odysseus2000 wrote:There are a substantial number of posters on social media who claim that Musk has acted illegally, but SEC aren't saying so.
Others say Musk hasn't got the money which is a dangerous belief, especially if a good % of the holders take the private stock.
It doesn't matter how many people may or may not take up the offer.
If the claim of 'funding secured' isn't strictly true, that is when it gets potentially dangerous.
Funding isn't 'secure' if there aren't firm commitments to cover the entire shares in case that were necessary - it isn't 'secure' if it couldn't cover all potential scenarios.
I suspect the reason of few of us are cautious is Musk's recent background.... it wasn't long ago he got a bit too trigger happy, publicly calling someone he was getting annoyed with a 'pedo' without any grounds at all.
We all know how much Musk is being irritated by shorters... and he knows full well how much a spike in share price would hurt the shorters.
A few of us therefore aren't completely discounting the possibility he could have perhaps got a little over reactive again, and perhaps could similarly be being rather 'loose' in his claims.
From various articles I've read, it's fairly normal when funding is secured apparently for it to be lodged somehow with one or more institutions, etc.
Now, of course, that isn't the only way so this isn't conclusive and he may genuinely have secured funding elsewhere by other means, but so far, from what I've read there doesn't seem to be any hint - beyond Musk's tweet - of such secured funding in the normal places / channels.
Securing funding for such large amounts, would, one might expect, involved substantial work by lawyers and accountants to ensure it's all legally water tight.
You'd think as part of that process, a proper, official stock market notification would be par for the course, carefully worded, after being reviewed by the lawyers.
It may be that he genuinely does have secured funding.
But the SEC aren't going to say it's not true without some form of proper formal investigation. So it isn't any surprise that they aren't currently saying he's done anything illegal. They follow proper process and would need to properly see all the accounts, contracts, etc, to establish whether the funding really is secured or not before they would make any judgement. And that will take a long time.
If he does have secured funding, then he's nothing to worry about... the regulators have already said a tweeting in itself isn't a problem - as long as the information is properly true and accurate.