I mean what does funding really mean?
Furthermore, what does "mean" really mean?
Makes you think.
-
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
I mean what does funding really mean?
Furthermore, what does "mean" really mean?
Makes you think.
Hands up who works in law or regulation? Given the language of some of these replies I'm quite curious TBH.
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!
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!
we have a couple of posters here who actually have work experience in regulation being told they dont know what they are talking about by other posters.
I wish we had a thisisneogaf.gif equivalent real bad right now.
....
That someone was found to be trading on legitimate grounds and thus not acting in a manipulative manner =/= one can make material statements that are misleading while knowingly and intentionally omitting additional material information, with knowledge that this information as presented will affect the security's price as long as they believe in their heart of hearts that something will happen at some point.
These are not the same thing.
That someone was found to be trading on legitimate grounds and thus not acting in a manipulative manner =/= one can make material statements that are misleading while knowingly and intentionally omitting additional material information, with knowledge that this information as presented will affect the security's price as long as they believe in their heart of hearts that something will happen at some point.
These are not the same thing.
That's not what the article says. It clearly says the claim of injecting inaccurate information into the market was not a true statement given the defendant believed the price was too high. His actions to short were motivated by a real belief. I have no idea how you can read the paragraph any other way. It's very clearly stated.
My client witnessed the painted anarchist clown set alight a large pile of money and proclaim "everything burns", and had a reasonable belief that the ensuing conflagration would consume the audience of the crowded theatre, and thus acted in good faith.
Here's the entire paragraph for you all to read:
"Several courts addressing alleged market manipulations under Rule 10b-5 have reinforced the idea that manipulation claims require some inherently deceptive conduct. The Northern District of Illinois stated in In re Olympia Brewing Co. Sec. Litigation that "[r]egardless of whether market manipulation is achieved through deceptive trading activities or deceptive statements as to the issuing corporation's value, it is clear that the essential element of the claim is that inaccurate information is being injected into the marketplace." The deceptive trading practices alleged by the plaintiffs in Olympia Brewing included naked short selling, the taking of substantial short positions, and concerted end of day trading allegedly designed to lower the market price. In that case, the court held that the defendant's aggressive short sales were not manipulative under Rule 10b-5, because they did not inject artificial information into the marketplace. The court reached that conclusion not on the basis that aggressive short sales cannot be manipulative, but rather that in this case the defendant acted on his genuine belief that the shares were overpriced, and that any resulting decline in the market price was a natural and appropriate result. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, although Olympia Brewing has been cited for the above propositions, its extension to other scenarios may be inappropriate because here the defendant engaged in no other transactions at all; the defendant argued that he sold the stock short because he believed it was overpriced, and there was no evidence to suggest any other motive, nor did the price-moving short sales benefit any other positions. Thus, citing Olympia Brewing for the proposition that short sales cannot be manipulative in themselves is inapposite."
Unless English is not your first language this is very clearly stating that the information injected into the market was not deceptive because the defendant believed the price was too low and therefore was not guilty of manipulation.
"Several courts addressing alleged market manipulations under Rule 10b-5 have reinforced the idea that manipulation claims require some inherently deceptive conduct. The Northern District of Illinois stated in In re Olympia Brewing Co. Sec. Litigation that "[r]egardless of whether market manipulation is achieved through deceptive trading activities or deceptive statements as to the issuing corporation's value, it is clear that the essential element of the claim is that inaccurate information is being injected into the marketplace." The deceptive trading practices alleged by the plaintiffs in Olympia Brewing included naked short selling, the taking of substantial short positions, and concerted end of day trading allegedly designed to lower the market price. In that case, the court held that the defendant's aggressive short sales were not manipulative under Rule 10b-5, because they did not inject artificial information into the marketplace. The court reached that conclusion not on the basis that aggressive short sales cannot be manipulative, but rather that in this case the defendant acted on his genuine belief that the shares were overpriced, and that any resulting decline in the market price was a natural and appropriate result. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, although Olympia Brewing has been cited for the above propositions, its extension to other scenarios may be inappropriate because here the defendant engaged in no other transactions at all; the defendant argued that he sold the stock short because he believed it was overpriced, and there was no evidence to suggest any other motive, nor did the price-moving short sales benefit any other positions. Thus, citing Olympia Brewing for the proposition that short sales cannot be manipulative in themselves is inapposite."
Unless English is not your first language this is very clearly stating that the information injected into the market was not deceptive because the defendant believed the price was too low and therefore was not guilty of manipulation.
That article is going to work, just keep trying it.
Have you considered forwarding to Muks's lawyers, or do you think they might have google too?
Have you considered forwarding to Muks's lawyers, or do you think they might have google too?
Taking this and applying it to official communication by the head of a corporation isn't even reaching, it's just stupid.
It's not confusion over the English. It's confusion over a poster desperately wielding the only result of his even more desperate googling as an impenetrable shield against rational analysis.
Is English your first language? Because that isn't what it says AT ALL.
It was not deceptive because the trades were REAL TRADES. That's it! That's it! That's all there is! I'm very sorry the word believe was in that block of text and that you found it, because now you think that belief is a legal defense for making materially deficient statements and god knows what else.
I have no Tesla stock but for years I've kept an eye on it for the LOLS. I knew it would be casual popular and active because of how much press and attention EVs were going to get. Plenty of overhype and fanboys making the stock roller coaster. Day traders love stock like this because of the activity. Buy, sell, and short, over and over again. The same thing happened with solar stock, and now it's happening with marijuana stock. Whatever is hot and trending gets overvalued and fluctuates like crazy.
When you've got a crazy like Musk manipulating that roller coaster, it's even better.
That's simply not what it says. You're literally denying what is right in front of your own eyes.
If he "acted on his genuine belief that the shares were overpriced" and injected artificial information into the marketplace, then he would be guilty of manipulation.
If he "acted on his genuine belief that the shares were overpriced" and DID NOT inject artificial information into the marketplace, then he would be innocent of manipulation
So in these two cases, the dependent variable is whether they injected or did not inject artificial information, not whether they had a "genuine belief."
That's how I read it.
Maybe the Bayer CEO should tweet: "Cure for cancer! Going to merge with Pfizer next week." during the trading day to reverse their recent declines.
It will probably be fine since he just needs to believe.
It will probably be fine since he just needs to believe.
I don't think this is very complicated. The point of making trades is that you believe something about the future price of a stock and you're putting your money where your mouth is. For a trade, it is a defense against a charge of market manipulation that you were taking a position you expected to profit from because of the price moving in the direction you bet on.
But tweets are not trades. The point of tweets is to say something to other people. It is certainly not a defense against a charge of market manipulation that you expected to profit from the stock's price moving because of the thing you said. That is actually a confession!
It's a real goddamn shame that Musk did this when he said funding was secured at $420, isn't it?
Your quote works against your argument. Emphasis mine
Last edited:
No. The argument was that the short sales were injecting false information into the market. The court did not say they didn't inject information, in fact they said the information being injected was helpful because it was accurate. The reason it wasn't manipulation is because the information wasn't intentionally deceptive.
This the most fascinatingly bizarre continuation, endless continuation, of someone standing their uninformed ground I have ever seen.
I have to applaud @Stooge's unceasing politeness in this whole endeavor.
I have to applaud @Stooge's unceasing politeness in this whole endeavor.
Setting aside this piece of dumb pedantry for a moment, another fun and ludicrous part of this is Elon Musk now says that his tweets and blog posts on the company website are and have always been him acting alone and separate from being the CEO and Chair of the Board.
Lol.
Lol.
Actually in this instance trades are treated as information being released. For the same reason deceptive information being released can be manipulation, so can short selling if done with the intent to deceive. That was the argument of the plaintiff in that case. But the court ruled that the information wasn't deceptive.
I've seen people argue incorrect mathematical claims to mathematicians for a long period of time despite being (provably) incorrect. I don't think I saw this thread going a similar direction. I definitely have to be appreciative of Stooge's patience and enlightening posts, even if made to somebody who clearly won't budge from an uninformed position.
I still can't believe you guys endured going in circles with a member of a group of people who, even after musk has called a literal national hero a paedophile and donated to the GOP, believe that musk can do no wrong.
I certainly couldn't have done it. You have earned my respect.
I'd say none of those things are pertinent, but rather what is happening here is a strong demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I still can't believe you guys endured going in circles with a member of a group of people who, even after musk has called a literal national hero a paedophile and donated to the GOP, believe that musk can do no wrong.
I certainly couldn't have done it. You have earned my respect.
Stooge, maybe Elon Musk meant that the funding would be secured by the assets of the company. Like a leveraged loan or something. Not that the funding was committed. But secured! Maybe that's it! Yes, that's it! You are owned! You are owned!!!!
I mean, everyone in finance uses words like "committed financing" and "bridge loan" and "saboteur" and "these questions are so boring" interchangeably, you could see how professional investor Elon Musk could get mixed up.
I mean, everyone in finance uses words like "committed financing" and "bridge loan" and "saboteur" and "these questions are so boring" interchangeably, you could see how professional investor Elon Musk could get mixed up.
probably, but I'd rather continue to believe that he's paid for this insanity, rather than being... insane
Maybe the funds would be delivered in a Brinks truck? Like a secured delivery? That's the ticket!
Insane to me that Tesla stock price remains up on all this shite. Guess people dont care. There will be law syits from those who bought expecting "funding secured" on top of those shorts though.
Did you mean to write this in your diary and accidentally post it?
According to KHarvey, if the Bayer CEO talked to some rich guys, he'd be in the clear!
Wut
If thats true it makes the tone deaf PR statements after deaths even more ridiculous. Holy shit.