Slashdot Mirror


SEC Sends Subpoena To Tesla In Probe Over Musk's Take-Private Tweets (bloomberg.com)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent Tesla a subpoena regarding Elon Musk's effort to take the company private, "indicating the regulatory scrutiny of his statements have reached a more serious stage," reports Bloomberg. Last week, Musk tweeted he was considering taking Tesla off the market and had "funding secured" for the deal. From the report: Musk exposed himself to legal risk by tweeting Aug. 7 that he had the funding for a buyout. Almost a week later, the chief executive officer said the basis for his statement was conversations with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which first expressed interest in helping take the company private in early 2017. Tesla's board has since clarified that it hasn't received a formal proposal from Musk, who's also chairman, nor has it concluded whether going private would be advisable or feasible. Tesla may face potential regulatory challenges beyond the SEC investigation. The company probably will need approval of U.S. national security officials if Saudi Arabia finances the effort to take the company private, and President Donald Trump's administration has been stepping up scrutiny of foreign investment in American technology.

132 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. This is what happens when you enter the stock by devslash0 · · Score: 1

    market. You lose control over your own company because you're no longer the only owner and strangers begin to have a say as well. Sharing is never good, regardless of what some people say.

    1. Re:This is what happens when you enter the stock by PopeRatzzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      And this is laissez-faire capitalism at its finest. Only in America would you get a weird look for having government intervention at this stage.

    2. Re:This is what happens when you enter the stock by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Yup. He should've just kept it private, if he could've. Going public should only be used A. As an exit strategy or B. As a last resort to raise cash.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:This is what happens when you enter the stock by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, sort of - but you went to the stock market to *get other people's money*, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to have some say in how you conduct yourself.

            If you want to retain full control, as you say, don't take it public. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

         

  2. Musk sent out pair of shorts to a short trader by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Funny

    That trader should return the favor and send Musk a pair of handcuffs.

    1. Re:Musk sent out pair of shorts to a short trader by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      At least the trader won't have to cover his arse every time he takes a shower.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Musk sent out pair of shorts to a short trader by lsatenstein · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Did Musk do anything different that Trump? Trump says things and takes no action.
      Where is the drug price reduction? Where are affordable universities?
      What about the investment to combat the infrastructure that is crumbling, or has crumbled?

      All that Musk did was think aloud. You don't have to believe him and you do have to analyze and take / make your own decisions.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  3. So who will end up buying up Tesla? by WoOS · · Score: 1

    The last time a car manufacturer tried its luck too much on the stock exchange (earning there intermittently more than from its production) it ended up being bought up by a competitor. Someone still remembers Porsche 'buying' Volkswagen?
    This also included 'interesting' communication of the CEO to the market. Maybe Musks wants to step into Wiedekind's steps?

  4. Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not one to say, "I told you so", but if you look at the comments from when this story first came out, you will see I commented that his obvious attempt to manipulate stock price could get him in serious trouble with the SEC. A long thread of Musk fans and the Anonymous Coward telling me that was nonsense and nothing Musk did was improper followed. Matter of fact, the thread is still active with back-benchers arguing with me about how Musk doesn't need to do any of this because he's a billionaire and really doesn't care about the stock price of Tesla.

    Well...

    https://youtu.be/9AajslFuPro

    Here is the thread. I told you so.

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Being asked for information when the public is wringing their hands, as you are, is not "serious trouble." It is just the expected next step, no matter what the legalities are.

      If the media is fretting for a whole fucking week, yeah, the related regulatory agency is going to send some subpoenas. That means a request for information. That is all it means.

      Also, you used the phrase "back-bencher," but you don't seem to comprehend the meaning. It means you. Not just them.

    2. Re: Didn't I tell you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. This is a full blown investigation. The inquiry stage was last week. And NO it is not ok for a CEO to tweet out information like that

    3. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being asked for information when the public is wringing their hands, as you are, is not "serious trouble."

      A subpoena is not "asking". It is demanding, and to get one you have to convince a judge that there is probable cause. You can consider it a search warrant, except for documents, testimony and information instead of physical evidence.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also, you used the phrase "back-bencher," but you don't seem to comprehend the meaning. It means you. Not just them.

      Bitch, here on Slashdot, I am the very definition of a front-bencher. I got a motherfucking bench down in front all to myself. It's possible that nobody wants to sit near me, but nonetheless, the bench is in front. I'm like goddamn Jack Nicholson at a Lakers game up in here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Couple things:

      The SEC has their own subpoena powers. No judge necessary. Companies agree to comply as part of the process of going public.

      The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. The only thing the SEC can do is levy fines and bar company officers from being officers. The DOJ (FBI) will have to get involved for indictments to happen.

    6. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not true. The SEC initiates formal investigations by issuing what's called a Well's Notice to a company. These are not public and companies aren't necessarily obligated to report receiving one. There is some debate on whether its legal for a company to sell more stock without disclosing a Wells Notice, however. There was some suspicion that Tesla already received one looking into the truthfulness of past production/financial guidance claims.and how that would adversely effect their ability to raise more capital (that they desperately need) - it would also explain Musk losing his mind lately. Disclosing the existence of a Wells Notice obviously hurts a stock's price. Actual subpoena's usually mean the company is not complying with the requests outlined in a Well's Notice.

      I'm not sure if the reports of a "subpoena" in the buyout tweet case refers to a Wells Notice or actual subpoenas. That is yet to be seen. I believe they would have to disclose subpoenas as a material event in an 8K.

    7. Re:Didn't I tell you? by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Musk made a fraudulent tweet to manipulate his stock price. It's both illegal and unethical. Now imagine if, say, an oil company executive pulled this shit. The exact same people who are defending Musk would be screeching for the oil company exec's immediate imprisonment and being fined into starvation.

      Welcome to 2018, where facts don't matter and right vs. wrong are a function of political correctness. Enjoy your stay.

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    8. Re:Didn't I tell you? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      You sound like a fag and your shits all retarded

      Take it easy, Elon.

      I don't think that's Elon. Sound's more like Dr. Lexus to me.

    9. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      what's called a Well's Notice [...] disclosing a Wells Notice [...] existence of a Wells Notice [...] outlined in a Well's Notice [...] refers to a Wells Notice

      Protip: if you don't know whether the apostrophe should be there, just go 50:50.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. The only thing the SEC can do is levy fines and bar company officers from being officers. The DOJ (FBI) will have to get involved for indictments to happen.

      But what the subpoena is not is a "request". I'm pretty sure that CEOs generally don't want to get a subpoena from the SEC.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Musk made a fraudulent tweet to manipulate his stock price. It's both illegal and unethical. Now imagine if, say, an oil company executive pulled this shit.

      Better still, imagine the CEO of Microsoft or Zuckerberg pulling this shit. You'd be able to see the torches and pitchforks on Slashdot from space.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's Elon. Sound's more like Dr. Lexus

      Ah, that's where Elon got it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It's Wells Notice, no apostrophe. Named after John Wells. I didn't catch it.

    14. Re:Didn't I tell you? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A subpoena is one step below a warrant, and one does not generally have to convince a judge of anything to obtain one. They are often issued by the clerk of the court, or even by the lawyers themselves. Or, as in this case, it was directly issued by a federal agency.

      If one is served a subpoena that they believe is invalid, they must file a formal objection with the court. Simply ignoring a subpoena, even an improper one, is grounds for penalty.

      A warrant, in contrast, is an authorization by a judge or other "competent official" for an officer to perform an act that would otherwise be illegal, most frequently to arrest someone or to perform a search, but is also used for executions and myriad other things.

    15. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Correct. However, any request from the SEC is pretty much a "subpoena" especially in the context of the anonymous reports we're discussing. Formal SEC investigations are very technical and words matter, a lot. Specific wording mean little to "journalists" nowadays.

        We really don't know much given the reporting so far and probably won't unless the company tells us or the FBI gets involved.

    16. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's right. No judge needed in this case. Just the SEC. But it's the first step.

      If this private buyout from Musk fails to materialize, the FBI will get involved, I guarantee.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Didn't I tell you? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Couple things:

      The SEC has their own subpoena powers. No judge necessary. Companies agree to comply as part of the process of going public.

      The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. The only thing the SEC can do is levy fines and bar company officers from being officers. The DOJ (FBI) will have to get involved for indictments to happen.

      While they are not able to do criminal prosecutions they do refer cases they think require criminal prosecutions to the DOJ.

    18. Re:Didn't I tell you? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Days I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Jim on something make me fear the Apocalypse has finally arrived, but what the hey... pass the popcorn. I've been waiting a long time for reality to catch up to this modern-day Music Man.

    19. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Yes, just like every other federal regulatory agency. The DOJ is free to choose whether to pursue prosecution or not.

      Criminal stock manipulation cases are notoriously hard to prosecute. They pretty much have to have that exec admit to whatever they want to charge on tape or in writing. Exchange-listed execs usually have exponentially more resources at their disposal than the SEC or DOJ prosecutors. Teams of lawyers filing for years of delays, etc. Plus the criminal burden of proving intent. The SEC has something like 300 full-time lawyers on the payroll. There are over 25,000 exchange-traded stocks in the US (not counting the OTC sewer). Every one of those companies file dozens of hundred-page documents per year. There's just no way to review even a tiny fraction of the wrongdoing we all know is going on. So when they do go after someone they like to make an example out of them - like Martha Stewart going to jail for doing little wrong.

      Only in rare and egregious circumstances does the SEC even bat an eye. This is one of those cases.

    20. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The rules have changed dramatically since then to eliminate naked shorting. It is very much a conspiracy theory at this point. Anyone who blames naked shorts for their stock woes are either completely ignorant or lying to your face (or both).

    21. Re:Didn't I tell you? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      No, Wells notices are at the *end* of an investigation. Saying "You fucked up, we're bringing charges"

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    22. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It depends. Wells Notices signal the intent to bring formal enforcement actions which is usually the only notice of a formal investigation a company receives. The SEC asks questions all the time but that doesn't necessarily mean a formal investigation is taking place. I could'e been clearer in my description though. The SEC is very vague and rarely publicizes anything until they bring charges as simply asking questions can decimate a stock if it becomes public.

    23. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Correction: you didn't catch them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Didn't I tell you? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and to get one you have to convince a judge that there is probable cause. You can consider it a search warrant

      So you need to say pretty please?

    25. Re: Didn't I tell you? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Don't bother responding to the apostrophe Nazi; it just encourages him.

    26. Re: Didn't I tell you? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Musk made a fraudulent tweet to manipulate his stock price.

      Nice allegation. Be a shame if someone asked you to prove it.

    27. Re: Didn't I tell you? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      In context, this means precisely one thing: that Mr.

      Musk, at the time when he made the said statement, had on himself the full amount needed to buy the stock that could potentially end up for sale (about $80 billion), or that he had a contract for this amount coming from elsewhere.

      It means no such thing. His tweet merely implies that he had received an offer for the funding, and was considering it. No part of the tweet implied either that he had the money in his possession, nor that any contract had been signed.

    28. Re: Didn't I tell you? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It appears to be correct that Musk had, at the time, no guaranteed path to achieve his goal, that is, he hadn't secured the funding necessary to buy every share of Tesla at $420. That part appears to be correct.

      However, the second part of the statement, that he did it to manipulate the stock price, is less certain. What proof do you have as to his motives?

      I'm surprised by the blanket love and trust Musk receives here. There are still people who think the Hyperloop proposal was honest, despite it being a clear attempt to sink CAHSR by proposing something that, even if working as described, wouldn't actually be an adequate replacement (a quarter of the capacity, two cities "served", terminals 50-100 miles outside of the cities they're supposed to serve, ultimately doing not enough to reduce air traffic, and doing nothing - actually making worse - internal traffic problems in SF and LA.)

      Maybe Musk will manage to scrape the money together for the buy-out anyway, but at this point I wouldn't trust him enough to buy shares at $419, and people in tech - people on Slashdot - ought to be more wary than most about this.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    29. Re: Didn't I tell you? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's been cleared by the SEC for tweeting information like that in the past. Turns out that his twitter account is more widely read and re-reported than most press releases are.

      This investigation is probably looking into the "funding secured" bit. You can't really say things like that unless they're actually true without people starting to think "market manipulation"

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    30. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You look like an idiot.

      You must be new here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re: Didn't I tell you? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Don't bother responding to the apostrophe Nazi; it just encourages him.

      Surely you should have used a colon rather than a semi-colon there?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re: Didn't I tell you? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I don't care how you abuse your colon; I'm quite familiar with how to use mine.

    33. Re: Didn't I tell you? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're obviously British, we don't even have that differentiation between "inquiry" and "investigation." And, it isn't public knowledge, so you have no idea what stage the investigation is in!

      Here is a quote from the SEC website:

      All SEC investigations are conducted privately. Facts are developed to the fullest extent possible through informal inquiry, interviewing witnesses, examining brokerage records, reviewing trading data, and other methods.

      Right there you can see: they don't tell you anything until the end, silly pundit. And, they don't consider the word "inquiry" to be a stage in the process, but rather the action of asking questions as a part of an investigation. Inquiry is literally a synonym for "investigation" or "asking questions" in American English. It tells you nothing about the stage of any investigation in the United States.

    34. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Subpoenas are commonly issued by the court clerk in civil matters, no judge necessary. You've been watching too much stupid fucking TV.

      Only in the sense that they have to be filed with the Court, and that involves the Clerk stamping them.

      They're issued by the lawyers, who are "Officers of the Court," and they don't get reviewed at all unless another lawyer challenges it. Then the Judge has to read everything and decide.

      You've been watching a little less TV than the other guy, which is nice, but still too fucking much.

    35. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you were on the front bench yesterday, today you'd be losing your job because SEC investigations are done in private. But you're not even a lawyer, much less one of the lawyers involved in this case! Back-bencher is a polite way of saying, "yes, yes, you could understand and talk about this stuff in a professional way as somebody who understands but isn't involved." No, you're not even a back-bencher, but you're definitely not on the front bench.

      Having an irrational sense of capability still only supports belief in being a back-bencher, it doesn't support belief that you're actually involved in the case.

    36. Re:Didn't I tell you? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Look, Dumb Ass, their last quarterly call that was discussed, and they said clearly there was no Wells Notice. That was just an attempt at stock price manipulation by some shorts. And you, apparently, since you're pushing the lie even now.

      You're obviously not following the company, you're just reading a script, or you'd know at least a few details.

    37. Re:Didn't I tell you? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you were on the front bench yesterday, today you'd be losing your job because SEC investigations are done in private. But you're not even a lawyer, much less one of the lawyers involved in this case! Back-bencher is a polite way of saying, "yes, yes, you could understand and talk about this stuff in a professional way as somebody who understands but isn't involved." No, you're not even a back-bencher, but you're definitely not on the front bench.

      Having an irrational sense of capability still only supports belief in being a back-bencher, it doesn't support belief that you're actually involved in the case.

      I bet you're a blast at parties.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re: Didn't I tell you? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd show more respect for someone who puts a dick in it than somebody who talks out of it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This feels like a lifeguard going after kids for splashing. . . during a hurricane. . .

    However, I do agree with the Musk critics that say he should not be the CEO of a public company. . . that is why Tesla needs to go private.

    Let good engineers quietly build stuff (and occasionally vent on Twitter, without regulatory consequence) and the do-nothing CEO's of public companies continue do nothing and look good in the name of shareholder value.

    I just want to drive their cars. . . the rest just seems like a silly distraction.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are so many different theories of what a CEO's behavior should be, it is pretty funny when critics talk about their own preference as if it might be the One True Way. It should be clear that there isn't any such thing.

      In other years, or with CEOs having a different name, it is often stated casually that part of their job is to spin everything that happens in the light that best boosts the stock price. And then if his name is Elon Musk, the same people freak out because he didn't file an 8-K, even though the rules are really clear and explicit that an 8-K filing would be needed after the company consummated a deal to privatize. That's how far the critics are from reality, generally. It is highly comical.

      Which is it, do you want CEOs to do nothing, or to do something? The stock price went up after his comments, because people believed them, and now it is a week later and we know that a deal is in fact being negotiated. That's verified. People want to chase him around with handcuffs over their narrow parsing of the word "secured," even though the standard for truth is not that every single possible dictionary definition of the word are all simultaneously true. In fact, if any of the common meanings of the word are true, then it is obviously true. People don't even remember the difference between truth and lies while they're chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs. And they certainly don't remember it while they're bloviating about how much they know about the job of a CEO. They don't even know that most companies would prefer to have a controversial CEO who can keep their company in the news! And if the public thinks he's some brilliant engineer, there is almost no way that it hurts the company; even all the nonsense of people chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs, it benefits Tesla immensely. They're a bigger part of the public mindspace than BMW or Mercedes Benz! Not only has he made his tiny car company the absolute center of public thought about his industry, he even has them associated with the engineering of fuckin' space ships! He's like, knocking it out of the park with a Galaxy-class performance as CEO, and the supposed "nerds" on slashdot are too busy sucking their own herpaderp to notice the difference between "I don't like him" and "he's doing a bad job."

    2. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      and now it is a week later and we know that a deal is in fact being negotiated. That's verified.

      If it's being negotiated now it clearly can't have been confirmed at the time he tweeted that it was assured.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How the CEO of a publicly-traded company should act are not "theories". There are laws regulating it.

      A CEO is breaking the law if he makes false statements to manipulate his stock price. A.K.A. "Funding secured" (to burn the shorts). CEO's are also not allowed to buy or sell their own stock while privy to non-public material information. A.K.A. a buyout at 40% above the current price with funding secured.

      There are several other laws regulating behavior that officers of public companies must abide by but those two are pretty basic.

    4. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I think in the end, this is a cultural war between those in the wealth creation business (Elon Musk/Tesla) and those in the wealth transfer business (Wall Street). As far as Wall Street is concerned, the public CEO is there to serve them. When a public CEO does not act accordingly, the entire industry goes out for blood.

      I have had Wall Street types find out I own a Tesla and go into some kind of rant of why the company is doomed, that "everyone I talk to is shorting them", and all their cars catch on fire. That is not normal "car" talk. That is crazy "they faked the moon landings" type shit. It is like the entire industry is acting like some kind of cult because a public CEO had the gall to stand up to them.

      That is why I think Tesla should go private. Not because Elon Musk is crazy, but because Wall Street is. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    5. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that the entire basis for Wall Street (and capitalism) is that new, high growth wealth creation ideas initially require more funding than they can initially generate from their own operations, right? Ever heard the phrase, "it takes money to make money?" The vast majority of new forms of wealth creation require some form of initial "investment." Larger and longer periods of investment are correlated with higher expectations of growth and wealth creation.

      But, specifically, which party is gaining wealth at the expense of which party in Tesla's case? Keep in mind, if Tesla goes private at $420 a share, everyone who has ever bought long and held to that point will realize a significant return. Where did that wealth come from? It was created turning boring, commodity materials into the best car I have ever owned.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    6. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      losing billions to sell thousands... When does it stop?

      The first "stop" occurs when you get your facts right. . . 2018Q2 Rev: $4B, Net Loss; $0.7B, YTD Rev growth:43%. Go find me a mature company that is always profitable that increased their revenues by 43% in the last year. . .

      The second "stop" occurs after Tesla goes private, and all the crazy short sellers go after some new victim (if they have not already killed themselves off after their bad bet against Tesla). At that point, you will have less public information to (mis)-inform yourself with, so your only reminder of how wrong you were at this point of your life will be steady and unrelenting electrification of the transportation system (with many Tesla logos passing by in your peripherals every where you go. . .).

      The 3rd "stop" occurs after the electrification of the transportation market and the transition of the electrical grid to renewable energy sources backed with battery based storage. At this point, Tesla growth will have peaked, and it will now have to become another slow growing giant that no one ever posts about in forums like Slashdot. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    7. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      That has only been the "basis for Wall Street" since the tech boom (and subsequent bust) leading up to 2000. For decades prior buying and selling stock was a way for established companies to generate funds to expand allowing those willing to share the risk to profit from the gains. The rigged casino that it's turned into the past 20 years was never the intent of regulated markets.

    8. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 2

      Tesla has NEVER been profitable. Even though it's existed since 2003 doesn't necessarily make it mature either.

      Yes, so you are agreeing with me that Tesla is in the "growth" stage of its business life cycle?

      creating a cult of incredibly naive

      I think "naive" people tend to write confusing posts where they seem to be both insult you and support your point at the same time. . . why not learn some basic finance before complaining about other people being naive?

      people who believe they are going to save the planet by destroying the environment

      I bought a Tesla because its a kickass car, and I love to effortlessly smoke old-timers like yourself when the light turns green. Saving the planet is a side benefit. . . and the fact that you think electric vehicles are destroying the planet shows that finance is not the only area of expertise that you are severely lacking in. . .

      going to do to the market in general when reality finally hits and all those people are wiped out. Most will never invest in anything ever again nor trust honest executives.

      So says the poster lacking even a remedial grasp of finance. . . Do tell. . . how does taking Tesla private "wipe out" investors?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    9. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      The business life cycle has existed as long as capitalism has existed. . . Please read and correct your own post based on newly attained knowledge. Thank you.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    10. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      losing billions to sell thousands...

      Yes, and $4B x 4 is $12B/year. So they are losing billion to sell BILLIONS (not "thousands").

      Revenue growth is up - and so are costs, and the losses.

      Yes, sacrificing profitability to increase market share might sound crazy, but it is business as usual in . . . business. For Tesla, it is a small price to pay to start dominating an entire segment of the car market. . .>, and its marketcap would tend to agree. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    11. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's YOU. . . : )

      Learn to grow a pair. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    12. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      No, they lose billions of dollars to sell thousands of cars.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      "But Musk is already saying that shareholders who don't want to sell should be able to convert their stock to some form of private equity."

      And that proves that Musk pulled the entire LBO story out of his ass. First, only accredited investors are allowed to hold private stock (google it for the requirements). Institutional and investment funds virtually never hold private equity. It is illiquid - meaning it can only be bought or sold once or twice a year and valuations swing wildly. Funds aren't in that business.

      Any lawyer could have told him that. If there really were any serious LBO talks then dozens of lawyers would've been involved and none of them would've allowed Musk to say anything much less BS like that.

    14. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Note that I said "regulated markets". The ones that emerged following the 1929 crash and Depression caused by stock manipulation that people like Musk are repeating now in contravention of those regulations.

    15. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by gravewax · · Score: 1

      No their really aren't differing theories on how CEO's should behave. The laws and regulations for public companies are quite clear and explicit and not open to free interpretation by differing theories. You can spin the future of the company, you can make bold predictions that are borderline complete BS, you CANNOT outright lie, mislead the market or manipulate the market. The Stock price is back down because the information he released has thus far been shown to be bullshit, hence the lawsuits and the SEC. If you think a Galaxy class CEO's job is to land the company in potentially multi billion dollar lawsuits then yeah he just hit it out of the park!

    16. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the entire basis for Wall Street (and capitalism) is that new, high growth wealth creation ideas initially require more funding than they can initially generate from their own operations, right? Ever heard the phrase, "it takes money to make money?" The vast majority of new forms of wealth creation require some form of initial "investment." Larger and longer periods of investment are correlated with higher expectations of growth and wealth creation.

      You do realise that Wall Street now only exists to separate suckers from their money...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    17. Re: In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      It goes beyond 'funding secured'. Potentially even more problematic is 'Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that itâ(TM)s contingent on a shareholder vote.'

    18. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well thanks for reminding us all of the importance of including "units of measure" when posting. . .

      However, you are still inaccurate with your statement because if you are comparing "annualized" losses, then you should also post the "annualized" sales of "hundreds of thousands of cars."

      I kind of miss when the short sellers still had hope and were posting here. There was still a lot of bs, but the debates tended to be a little more intellectually engaging. . . Don't know what your beef is with Tesla, but it certainly is not based on a rational understanding of finance . . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    19. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      I feel like there is not enough shared finance understanding to have a coherent discussion here, but let me try. . .

      Capitalism exists because good ideas for creating new wealth need funding before they become self-sustaining. Regulations are tangential to this point about the fundamentals of capitalism . . .

      Comparing Tesla to the types of securities fraud that led to the Great Depression is a low bar to disprove. . . Most fraud from that period was simply making up fake companies for people to invest in. Let me see, is there any evidence proving Tesla is not a fake company:
      - There are hundreds of SEC filings, the most important of which are audited routinely by independent auditors. . .
      - There are independent production tracking models that rely on publicly available data like VIN numbers. . .
      - There are the numerous Teslas you actually see when driving around any noteworthy city in America. . .
      - There is the Tesla Model 3 that I got back in July. . .
      Yes, I am pretty confident that anyone arguing that Tesla is a hoax at this point has no reasonable basis for their argument. . . and would better spend their time on more main stream wacko conspiracy theories. . . (like the one where Obama was not born in the U.S. . . . you might even one day end up becoming president. . . sigh).

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    20. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In what year did they ship "hundreds of thousands of cars"? Last year was their best year ever, and they barely broke 100,000 - a far cry from "hundreds of thousands of cars".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Well, I think in the end, this is a cultural war between those in the wealth creation business (Elon Musk/Tesla) and those in the wealth transfer business (Wall Street).

      I agree there is a culture war, but I think the reason is different. There are several different things that motivate people. I'll name a few of the main ones:

      • Greed/fear
      • The betterment of society/other people.
      • Curiosity
      • Expression

      Wall Street is HEAVILY motivated by greed. They want a cash return above all. Musk's investment in Tesla seems to be driven largely by a desire to improve life for other people. This conflict of motive seems to be the issue at hand.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    22. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Um, who's saying that I don't also post at model3ownersclub? Oh. . . you are complaining I do not use the same username for every forum I post to. . . with an AC post. . . wtf

      Your parents must be so proud. . . giving life to a person that lobs crude insults from the safety of an AC account. . . Your post indicates you are a hypocritical bigot who lacks basic abilities in logic. You may be able to hide who you are from us, but there is no way to hide that from yourself. Enjoy living with that. . . I will enjoy driving my Model 3 : )

      Now how many refresh clicks did it take you to see this post. . . Just grow a pair and make an account, you spineless POS. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    23. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1
      Seriously, I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or are really crippled when it comes to finance. . .

      $0.7B per quarter, that's about $3B per year, is it not

      You got your losses of "billions/year" by taking 2018Q2 (last available reporting period) and multiplying by 4. This is a simple run rate approach to forecasting. If you are comparing your derived loss number to units produced, you need to use a similar methodology:
      (14570 + 1984 + 1200) * 12 months = 213,048 = "hundreds of thousands of cars"
      (Please note, I was able to make my point with U.S. sales, alone. . . .)

      Now take a step back and reflect if you really think Tesla is failing based on sound reasonable financial analysis, or you want Tesla to fail and you are just making up silly reasons that do not make financial sense? . . . 'cause that is would it appears you are doing here. . .

      Please stop. Just come out and say the real reason why you hate Tesla and move on with life. . . Why add to the stupidity that gets posted to Slashdot everyday?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    24. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Look back over the previous 4 quarters - billions lost. It's already happened. Now, I'd be interested in what previous 4 quarters resulted in hundreds of thousands shipped. There's no "forecasting/trending" here, I'm looking at what has already happened - what is factual, not wishful.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1
      "billions lost" must seem like such a powerful argument to you. . . Finance is all about comparing apples to apples and context. Their "Accumulated Deficit" of $5.7B seems large, until you consider that they have a market cap of over $50B. At the end of 2002, Amazon had an "Accumulated Deficit" of $3B with a market cap of only $7.3B. If you are freaking about Tesla now, you must have been having a conniption fit back then for Amazon. . . . and Amazon's market cap is now approaching 1 trillion, so I really hope no one payed any attention to you. . .

      Still wanting to look backwards for their production units, I see. What do you think that $5.7B of "Accumulated Deficit" was created for!? Tesla has been carefully executing a long term plan to mass produce EV cars and just when they start doing exactly that, you want to point to the loss they have accumulated and ignore their current production rates!? With little additional investment, they could produce enough Model 3s to take the top selling car ranking in the U.S.. I think most people would consider a $6B investment to be able to compete with automotive companies with market caps of ~50B to be CHEAP. . .

      I'm looking at what has already happened - what is factual, not wishful.

      No one values companies based on the past production rates. . . they value based on future potential earnings. . . they are have past 5k/week and you think that earlier production rates are still somehow relevant to a discussion of valuation. . .your understanding of finance is so backwards that your financial arguments against Tesla do come off as desperately wishful. . .

      Again, why do you REALLY hate Tesla. . . some Tesla driver smoke you at the green light or something? Please realize that Tesla acceleration is so subtle that it was probably unintentional. . . : )

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    26. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Um...you did.

      Um. . . where?

      Unless you can reveal your username at model3ownersclub.

      "Identify yourself", says the anonymous coward. . . when you post such hypocrisy, you do realize a part of the good in you dies, right? No one else is hurt by this. . . just you (and anyone that potentially cares about you because this kind of activity is making you weaker, deep inside).

      We're not asking for much are we?

      Who is this "we." The club for people too insecure to be able to post under an authenticated Slashdot account?

      maybe you should just grow a pair and use your real name instead of the fake "Idou"?

      This is HILARIOUS! "Hey, let me post under AC and you post with your real name, 'cause I am so intellectually handicapped that I cannot engage in online debates on a level playing field. . .". Whoever let you where "big boy pants" and use the internet today had a lapse of judgement. . .

      Look at LynnwoodRooster. Yes, when it comes to finance he is cognitively challenged. . . In fact, if he is investing for himself, he stands to lose a lot of money. . . A LOT . . . BUT, when he comes on Slashdot, he proudly logs in and posts his thoughts in the open for the world to see. The playing field is level and, hopefully, he learns a little about finance and a lot about what it means to have "open" discourse. Overall, Slashdot is a positive use of his time.

      You, on the other hand, are too much of a wimp to even log in. . . and your posts reflect the worst of you because you think "no one else can pin this post on me." However, your posts still belong to YOU, and you are a little worse for it. You cannot hide from yourself. You might think there is no cost of this, but there is. . . to you. . . Enjoy your life. . . I think I will go for a little drive in my Model 3 while reflecting how happy I am not someone sad, like you : )

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    27. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was hoping for another post from you because I am working on an algorithm that tries to tie AC posts to a Slashdot account. You see, when you post this deeply in a thread, the probability that you were originally engaged in the thread at some earlier point as an authenticated Slashdot user and then switched to AC (to avoid tainting your Slashdot account) increases quite a bit. However, though my algorithm looks at various types of attributes, it still needs enough AC posts to start finding matches of statistical significance. And this last post really hit the mark. . .

      Interesting side note. . . did you realize that both you and LynnwoodRooster do not follow the Chicago Manual of Style for ellipsis? Funny, isn't? Doubt LynnwoodRooster ever posts about "knobs", but what is the harm of keeping a consistent ellipsis style? Well, none, when taken by itself. However, in combination with other data points. . .
      : )

      Kind of poetic justice to get outed when trying to get another user to give up their real name. . . don't you think?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    28. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      LynnwoodRooster, why are you still posting as an AC?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    29. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Well, I must admit . . . I was wrong. . ."knob" is an EXCELLENT addition to my algorithm: . . . just because you suck on the knob of Hansen

      So I guess you stopped using "knob" on LynnwoodRooster posts back in 2015. . . but you must really love that word, because you have used it numerous times on this thread alone. . . as an AC.

      Seriously, why not just own up to what you did, apologize, and go on with life? Escalating things at this point will only make things worse for you, no?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    30. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      That's a little narcissistic isn't it?

      LynnwoodRooster, on the contrary, one trait of narcissism is the inability to view the world from the perspective of other people. This is especially damaging because narcissists are blind to how others see them. Viewing one's historical posts could be very helpful to a potential narcissist. What if before posting to this thread, you had taken a step back and looked at your first post about Tesla back in to 2010, as if it was written by someone else?

      Reading that post, it seems like many of your complaints about the Roadster (too little storage space, too expensive, range limitations, etc. . .) have been addressed by the Model 3. Yet, your posts to this thread focus on (very poorly thought out) financial arguments to why the company will fail. I believe if you saw your posts from the perspective of an outsider, you would assume that there was some other motivation behind your recent posts (jealousy, a short position, etc. . .). . . Your inability to see your own posts as others might see them seems to be a serious obstacle to your own personal growth.

      I am disappointed that you don't post at model3ownersclub.com, which means your claim of being a Tesla Model3 owner is a fake...and of course, you suck Elon's knob for a living )

      You know, even after being exposed as the Slashdot user LynnwoodRooster, you still appear to not have learned your lesson. . . I have shown that there are effective ways to expose identities. Out of the many methods that exist, your way (asking someone to reveal themselves) seems to be the least effective (yet you repeat your attempts. . .). Are you sure you want to escalate this? Is only exposing your Slashdot account an insufficient measure to have you change your behavior?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    31. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      LynnwoodRooster,
      You know, it is better if you own up to this now before this article gets archived and no longer accepts new posts. . . Once that happens, I will have no choice but to continue to pursue this matter by responding to future LynnwoodRooster posts on other threads. That could become rather unpleasant for you. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    32. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1
      The purpose of this post is to document LynnwoodRooster's abuse of AC posting in this thread when it became clear that he was losing the debate.
      Evidence:
      When LynnwoodRoosters posted this post I immediately posted a response to an AC post I suspected that he had posted. In my response I outed the AC as LynnwoodRooster.

      LynnwoodRooster did not post again as LynnwoodRoster until roughly 25 and half hours had elapsed from his post above. During this same time, LynnwoodRooster appears to have posted as an AC at least 3 times. This represented the longest time in between (non-AC) posts in 22 consecutive days for LynnwoodRooster. During that same 22 day period, LynnwoodRooster was a very active poster, with a total of 310 posts and an average interval between posts of 1.8 hours. Consequently, the probability that the AC posting activity in this thread was posted by LynnwoodRooster on this evidence alone is extremely high.

      Additional supporting evidence:
      • - When confronted, the AC poster never denies being LynnwoodRooster. In fact, this AC post could be interpreted as an outright confession.
      • - All AC posts fit within the distinct time frames that LynnwoodRooster usually posts through-out the day (morning, lunch break, late evening, Californian time). In fact, LynnwoodRooster was so actively posting that some AC posts neatly fill time gaps (measured in minutes) in LynnwoodRooster's other (non-AC) posts.
      • - Various punctuation and word usage was matched between AC and LynnwoodRooster's posts (as posted in this thread and through separate analysis not publicly shared).

      Summary of AC posts:
      Mostly consisting of bigoted and vulgar insults. Primary purpose of the posts appeared to be to out my identity on another forum and shame me for not using my real name for my Slashdot account and other forums. For this he should earn the Slashdot Achievement of: "Hypocrisy of the Highest Order"

      Recommended community actions (until LynnwoodRooster apologizes on Slashdot for his AC post abuses):

      • - Warn other Slashdot users engaged in debate with LynnwoodRooster of his past abuses of AC posts by linking to this post.
      • - Since he has tried to out the identity of another Slashdot user while posting as an AC, it seems fair if the Slashdot community posts profile summaries of him based on his historical Slashdot posts. Please do not post potential real names or use any information that he has not posted about himself here on Slashdot. The point is to make it easier for people who already know him in real life to connect him to his Slashdot account. The goal is to change his behavior, not completely out him. We should all post (whether as a Slashdot user or an AC) as if we will one day be outed. As LynnwoodRooster's actions have taught us, posting with the assumption of complete anonymity can bring out the worst in us. . .
      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    33. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      ticktock. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    34. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      fuck off

      LynnwoodRooster, this does not end until you post an apology. . .

      Wouldn't you rather post an apology as an AC here and now while you still can? Once this article is archived, the apology will need to be posted as LynnwoodRooster.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    35. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      Your time is running out. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    36. Re:In the age of Trump Tweets. . . by Idou · · Score: 1

      LynnwoodRooster, it is really interesting to see how a Trump supporter reacts to mounting evidence against them. . .

      It certainly adds to the notion that America is currently dealing with an authoritarian cult of personality.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  6. Feature request... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    I think twitter needs a feature called "executive override" that routes tweets from CEOs to through their lawyers first... and they can choose to release or suppress the tweet. Seriously... It's a billion dollar idea. I love Musk and his antics, it's entertaining as hell, but this is crossing the line.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  7. It's not about strangers it's about financial laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sharing is necessary, regardless of what some uneducated slackdot goofs might blurt out. (Stay the fuck off our socialist interstate highways, GOP tools. You didn't personally build that.)

  8. Bloomberg called it by mewsenews · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bloomberg ran an article titled Elon Musk's Funding for Tesla Wasn't So Secure where they pointed out when Musk said "funding is secured" there was no actual agreement in place. His statement being factually untrue risked causing this SEC investigation.

    1. Re:Bloomberg called it by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bloomberg ran an article titled Elon Musk's Funding for Tesla Wasn't So Secure where they pointed out when Musk said "funding is secured" there was no actual agreement in place. His statement being factually untrue risked causing this SEC investigation.

      Per recent discussion concerning fake news, I'd mention that the article linked is an opinion pice by Matt Levine as noted in the headline and it comes with a disclaimer at the end. Imho it's a worthwhile read.

    2. Re:Bloomberg called it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What's fake? The content of the tweet is a matter of public record, as is the relevant law (17 CFR 240.14e-8).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Bloomberg called it by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 1

      What's fake? The content of the tweet is a matter of public record, as is the relevant law (17 CFR 240.14e-8).

      I'm not claiming It's fake news. My claim is that the link OP provided is to an opinion piece and a worthwhile read (not a Bloomberg news article). If you wish to discuss the relevance of making this distinction there is an ongoing debate https://news.slashdot.org/stor... where consensus seem to me that it is a relevant distinction to make.

    4. Re:Bloomberg called it by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Sorry but no it does not work that way. IT comes down to whether the SEC believes Musk had sufficient reason to believe the funding was secure. Market influencing statements from company execs come with legal requirements, Even if Musk personally believed he had sufficient reason to believe it was secured it may not be enough to meet the market/SEC requirements. This is why most companies don't let public statements happen over twitter and instead require them to go via legal departments who careful check wording before release. It is looking like while the SEC may only fine or give a soft rap over the knuckles. The problem for them will be the legal actions by shorters, longs, and options traders, Musk/Tesla is going to be open to a huge amount of civil lawsuits for loses, basically those few words just opened him up to a massive unnecessary financial exposure.

  9. Re:Good. Burn him. by belthize · · Score: 1

    Shame about Elon kicking your dog.

  10. Re: Musk wasn't even born in America. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    Double whammy, because he's not just an immigrant, he's a white South African immigrant, and one old enough to have benefitted from apartheid.

  11. /|\ found the DeVry grad. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If it's a request why does its name translate as "under penalty"?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:/|\ found the DeVry grad. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because what you submit in response to the request needs to be true, or it's perjury / violation of a court order?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:/|\ found the DeVry grad. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Because what you submit in response to the request needs to be true, or it's perjury / violation of a court order?

      So it's not a "request" in any normal sense of the word then is it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:/|\ found the DeVry grad. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It's a request from the lawyers in a case, that was filed with the Court. If you don't agree that it is proper, you can challenge it. That's what makes it a request; it hasn't even been fought over yet, but they're already asking for it. They're sometimes quashed when challenged, but even more often they're modified to take into consideration whatever the complaint was.

      Compare that to a warrant; once it gets issued, now they can just send armed people to take it from you! No request there. And if it was improper, you just have to fight about if they can use whatever information they got; afterwards.

      You're only violating the order if you refuse the request and also fail to challenge it. Of course, if you challenge it and lose, now that it has been authenticated as a proper request that you should have assisted, then it becomes something stronger. But then you'll have an additional order to follow, and it is that order, "respond to the subpoena" that more directly gets you in trouble if you're still obstinate.

    4. Re:/|\ found the DeVry grad. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have committed a crime to be in legal hot water if you say "piss off, court, you're not the boss of me." You don't need to have committed a crime or even been accused of one to be required to respond to a court request.

      False. If you had not committed a crime before beginning that sentence, you had committed one by the time you ended it!

  12. Musk explains at greater length in a blog post by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here.

    Key points:
    * This had been discussed with the board before the announcement
    * The board agreed that the next step was to discuss with large shareholders.
    * It would be unfair for the big shareholders to know of this proposal but not the small shareholders, hence a public announcement. (It isn't clear to me whether the board specifically agreed to this announcement, or whether Musk felt it was a logical consequence of the previous point.)
    * "Funding secured" means the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund has been eager to do this for quite some time, although Musk would like there to be other investors too.

    I feel somewhat but not completely reassured by this explanation.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Musk explains at greater length in a blog post by gravewax · · Score: 1

      personally if I was a shareholder I would feel utterly pissed at that explanation as it leaves the door wide open for lawsuits for market manipulation. It provides no assurance that the "funding secured" at $420 a share was actually an on the table offer.

  13. Prediction: it's all a misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    During the investigation, it will emerge that Elon had secretly changed his legal name to "Funding secured." He will argue those words were his signature, not an assertion of fact.

  14. Re: Where's Rei? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    This always-musk-defending Rei? https://slashdot.org/~Rei

    how do you know is really a she?

    She doesn't exactly leave a light digital footprint. See, for example, here.

  15. Re: Where's Rei? by Train0987 · · Score: 1
  16. Musk never said there was an agreement in place. by Brannon · · Score: 2

    He said "funding is secured"...which is open to interpretation. Musk argues that it meant that he had serious discussions with investors who indicated they were willing to pony up sufficient funds to take Tesla private. My guess is that all he has to do is produce one or more investors who say "yep, we're ready to put up X billion and we've been talking to him about this for awhile" and he is off scot-free, perhaps with an admonishment to be more careful in the future.

    In all likelihood, he will take Tesla private, and most likely under the terms he sketches out in his initial tweets. I don't see how you punish a CEO for saying what he's going to do and then doing it. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but he pretty much does what he says he's going to do, no matter how fantastical it sounds...eventually.

  17. Re: Where's Rei? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    13k comments on Daily Kos? Holy smokes -- I could be excused for thinking she spends all her spare time posting around here. That Icelandic government job must be cherry indeed.

  18. Bloviating by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Bloviating? Comical?

    I think you left out "cherry picking" and "spewing."

  19. Negotiated? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    First people believed that "funding (was) secured" and now people believe that a deal is being negotiated?

  20. Re:Simple, it's getting better all the time. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  21. Re:Musk never said there was an agreement in place by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    In all likelihood, he will take Tesla private, and most likely under the terms he sketches out in his initial tweets... he pretty much does what he says he's going to do, no matter how fantastical it sounds...eventually.

    I don't think you can claim it until that "eventually" comes to pass. I seem to recall him promising a $35,000 full electric car, LEO launch costs of $5-6 million, and Mars one-way ticket for $200,000... none of which has happened yet.

    Note how all of those are promises with actual dollar amounts. The stuff he says he'll do for X will simply not be done for X, which in cases such as reusable rockets might be fine, but not when it pertains to the stock price.

  22. Would be funny if... by Gabest · · Score: 2

    SEC sent a subpoena to Mr. Trump for manipulating the USDTRY last week with his tweet.

  23. Re:Musk never said there was an agreement in place by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Eh, that's a definition in a specific statute that only applies to that statute.

    As to whether or not the courts have decided this, I don't know, but given you so severely fucked up your initial assertion, I'm not terribly inclined to give your second one much consideration.

  24. Requests were a long time ago. Probable cause by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The SEC "requested* documents related to probable securities law violations by Musk some time ago. A subpoena is a demand by or on behalf of the court and you can go to jail for ignoring it.

    Because it falls under "search and seizure", the fifth amendment requires probable cause or other appropriate justification under the 5th. Just as with searching a vehicle, that can happen to ways - a court can rule *ahead of time* that there is probable cause, or an officer can, in some situations, conduct a search if they have probable cause that they can show later. At very least, the SEC is dating that they have probable cause to believe there is a crime here.

    Aside from the obvious manipulation charge, it is also law that corporate officers must send material information to ALL interested stockholders simultaneously, not just the ones they like. Telling favored people even fine minutes ahead of time (thereby allowing them to buy or sell before disfavored people know) is insider trading. Officers MUST make the information available to favored people, disfavored people, all stockholders, at the same time. Because he has actively blocked people he doesn't like from his Twitter feed, using that as the first place he announces material information is in violation of the law. He is at minimum technically commiting insider trading. What penalty he'll get for that we'll.hqvebto wait and see. It's clear cut insider trading when an officer of the corporation provides the information to favored people before providing it to disfavored people.

    1. Re:Requests were a long time ago. Probable cause by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The SEC is the regulatory agency with subpoena powers. One does not get to simply ignore their requests for information. Doing so is guaranteed to bring the stiffest enforcement action.

  25. Re: It's not about strangers it's about financial by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Then they aren't very consistent then, because they argue against anything else governments do.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in plac by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    "He also promised an all electric car with a 200+ mile range which hasn't happened yet!"

      - Djinn, 2003

  27. Re:Where's Rei? by fedos · · Score: 1

    Who is Azealia Banks? Who is "Grimes"? Why doesn't the article identify these people who are central to its story?

  28. Re:Bumper Gate by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    Totally agree. I don't know why they aren't just teleporting the cars from California to the customer instantly. What the fuck, Tesla?

    You know that the cars have to actually go from the factory to the destination where the customer receives it, right? And that they purposefully delayed some deliveries into Q3 in order to get another quarter of the full EV tax credit for customers, right?

    This isn't software, it takes time to load them all up onto trucks to take them to trains, and time for those trains to move them to depots close by, time for trucks to take them from that depot to the lot where delivery happens. And then the sale is recorded. Oh, and they held delivery on many cars at the end of the quarter in order to get another quarter of tax incentives for customers, as the law is written that once you sell your 200,000th EV, you get the remainder of that quarter and the following quarter at the full credit, and then it starts to phase out. Since they held their 200,000th car to 1 July, the credit begins phasing out on 1 January.

    But you probably already knew all that, and were making the most un-nuanced belligerent thin argument you can, because reality doesn't fit with your completely illogical disdain.

    What price is your short position at, anyway?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  29. Re: It's not about strangers it's about financial by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    Yeah, there's droves of Republicans that are always speaking out against law enforcement, prisons, military spending, and the armed forces.

    No wait, those are all things they can't get enough of, and they're all done by government. You aren't even building straw men and knocking them down, you're just completely wrong.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  30. Words mean things by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    He said "funding is secured"...which is open to interpretation. Musk argues that it meant that he had serious discussions with investors

    No, it's not open to interpretation - secured has a fairly specific meaning. (In this case, that funding is committed and available.) There is no reasonable way to extend "funding is secured" to mean "we don't actually have funding but we're in serious discussion" and still be speaking English.
     

    I don't see how you punish a CEO for saying what he's going to do and then doing it.

    0.o Punishing him for "doing what he said he was going to do"? What planet do you live on? Her on Earth he hasn't taken Tesla private, he hasn't even put it to a shareholder vote yet. And he can't do that because he hasn't filed the relevant paperwork yet... He's not being punished for "doing what he said he would do" (in fact, he hasn't been punished at all). He's being investigated for possibly saying something improper. (Words mean things, and "punished" and "investigated" are not synonyms.)
     

    My guess is that all he has to do is produce one or more investors who say "yep, we're ready to put up X billion and we've been talking to him about this for awhile" and he is off scot-free, perhaps with an admonishment to be more careful in the future.

    Only if he can demonstrate that such readiness existed prior to his tweet and covered the entire amount of the buyout. (That's what "funding is secured" means.)

    Seriously, what is it with Musk's defenders? Their ability to create utter nonsense from thin air surpasses all belief.

    In all likelihood, he will take Tesla private, and most likely under the terms he sketches out in his initial tweets.

    Maybe... maybe not. "Going private" and "keeping existing shareholders" are mutually incompatible. He's going to have to come up with a pretty novel solution and get it past the regulators first, and that's going to be a very tall order.

  31. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in plac by djinn6 · · Score: 1
    Since you can't read, let me repeat what I said:

    Note how all of those are promises with actual dollar amounts. The stuff he says he'll do for X will simply not be done for X

  32. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in pla by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    "He also promised an all electric car with a 200+ mile range for under $100,000 which hasn't happened yet!"

        - Djinn, 2003

  33. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in pla by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    Under $100,000... very impressive!

    /sarcasm

  34. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in pla by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    "Under $100,000 would be very impressive! It'll never happen!"

        - Djinn, 2003

  35. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in pla by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    I must apologize, I had assumed the person on the other end of this conversation has a brain. It seems that I've made a serious misjudgement.

  36. Re: Musk never said there was an agreement in pla by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    "If I only had a brain ..."

      - Djinn, 2018

  37. Re:Bumper Gate by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    It's not bullshit, it's how the Federal tax credit works. With Model 3 sales increasing, they were going to ship their 200,000th car in the US in June, which would mean missing 3 months of additional tax credits for customers. They already had over 80,000 vehicles sold in the US in 2016 and 2017, which doesn't include any vehicles sold previous to 2016, or the first six months of 2018 which in july had them producing 3x as many vehicles per week as in 2017.

    If you think it's complete bullshit, show your math on it. I've presented a scenario where it's past plausible.

    Otherwise, your post amounts to "hater gonna hate" and adds no value whatsoever.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  38. Tech & CEO dont always mix by rojash · · Score: 1

    See how smart Page & Brin were; they got a smart CEO to kick off their billion-$ company instead of taking over the reins at the start. See how stupid and immature Kalanick got towards the end of his tenure. Musk is doing the same thing, he's on the exact same footsteps, and like Trump tweeting shit he shouldn't be, Glad I sold off my Tesla stocks last year & cancelled my registration also (and when I heard about the Boring company, I didnt have any doubts; this was a madman who also took down his 'open source' Loop after telling others to build it)

  39. Re: It's not about strangers it's about financial by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Yeah, there's droves of Republicans that are always speaking out against law enforcement

    There are plenty who rant about any regulations, like DUI, about driving on the public roads. Plenty who think that herp derp I'll do it myself herp derp gun taped under the dining table herp derp.

    prisons

    Already privatized. How can you not know that? Been spending some time at Club Fed?

    military spending, and the armed forces

    Those are the same thing, but herp derp bump stocks!

    My waste is more then my height, and if yours isn't yoor a faggert

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  40. Re:Idou is a fraud, fakes ownership of Tesla Model by Idou · · Score: 1

    LynnwoodRooster, kind of sad to see someone with:
    an EE background,
    that designs speakers,
    has over a dozen patents,
    knows Mandarin,
    lived in China for 4 years,
    and is over 50 years
    degrade themselves like you are doing because they think this will never impact their Slashdot account. . .
    You may have gotten away with this in the past. . . you will not this time.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  41. Re:Idou is a fraud, fakes ownership of Tesla Model by Idou · · Score: 1

    LynnwoodRooster, like a true Trump supporter, you display the ability to fabricate lies almost as fast as I can programmatically extract facts from your Slashdot posts. . .

    By the way, the fact that you suspect that someone would actually fabricate a $50K car purchase is pretty telling of your own financial situation. . . I would think an EE designer of smart speakers would be too financially well off to be so impressed by such a small purchase. . . but we all have seen your level of financial knowledge, so I guess that explains it. . . (By the way, the median house value in Ventura, CA is 600K. . . do you live in a cardboard box, or something?)

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  42. Re:Idou is a fraud, fakes ownership of Tesla Model by Idou · · Score: 1

    LynnwoodRooster, according to you, I have issues with poor people, but, at the same time, I cannot afford a $50K car and have to lie about owning one? Are you experiencing dementia like your "dear leader", Trump?

    Perhaps I can analyze your posts for declining cognition and convince you to get some treatment?

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!