The irony of this post.
The alternative is that the company as a whole referred to a hero as a pedophile simply because he lived in Thailand.Wut
If thats true it makes the tone deaf PR statements after deaths even more ridiculous. Holy shit.
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.
That would actually be really nice if the funding was secured in our hearts the whole time!Maybe the real funding secured was the friends we made along the way.
Maybe the real funding secured was the friends we made along the way.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. STOP.
It wasn't market manipulation because the trades were real legit trades for a position he wanted to hold. All that giant block quote says is "affecting the market price is not sufficient to be guilty of market manipulation". That is ALL IT SAYS.
A company tried to sue a short position because he was hurting their stock price and they felt that wasn't ok because they like their stock price to be higher. The court said "that is not how this works", short positions are legal so long as they are legitimate trades designed for the economic benefit of the trader.
That is all that quote says. That's it. It doesn't say if you FEEL IT IN YOUR HEART TO BE TRUE ITS LEGAL!
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.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.
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.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/the...-tesla-deal-after-ceo-reveals-saudi-link.htmlAfter reading Musk's Monday post, former SEC commissioner Joseph Grundfest concluded the chances of regulators taking action against Musk are now "quite high."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...dvising-on-taking-tesla-private-idUSKBN1KY1HJBut a source said Silver Lake was offering its assistance to Musk without compensation and had not been hired as a financial adviser in an official capacity. Moreover, Silver Lake is not currently discussing participating in the deal as an investor, the source said. Silver Lake declined to comment.
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...
But three people familiar with the workings of the Saudi fund cast doubt on his account. They said the fund had taken none of the steps that such an ambitious transaction would entail, like preparing a term sheet or hiring a financial adviser to work on the deal.
And even if the fund were ready to move forward with such an agreement, it would invite review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the government body that reviews the national-security implications of such transactions.
A spokesman for the Saudi investment fund declined to comment.
More through the link.Two people familiar with the chain of events said that in a conversation with an informal adviser about the mess he had gotten himself into, Mr. Musk said he had taken to Twitter impulsively. He said he had done so because he was not the kind of person who could hold things in, and was angry at the company's critics.
A person with direct knowledge of the Tesla board's thinking said some members of the board had been totally blindsided by Mr. Musk's decision to air his plan on Twitter.
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
I'd say none of those things are pertinent, but rather what is happening here is a strong demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Hands up who works in law or regulation? Given the language of some of these replies I'm quite curious TBH.
How is this related news if Fidelity reduced its holdings before this all went down?
And how exactly would that be related to privatizing Tesla, again?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.
Sure doesn't sound like funding has already been secured at $420 (dude weed lmao)Special committee has been formed.
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/n...ormation-special-committee-evaluate-potential
How do you evaluate investors after funding is secured?Special committee has been formed.
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/n...ormation-special-committee-evaluate-potential
Special committee has been formed.
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/n...ormation-special-committee-evaluate-potential
special committee has not yet received a formal proposal from Mr. Musk regarding any Going Private Transaction nor has it reached any conclusion as to the advisability or feasibility of such a transaction.
Well, how does a 9 figure settlement with short positions help out with cashflow?
That did not stop him in a public company.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.
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.
So Musk and Tesla are just straight up admitting there was no funding secured?
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.Well... not "secured" in the way most (if not all) people with exposure to financial markets would understand it...
So Musk and Tesla are just straight up admitting there was no funding secured?
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.
That's going to happen with or without Tesla.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.
Because all that energy to charge Teslas come from the sun or windmills