually does in ways a mere human can't understand.
It won't, but I guess loads of Elon followers will be willing to give the company $20 for every share they own every year. They would even wipe him if he asked. BTW going private should make it easier for Musk to sell off profitable parts of the company to himself and his partners while leaving old Tesla with the debt.
Taking a company private makes sense if you expect a much higher market value down the road. Tesla wants to go private at a market cap of 71 billion. A company that has never made a profit. You know Volkswagen? They are kind of the biggest car manufacturer in the world, with yearly profits of around 15 billion. They have a market cap of 100 billion. Taking Tesla private is ridiculous.
Hmmm... so do I believe the comments of two well-reasoned posters with past experience in securities, or the poster trapped in the Elon Musk reality distortion field?
Thank you, Stooge and Gamechanger, for your very insightful commentary about Musk and the potential fallout from his reckless tweeting - the last thing a company like Tesla needs at the moment is a shareholder lawsuit draining away what little money they still have. I'm not a huge fan of Musk and his giant ego, but I'd really like Tesla to survive since their technology is so good and quality electric cars are essential going forward if we ever hope to address issues of climate change.
Thank you, Stooge and Gamechanger, for your very insightful commentary about Musk and the potential fallout from his reckless tweeting - the last thing a company like Tesla needs at the moment is a shareholder lawsuit draining away what little money they still have. I'm not a huge fan of Musk and his giant ego, but I'd really like Tesla to survive since their technology is so good and quality electric cars are essential going forward if we ever hope to address issues of climate change.
Re: the bold bits
- There are specific debt covenants in place to prevent that sort of asset hive down... so as long as Tesla has debt, this is highly unlikely
- Taking a company private makes sense... if it is cash generative (which Tesla most definitely isn't) as you will require enormous amount of debt to finance its take-private acquisition, unless Saudis just give him a blank equity cheque (again, unlikely)
EDIT: For the record, taking TSLA private doesn't make any sense to me. The only argument for it is the lack of scrutiny from Wall Street/investors/media, but it's a weak one. Tesla has greatly benefited from being a public company.
Last edited:
Well... not "secured" in the way most (if not all) people with exposure to financial markets would understand it...
Or in the way a layman would understand it. Secured, to someone who has minimal exposure to this, means obtained/guaranteed. Sounds like funding was more "mentioned" or maybe even "discussed" rather than secured.
Why dig even deeper if you are sitting in your hole already?
Assuming he is successful (which he wont' be), I assume he will end up with publicly traded bonds and retain reporting requirements anyway. What is what makes all of this make less sense.
The most stupid thing is that the stock price was already soaring when the Saudis disclosed they had reach 5% of the shares.
Stooge Great insight. I used to work in the compliance department (in Spain) of a mutual fund and i still miss it. There are remarkable similarities between US and Spanish legislation in this matter. One question, if found guilty of MM, could he be declared unfit to serve a CEO of a public company?
Even if all the energy came from power plants, it is so much efficient to produce it there than in the engine of a car. It would drastically decrease fosil fuel use and CO2 emissions.
Stooge Great insight. I used to work in the compliance department (in Spain) of a mutual fund and i still miss it. There are remarkable similarities between US and Spanish legislation in this matter. One question, if found guilty of MM, could he be declared unfit to serve a CEO of a public company?
Even if all the energy came from power plants, it is so much efficient to produce it there than in the engine of a car. It would drastically decrease fosil fuel use and CO2 emissions.
Last edited: