Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Musk endeavours

The Big Picture Place
BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159247

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 2:47 pm

Manipulation
Manipulation is intentional conduct designed to deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the market for a security. Manipulation can involve a number of techniques to affect the supply of, or demand for, a stock. They include: spreading false or misleading information about a company; improperly limiting the number of publicly-available shares; or rigging quotes, prices or trades to create a false or deceptive picture of the demand for a security. Those who engage in manipulation are subject to various civil and criminal sanctions.


- https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answer ... ulhtm.html

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159248

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 2:51 pm

onthemove wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:F

And now to say he 'he has acted as a private shareholder' after the event, is sheer desperation. How were investors to know that!


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.

Sure folk have decided that Musk is Tesla, but it ain't the case.

Anyone who has made other assertions, and that includes most of the media and most of the social media, do not understand much about investing.

Folk who argue that Musk is Tesla will get short shrift from the regulators.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159250

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 2:54 pm

BobbyD wrote:
Manipulation
Manipulation is intentional conduct designed to deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the market for a security. Manipulation can involve a number of techniques to affect the supply of, or demand for, a stock. They include: spreading false or misleading information about a company; improperly limiting the number of publicly-available shares; or rigging quotes, prices or trades to create a false or deceptive picture of the demand for a security. Those who engage in manipulation are subject to various civil and criminal sanctions.


- https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answer ... ulhtm.html


How exactly can Musk's private tweets be considered to have been manipulations, save for the folk who don't understand how the investment business works and who have lost betting they understood the market better.

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159251

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 2:57 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:As a private shareholder anyone can say anything


You really can't.

onthemove
Lemon Pip
Posts: 91
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159253

Postby onthemove » August 13th, 2018, 3:01 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:How exactly can Musk's private tweets be considered to have been manipulations,


Quite simple...

He said he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420

Clearly that was going to move the market and burn shorts. Clearly Musk knew that.

It turns out his "Funding Secured" claim, wasn't totally accurate (understatement!)

"spreading false or misleading information about a company"


At best the "Funding Secured" might be termed "misleading".

It wasn't secured, there was no contractual obligation to provide the funds. As Musk has subsequently found, that funding is still subject to much deliberation on the part of the funders before they're anywhere near ready to make it "secure".

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159254

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 3:02 pm

BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:As a private shareholder anyone can say anything


You really can't.


So what can't you say?

If you said something that wasn't factual then sure there could be a case, but saying something factual or something you believe factual at the time has to be allowed or would violate the US constitutional right to free speech.

Sure folk don't understand that and like most of the media and social media comments, one has utterances from people greatly deluded in their belief that they understand and can predict what will happen in equity markets and that is why most active folk lose money in equities.

Regards,

onthemove
Lemon Pip
Posts: 91
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159256

Postby onthemove » August 13th, 2018, 3:07 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:So what can't you say?

If you said something that wasn't factual then sure there could be a case, but saying something factual or something you believe factual at the time has to be allowed or would violate the US constitutional right to free speech.,


Dear SEC yeh, sorry about that tweet, I really thought I had $70 BILLION dollars in secured funding, so I told the world... but hey, turns out I didn't.

No worries hey?

Only shorters got burned and they're a PITA, so no real harm done.

Call it quits?

I'm just some nobody on the internet, as if anyone would believe I'd secured $70BILLION ! More fool them.

Free speech and all that, I can say what I want, can't I?

---

Yup, let's see how this plays out

8-)

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159258

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 3:08 pm

onthemove wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:How exactly can Musk's private tweets be considered to have been manipulations,


Quite simple...

He said he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420

Clearly that was going to move the market and burn shorts. Clearly Musk knew that.

It turns out his "Funding Secured" claim, wasn't totally accurate (understatement!)

"spreading false or misleading information about a company"


At best the "Funding Secured" might be termed "misleading".

It wasn't secured, there was no contractual obligation to provide the funds. As Musk has subsequently found, that funding is still subject to much deliberation on the part of the funders before they're anywhere near ready to make it "secure".


Do you understand how transactions are made with big investors and CEO's?

Everything operates on word of mouth between the big guys till eventually there are drawn up papers.

Musk, Buffett, presidents, rich and powerful folk can in general can call up more or less anyone and they will take their call. Most of us wouldn't get past the receptionist.

If the a big fund says to anyone that they have the money and are prepared to act, then they are. That is how business at these levels is done, its not like going to your local bank and asking for a mortgage.

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159259

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 3:10 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:As a private shareholder anyone can say anything


You really can't.


So what can't you say?

If you said something that wasn't factual then sure there could be a case...



...and there you have it!

If Musk didn't have a binding agreement for the funding required to take Tesla private then that is exactly what it would appear has happened.

And could you stop impugning other people's understanding of investing, this has nothing to do with investing nous, it is a matter of law.

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159261

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 3:23 pm

BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
You really can't.


So what can't you say?

If you said something that wasn't factual then sure there could be a case...



...and there you have it!

If Musk didn't have a binding agreement for the funding required to take Tesla private then that is exactly what it would appear has happened.

And could you stop impugning other people's understanding of investing, this has nothing to do with investing nous, it is a matter of law.


Yes, it is a matter of law and most of the comments flying around at the moment also show that folk don't understand the law either.

It is all very well to have lots of folk saying the same things, each supporting the other in some view.

The question comes down to how correct is that view.

Imho Musk has done nothings that would stand up as illegal in a court, most everyone who is posting believe otherwise. Time will tell!

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159286

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 4:16 pm

Interestingly the argument that Musk has deliberately burned shorts doesn't stack up with the stock price.

Several shorts have been posting about how they have made a lot of money shorting the spike after Musk's tweet with the implication that they would
like him to tweet more and give them better entries.

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

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159307

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 5:06 pm

odysseus2000 wrote: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.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1672
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159309

Postby johnhemming » August 13th, 2018, 5:11 pm

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.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159310

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 5:14 pm

johnhemming wrote: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?

odysseus2000
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159318

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 5:34 pm

BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote: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
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1427
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 328 times
Been thanked: 326 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159320

Postby GoSeigen » August 13th, 2018, 5:37 pm

BobbyD wrote:
johnhemming wrote: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
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1672
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159321

Postby johnhemming » August 13th, 2018, 5:38 pm

BobbyD wrote: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
Lemon Slice
Posts: 513
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159331

Postby PeterGray » August 13th, 2018, 6:06 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
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
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3738
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159332

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 6:10 pm

johnhemming wrote: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

odysseus2000 wrote: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
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1252
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#159336

Postby odysseus2000 » August 13th, 2018, 6:25 pm

PeterGray wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
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,


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests