-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Tesla did put him out there in the media a few times this week.
I was thinking about putting down a deposit (although, admittedly, more because I was thinking I could make a profit by selling my place in line later on than actual buying the car).
Not clear on your second point. Surely Tesla was (and is) rated B- by S&P. Or do you disagree with my opinion that B- is a pretty low rating?
Ever heard of call options? Most investors of tesla that knew that the short FUD and wide spread negative news coverage artificially held down the tesla share price, and put money into calls that would pay of handsomely once the Q3 and Q4 numbers show that the shorts spread lies and that tesla does not only have the best car with model 3 but also knows how to make them profitably.
The shorts sold calls and borrowed stock and sold it short saying 'tesla will die', the longs knew that looking at just tesla business they were wrong and bet against that with their money. One of the short-trolls on reddit even said that tesla can't win because they will just drown them in lawsuits as a strategy. Can't find it right now but remember that from a few months ago.
Now the SEC pulls this to subdue the stock price even further, playing into the shorts hands and in effect defrauding real investors for the benefit of the shorts.
Maybe it is time for a class action lawsuit from all tesla longs against the SEC and the deceptive players behind the scenes, a strong legal move in support of real investors.
Last edited:
Probably connected to para 24 of the complaint.
This drop is ridicules!
1. SEC is suing Elon for speaking up him mind which was that he did not like shorts and wanted to take tsla private to get rid of them. His idea might not have been well thought out but that was not a crime. At worst it is negligence on Elon's part and no more.
2. Even if Elon was found at fault, he might be fined - that is fine - he has enough money to cover that. I just don't see the possibility of him barred from being CEO. Trump speaks up his mind all the times and many are not well thought out neither but he is still our president. Bob Lutz speaks crazy things all the time and he is not removed from his consultancy business neither.
3. Even if we take a thousand steps back to assume that Elon had to give the CEO job to someone else (like Gates gave the job to Ballmer,) SEC can't possibly bar him from being the "Chief of Products" which would allow his to focus on products and leave the tedious job of managing logistics to someone else. Even after Gates gave the CEO job to Ballmer, he was still the most influential person in MS. As long as Elon has the respect of the people in tsla and owns 25%, he will be the one calling the shots regardless.
4. Any outcome of this case will be a few years away and by that time tsla will be dominating the auto and energy industries, and all these nuisances would become completely irrelevant.
We are at tuning point of tsla (profitable and self-funding) and this might be the last time the sp is under 300. If you have dry powder, this is excellent time to deploy it.
1. SEC is suing Elon for speaking up him mind which was that he did not like shorts and wanted to take tsla private to get rid of them. His idea might not have been well thought out but that was not a crime. At worst it is negligence on Elon's part and no more.
2. Even if Elon was found at fault, he might be fined - that is fine - he has enough money to cover that. I just don't see the possibility of him barred from being CEO. Trump speaks up his mind all the times and many are not well thought out neither but he is still our president. Bob Lutz speaks crazy things all the time and he is not removed from his consultancy business neither.
3. Even if we take a thousand steps back to assume that Elon had to give the CEO job to someone else (like Gates gave the job to Ballmer,) SEC can't possibly bar him from being the "Chief of Products" which would allow his to focus on products and leave the tedious job of managing logistics to someone else. Even after Gates gave the CEO job to Ballmer, he was still the most influential person in MS. As long as Elon has the respect of the people in tsla and owns 25%, he will be the one calling the shots regardless.
4. Any outcome of this case will be a few years away and by that time tsla will be dominating the auto and energy industries, and all these nuisances would become completely irrelevant.
We are at tuning point of tsla (profitable and self-funding) and this might be the last time the sp is under 300. If you have dry powder, this is excellent time to deploy it.
Last edited:
Dangleitus
Member
"Now the SEC pulls this to subdue the stock price even further, playing into the shorts hands and in effect defrauding real investors for the benefit of the shorts."
The SEC could care less about short sellers. What I pay for derivatives ( puts) is irrelevant to how they operate as an organization. As someone who has worked in govn't once upon a time ago, I can tell you what they do care about - reputation. The fact is they moved very quickly on this ongoing investigation. The 420 tweet appears to be fraudulent as no buyers of the company had ever existed at that point. This was plain for everyone to see.
With something in plain sight, what do you think happens to the SEC's reputation if they do nothing? Moreover, I promise you their investigation's scope will not be limited to tweets. If there is anything else, they will find it. For anyone who is long the stock, I urge you to take pause and understand that this is serious.
This, and possibly other investigations will make it difficult or impossible for tesla to raise outside capital, should they need it. The current portion of their long term debt due within a year, plus what they owe suppliers is already meaningful. Many shorts like myself always took pause understanding that a raise could happen, and that the company might turn the corner like in q3. But the pressure is really on now to sustainably produce profit and maintain a share price so as to allow conversion for march debt.
The SEC could care less about short sellers. What I pay for derivatives ( puts) is irrelevant to how they operate as an organization. As someone who has worked in govn't once upon a time ago, I can tell you what they do care about - reputation. The fact is they moved very quickly on this ongoing investigation. The 420 tweet appears to be fraudulent as no buyers of the company had ever existed at that point. This was plain for everyone to see.
With something in plain sight, what do you think happens to the SEC's reputation if they do nothing? Moreover, I promise you their investigation's scope will not be limited to tweets. If there is anything else, they will find it. For anyone who is long the stock, I urge you to take pause and understand that this is serious.
This, and possibly other investigations will make it difficult or impossible for tesla to raise outside capital, should they need it. The current portion of their long term debt due within a year, plus what they owe suppliers is already meaningful. Many shorts like myself always took pause understanding that a raise could happen, and that the company might turn the corner like in q3. But the pressure is really on now to sustainably produce profit and maintain a share price so as to allow conversion for march debt.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Hi that's not quite the way it happened on Aug 7th. TSLA went up 4.7% after the Financial Times broke word of the Saudi PIF $2B stake in TSLA (12:18 pm EDT), then gained a total of 7.2% after Elon's tweet (12:48 pm EDT), but before the SEC halted trading (2:09 pm EDT). It's only when trading resumed at 3:45 pm EDT that the SP passed 8.1%.
TSLA topped out 1 min after trading resumed at $385.54 (up 12.6% vs SP before the Financial Times story) and up $15.54 in that minute. That was almost certainly short covering. TSLA drifted down for the remainder of the session, closing at $377.00
So, the SEC does NOT get to hang the jump in TSLA on Elon. The Financial Times story initiated the run, Elon's tweet had a small effect of $7 at 12:48 after which the share price was stable to down until the SEC halted trading. It then popped for 2 min, and settled again.
So, the SEC is mostly lying.
In the SEC filing, on page 22, part II, SEC wants: "permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant from, directly or indirectly, engaging in conduct in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder"
I'm not a lawyer, but on Wikipedia, I found this informational regarding "SEC Rule 10b-5":
Language of the rule
"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
Right below it, there is this section:
To establish a claim under Rule 10b-5, plaintiffs (including the SEC) must show (i) Manipulation or Deception (through misrepresentation and/or omission); (ii) Materiality; (iii) "In Connection With" the purchase or sale of securities, and (iv) Scienter. Private plaintiffs have the additional burden of establishing (v) Standing - Purchaser/Seller Requirement; (vi) Reliance (presumed if there was an omission); (vii) Loss Causation; and (viii) Damages.
and regarding "Scienter":
Negligence is not sufficient for a claim under 10b-5; plaintiffs or prosecutors must show at least recklessness, purpose, or knowledge.
Again, I'm not a laywer and I normally dont try to play one.. but my feeling is the SEC's case hinges on the whole premise that he was intentionally being fraudulent when he tweeted the things he did. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I just dont see Elon acting fraudulently.
source: SEC Rule 10b-5 - Wikipedia
Since this quote has resurfaced, I should make it clear that I am no longer as concerned about the safety of deposits. I did some research and found that there is a statutory bankruptcy preference for customer deposits up to about $2,500.
However, nobody should rely on this without doing the research themselves and/or consulting an attorney.
bdy0627
Active Member
Let's be honest here, the SEC is not pursuing this litigation against Elon in an effort to protect Tesla shareholders. Clearly, this lawsuit has, and will, harm shareholders severely, at least in the short term. They are out to punish Elon.
part b does not require fraud. I don't have to be a lawyer to read english.
Could they not be motivated by a desire to show all officers of public companies that there are no exceptions, no matter how high profile, to the rules against intentionally and/or recklessly making material misstatements and/or omissions?
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
My response was to someone saying it was an awful quick complaint to lawsuit filing time.
I stand by my point that it doesn't take much time to ready a lawsuit when you just fill it with well known (and debunked) lies.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
Which is exactly why the complaint says, (from memory) "knowingly or willfully recklessly". They haven't *proven* that (see, Artful Dodger, I'm paying attention
). But that is their claim to address scienter.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
There would be zero political blow-back. EM has managed to anger both parties.
If Elon decides to pack and move to a more supportive country, I would support his move. Something is wrong with the U.S..
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
