Musk endeavours

[odysseus2000]

It is a very dangerous game to my way of thinking but it does also undermine the argument that Musk has burned shorts.

It is Musk's intent, not his achievement which would be relevant.

So if some shorts have lost money, others have made money, does that imply that the tweet was misleading?

To me it suggests there were smart shorts and less smart ones and that is no bases for legal action.

As things are now it looks impossible to me for anyone to argue that Musk's tweet was market manipulation, much easier to argue that it was simply one investor in Tesla putting forward a position he was considering to give the maximum possible number of market participants a heads up. The argument tha t stating funding is in place was manipulation looks impossibly weak as a grounds for action imho given the nature of how big deals are done over the phone with the back office stuff happening later as per the direction of the big folk making the deals. One does not in these kind of deals get involved in the paper work until all the major players are satisfied and have come to a decision.

Regards,

[GoSeigen]

The way I read this is that the situation is unclear. I have a certain amount of knowledge of UK investment law and regulation, but I don't know where the US situation differs. He clearly had a basis upon which he could make some claim. It was not, however, a prospectus or anything as substantial as that.

You're talking about the claim that funding was secured?

You don't expect posters to waste time giving context to their posts surely?


GS

[johnhemming]

You're talking about the claim that funding was secured?

Yes and the question then arises as to what capacity he was making such a claim, was it a reasonable claim to make, what happens if they in fact confirm they are in a position to do this, is it arguable that his motive was market manipulation or simply making an announcement of an expression of interest.

I don't think there is necessarily legal certainty as to what the situation is.

[PeterGray]

If it was a company tweet then it would have been the board and material.

As a private shareholder anyone can say anything, but with out the board and then a shareholder vote it means nothing.

You're kidding, right?

Musk is CEO and main spokesman. Of course if he tweets - "I'm going to take this private and I've sorted the funding" it's got to be seen as a meaning what it says.

And even any private shareholder (let alone the CEO) cannot say "anything" without potentially running foul of the regulators. Stopping market manipulation is an important, and essential, activity. And this looks uncomfortably like it. Yes Musk will say - "Oh you've misunderstood, I was just saying what I thought". And it might even be true, and he might get away with it as far as the SEC are concerned. But it's one more nail in the coffin of Musk having any credibility for running a large company like Tesla, and a big one.

You can see why he is keen to take it private. He can't possibly last long as CEO if it stays public now.

Peter

[BobbyD]

I don't think there is necessarily legal certainty as to what the situation is.

I don't think there is final certainty on any aspect of this, that's what courts and findings are for, but I don't think Musk has put himself in a great position.

I guess the big question is was the claim technically true, given an accepted definition of 'secured' under American law?

I don't really see the issue of what capacity he was acting in as relevant to anything other than who ends up picking up the bill. You don't have to be an insider to manipulate the market.

The very best case scenario is Musk has needlessly involved himself in more public controversy and law suits because thinking about how and when to release information is for boring boneheads.

Speaking of law suits

Travis Lenkner, managing partner at Keller Lenkner, discusses the class-action lawsuit brought by Tesla Inc. shareholders who purchased stock in the wake of Elon Musk's tweet on potentially taking the company private. He speaks with Bloomberg's David Westin on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas." (Source: Bloomberg)

- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... math-video

So if some shorts have lost money, others have made money, does that imply that the tweet was misleading?

The quote either was or wasn't misleading. The decisions people made on the back of it or whether they made or lost money on those decisions have absolutely no relevance to the question of the tweets truthfulness.

[odysseus2000]

If it was a company tweet then it would have been the board and material.

As a private shareholder anyone can say anything, but with out the board and then a shareholder vote it means nothing.

You're kidding, right?

Musk is CEO and main spokesman. Of course if he tweets - "I'm going to take this private and I've sorted the funding" it's got to be seen as a meaning what it says.

And even any private shareholder (let alone the CEO) cannot say "anything" without potentially running foul of the regulators. Stopping market manipulation is an important, and essential, activity. And this looks uncomfortably like it. Yes Musk will say - "Oh you've misunderstood, I was just saying what I thought". And it might even be true, and he might get away with it as far as the SEC are concerned. But it's one more nail in the coffin of Musk having any credibility for running a large company like Tesla, and a big one.

You can see why he is keen to take it private. He can't possibly last long as CEO if it stays public now.

Peter

You are making a mistake re the CEO who runs the company and makes executive decisions and the shareholders who own the company.

If this statement was coming from the board there would have to be an 8K, but none has been issued.

A CEO who owns less than 50% of a company can not do anything regarding the structure and ownership of the business, which Musk noted in other tweets where he said it all depends on shareholder votes.

Any market participant should be aware of this and if not they can not be considered competent to invest money.

More importantly you under-estimate the value of Musk. Had the board called the Saudi fund they would have likely refused to discuss anything with them. The Saudi's want Tesla with Musk, if he was replaced the equity would imho be worth a tiny fraction of its current valuation.

A private Tesla with Musk unleashed is a desirable thing to own which is why the Saudi's are prepared to pay billions for what ever shares they can get. If they were at all bothered by Musk they would not want to hold shares in the business.

As I have typed many times, IMHO Musk is not your average person just like Ford, Edison IMHO were not. The Saudi fund wants Musk more than they want Tesla because they see in him someone who can change the world and make them a lot of money.

Many people will disagree with this thesis which is fine. I have spent a long time studying entrepreneurs and in my view all the contemporaries of the entrepreneur didn't get why this one person was so important and made so much and at the same time why they were so unimportant and made so little. People do not like to admit to stars in business, yet do so in sport, music, film, theatre, writing etc.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
The quote either was or wasn't misleading. The decisions people made on the back of it or whether they made or lost money on those decisions have absolutely no relevance to the question of the tweets truthfulness.

Imagine it goes to court, the lead counsel for the folk against Musk say this was clear market abuse and bring in some one who was short and hurt.

Musk counsel, bring in someone who made a lot of money shorting the announcement and ask them if Musk's tweets were market abuse. This latter person says no, that anyone who lost money short had only themselves to blame as they didn't understand the business and the law as he made a packet.

How can anyone be convicted in such circumstances?

Regards,

[BobbyD]

After listening to the interview above I found this in about 30 seconds using Google...

Interesting reading if you believe Musk was commenting in a private capacity.

8-K 1 d622890d8k.htm FORM 8-K




UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

November 5, 2013





Tesla Motors, Inc.

...

Item 8.01. Other Events.
Tesla Disclosure Channels To Disseminate Information

Tesla investors and others should note that we announce material information to the public about our company, products and services and other issues through a variety of means, including Tesla’s website, press releases, SEC filings, blogs and social media, in order to achieve broad, non-exclusionary distribution of information to the public. We encourage our investors and others to review the information we make public in the locations below as such information could be deemed to be material information. Please note that this list may be updated from time to time.

Interested in keeping up with Tesla?

For more information on Tesla and its products, please visit: teslamotors.com

For more information for Tesla investors, please visit: ir.teslamotors.com

For the latest information from Tesla, including press releases and the Tesla blog, please visit: teslamotors.com/press

For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors

- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... 890d8k.htm

[BobbyD]

BobbyD
The quote either was or wasn't misleading. The decisions people made on the back of it or whether they made or lost money on those decisions have absolutely no relevance to the question of the tweets truthfulness.

Imagine it goes to court, the lead counsel for the folk against Musk say this was clear market abuse and bring in some one who was short and hurt.

Musk counsel, bring in someone who made a lot of money shorting the announcement and ask them if Musk's tweets were market abuse. This latter person says no, that anyone who lost money short had only themselves to blame as they didn't understand the business and the law as he made a packet.

How can anyone be convicted in such circumstances?

Regards,

None of that 'evidence' is pertinent to the question of whether or not there was market manipulation.

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
None of that 'evidence' is pertinent to the question of whether or not there was market manipulation.

Have you ever been in court, or studied legal judgements?

To prove a case of manipulation you would have to have hurt parties who can clearly show that they were hurt by the actions of another in such a way that no one ordinarily skilled in their business could have avoided.

It is all well and good to quote 'o-level' definitions but the courts operate in very sophisticated ways which is why one has specialised counsel who will argue for the prosecution and the defence.

If one could settle court cases based on simple statements the entire process would be much faster and cheaper but in the real world it is complicated and expensive.

Regards,

[johnhemming]

Interesting reading if you believe Musk was commenting in a private capacity.

There are lots of capacities. Most are private of some form (ie not on behalf of the state or a mutual organisation).

[BobbyD]

It is all well and good to quote 'o-level' definitions but the courts operate in very sophisticated ways which is why one has specialised counsel who will argue for the prosecution and the defence.

So a million miles away from your simplistic description of the proceeding of the case above then?

Interesting reading if you believe Musk was commenting in a private capacity.

There are lots of capacities. Most are private of some form (ie not on behalf of the state or a mutual organisation).

...personal capacity...

[TUK020]

Buy shares in lawyers

[johnhemming]

I would not try to predict with any certainty what will happen here. It is arguable that there would be a point at which the market should be told by Musk as to the discussions that are going on. Whether that should have been him on that date via Twitter is another question.

[odysseus2000]

Musk assembles his legal advisors for taking Tesla private:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/102 ... 14368?s=20

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Interesting comments by Mark Cuban on Tesla, other high tech business & the US market.

https://youtu.be/S-TVAfRG_C0

Regards,

[Meatyfool]

I am not on expert.

Saudi's have been running toothcomb through Tesla - know that they are more than happy to invest.

Announce that due diligence still needs to be done. Those gunning for Tesla scream market abuse, shorters see more mileage to run.

Saudi's then announce that they knew due diligence would come up with no concerns, but because they have to operate within strict market guideline,s still had to go through the motions.

Shorts are rabbits in the headlights. Musk possibly squeaky clean with a huge smile.

Meatyfool..

[onthemove]

There are a substantial number of posters on social media who claim that Musk has acted illegally, but SEC aren't saying so.

They aren't saying either way, without doing more investigation first. Speaking of which...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesl ... SKBN1L01LR

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has sent subpoenas to Tesla Inc regarding Chief Executive Elon Musk’s plans to take the company private and his statement that funding was “secured,” Fox Business Network reported on Wednesday, citing sources. Subpoenas typically indicate the SEC has opened a formal investigation into a matter.[...] On Monday, lawyers told Reuters Musk’s statement indicated he had good reason to believe he had funding but seemed to have overstated its status by saying it was secured....

The article does go on to say they haven't been able to confirm yet whether it's yet a 'full blown' investigation.

[odysseus2000]

I am not sure what to believe about the various utterances.

A few days ago we had Musk saying he was working with Goldman and Silver Lake.

Almost immediately we get denials in the media from Goldman and Silver Lake.

Now we have statements that both Goldman and Silver Lake are working with Musk.

We now have statements about subpoenas. Will they vanish in a few days too?

Earlier there were statements about a sale of Tesla being refused on grounds of national security, kind of amusing given
how many folk argue that Tesla is over priced vapour ware, but...

Anyone who is making investment decision based on the media is likely getting pained, but no one seems able or willing to
stop all of this noise which I guess is good for the media selling stuff.

Most traders/investors are likely not paying attention to any of this and are making nice money on the swings which have been
large and potential sources of profit.

Regards,

[PeterGray]

I am not sure what to believe about the various utterances.

Agreed, and I'm sure you would include Musk's tweets in there too - or else why not?