Elon Musk Should Be Held In Contempt For Tweet, SEC Tells Judge (fastcompany.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk Should Be Held In Contempt For Tweet, SEC Tells Judge (fastcompany.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday February 25, 2019 @03:30PM from the now-he's-done-it dept.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has asked a federal judge to hold CEO Elon Musk in contempt for breaking terms of a settlement agreement with a tweet. The SEC cited an "inaccurate" February 19 tweet about production. Musk tweeted alongside a photo: "4000 Tesla cars loading in SF for Europe." He replied to the tweet adding: "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019." Fast Company reports: It's that "will make around 500K in 2019" part that angered the SEC, which had this to say in legal papers filed with a Manhattan federal court: "He once again published inaccurate and material information about Tesla to his over 24 million Twitter followers, including members of the press, and made this inaccurate information available to anyone with Internet access." The SEC says the tweet violated an agreement that was part of a settlement Tesla made with the regulator last year. Musk promised to consult with Tesla's board before he made any statements on social media that could affect the stock price of the company. Tesla also agreed to pay $40 million in penalties and Musk agreed to step down as chairman of the board.

130 of 274 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fake News by SuperKendall · 2019-02-25 15:35 · Score: 5, Informative

As Elon pointed out, he gave that figure in the last earnings report way before that tweet....
Like Musk said - how embarrassing for the FCC! It sure does seem like someone there has it in for Tesla, very likely someone at the FCC is compromised by some large short holder that is sweating bullets.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Fake News by 110010001000 · 2019-02-25 15:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why would a short be sweating bullets? The stock is down 15% over the last 12 months. You Musk cultists are something else. Jobs died and you had to find another "hero" I guess. You guys need to find better heros.
2. Re:Fake News by slashdice · 2019-02-25 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Glad you brought that up. Now the 8K gave a guidance of 360,000-400,000. On the earnings call, Musk said 350,000 to 500,000. Do you think his babysitter approved both of the 400,000 and 500,000 numbers? The 350,000- 500,000 number was given in response to a question, ie, not a prepared answer. Was there a tape delay so his baby sitter could approve that guidance?
  
  --
  Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
3. Re: Fake News by astrofurter · 2019-02-25 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  You should read some history books sometime. The older the better. History is just chock full of conspiracies.
4. Re:Fake News by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-25 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a short be sweating bullets? The stock is down 15% over the last 12 months.
  Shorties may still be sweating if their strike price is lower than 15%. Many shorties were betting on a collapse into bankruptcy.
5. Re: Fake News by edris90 · 2019-02-25 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they were known as capitalists.
6. Re:Fake News by _merlin · 2019-02-25 17:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You're confusing options with delta 1 instruments. If someone was betting that the stock price would collapse, the easiest way to make a profit on it (i.e. requiring least initial outlay, margin and maintenance) is to buy a put option. You do that, and if the price falls below the strike price you make some money. If it doesn't fall below the strike price, you just lose the premium you paid for the option. No need to sweat bullets - you've already paid, you're not up for any other losses.
  Now if you want to post a bit more margin, you can write a call option. In this case, you're paid the premium, and if the stock ends above the strike price, you pay the difference. In this case you want to hope that the premium you got when you wrote the option is going to be bigger than the difference between the stock price and the strike price at expiry. But if you're writing options without delta hedging, you're basically gambling, so if you lose you got what was coming to you.
  If you want a short delta 1 instrument, the lowest initial outlay is a contract for differences (CFD). With this you get a delta 1 position, but you pay maintenance each month. The stock price needs to fall at rate faster than the maintenance you're paying on your CFD position. You're not going to be shitting bricks in this case either. You've been paying the whole time you've had your position open, and if the stock price isn't falling fast enough you just swallow the loss so far and close the position.
  Actual short stock positions require an arrangement with a security lender if you want to hold them for more than a day. The lender is going to charge you maintenance on the position and require you to post margin. So as with the CFD, you'd cut your losses at some point if the stock price isn't falling as fast as you'd like.
  I'm not going to try and give an overview of futures here, but as with the other delta 1 strategies there's no strike price involved. The only people who'd be shitting bricks would be people who wrote deep in-the-money calls and didn't hedge their positions. But they should've known what they were getting into.
7. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  The type of person dumb enough to still believe Musk's BS have absolutely no idea what you just typed. That may as well be written in another language.
8. Re:Fake News by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-02-25 18:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think Steve Jobs was an asshole, but I also consider him a hero and more importantly a genius.
  And I think Elon Musk is an idiot, but he's also a genius...and a hero. Okay, maybe not a hero, but I'm jealous of his success and I really do wish I had a Tesla and also a rocket that could launch me to Mars.
  I'll get a Tesla sooner or later. As soon as the transmission falls out of my 20 year old Detroit garbage which the "Check Engine" light tells me is due to happen any mile now.
  I do keep hearing horror stories about Teslas, but most of them sound overblown and I've been hearing horror stories about cars all my life. Did you ever hear the one about the Pinto?
  I only say Musk is an idiot because he sometimes blurts out stupid stuff that he probably wouldn't say if he weren't so stoned (kind of like me). All the problems with Tesla...quality control, production numbers, whatever...those are all expected from a relatively new car manufacturer and when was the last time a new car manufacturer ramped up to the level of Ford or GM?
  Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
  So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles. Holy shit! Can you imagine the bad press that would ensue if Tesla had to do that? But with Ford, hardly anyone blinks an eye.
9. Re:Fake News by gravewax · 2019-02-25 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  earnings report stated 350k-500k. by stating it would be approximately 500k he has released material information that the numbers would be on the high side of the estimate.
10. Re:Fake News by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-02-25 18:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  DAMMIT!
  I wanted to make some snarky comments and I accidentally hit submit before I was done!
  From the link in my previous post:
  
  a transmission flaw that could cause the vehicles to downshift to first gear with no warning.
  Fortunately I drive a Chrysler so it's like I'm always in first gear anyway.
  
  Also impacted— by separate issues—were select Lincoln Continentals made between 2017 and
  
  Did Fortune REALLY say "impacted" when referring to certain car models?
  This is how words like "phrasing" come into common speech. At least my car hasn't been impacted.
11. Re:Fake News by fwad · 2019-02-25 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  As the price of a call is always >= the intrinsic value then the writer of any calls (deep in the money or otherwise) will be happy with the stock prices going down 15%
  
  --
  -- Kernel Panic: Error reading /dev/caffeine
12. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  You realize the soil is radioactive on Mars right? And that with the lack of atmosphere there it's also flooded with UV radiation from the sun?
  You would be better served building yourself a human sized microwave oven with a tanning bed inside it and hopping in than to spend that money on a Mars trip because with the amount of money you'd save, you might be able to both afford a doctor and enterance into a decontamination program and have the time left on your life to be able to fix some of the damage caused by doing it.
  Even Musk himself has said the Mars missions are likely suicide missions but that if rich people want to pay him to go, that's on them. The guy is without conscience, as far too many CEOs these days are.
  They get to become CEOs because they are the only people capable of lying to push the oversell of their company's products without hesitating or feeling guilty about it.
13. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  I am waiting to see how low they drop so I can buy them cheaper. It'll rebound to 350 by april, 400 by december.
14. Re:Fake News by Rei · 2019-02-25 21:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Let's be clear on what all of the numbers actually are.
  Q4 letter: 360-400k vehicle deliveries
  Q4 call: 350-500k Model 3s produced
  Tweet: around 500k vehicles produced
  These are not the same thing. Deliveries are not production (there's also inventory, both in-transit and accumulated - both of which are to be much higher this year vs. last, due to the international launch of the Model 3 and Tesla's new policy to locally stock common configs for faster delivery), and Tesla makes more than just the Model 3 (e.g., ~80k S+X this year).
  Yes, there is a lack of clarity between the Q4 letter and call (I wouldn't expect up to 100k M3 inventory, although it's possible) - but resolving that ambiguity is an issue entirely unrelated to the case. What matters is that Musk's tweet clearly falls within the range of publicly disclosed information. Because the earnings call is an official source of public information disclosure.
  There seems to be a common mistaken view (even repeated by some journalists) that the SEC settlement requires anything Musk posts to be pre-read and pre-approved. This is not correct. The social media policy, imposed on Tesla by the settlement, requires Musk to seek approval for communications which contain material information - nothing more.
  So the question is: is reiterating already public numbers from official channels (aka, the Q4 earnings call) "material information"? Yeah, good luck making that argument. That doesn't mean that the numbers from the call will be proven correct - but they were previously publicly disclosed information, and thus not material information. And regardless of whether one thinks that Musk should have every tweet pre-approved, that is not his obligation - he is only required to have tweets containing material information approved.
  Now, let's put yourself in the shoes of a Tesla attorney. And let's say that Musk's statement in the earnings call was not guidance that you wanted repeated (e.g. overly optimistic or whatnot). What do you do? The company has an obligation to make sure that it's putting out are as accurate as possible. So if you only want the 400k figure repeated, then what's the solution? You jointly draft a followup "correction" tweet, of course. This does not in any way change the fact that what was stated previously was already public information.
  
  --
  When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
15. Re:Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-25 22:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Q4 call: 350-500k Model 3s produced
  That's the problem right there. Between 350k and 500k. Musk tweeted that they will produce 500k. He forgot the range.
  Omitting the range suggests that Tesla is on target to produce 500k. Musk is not supposed to make statements like that any more, or at least not without prior review and approval.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-25 22:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What boggles the mind is that Musk just can't resist tweeting about Tesla production numbers even after he was told by a court not to and fined $40 million.
  How hard is it to just avoid tweeting about that stuff?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
17. Re: Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-25 23:26 · Score: 2
  
  Do you know why they are saying it's "contempt of court" now? It's because the court signed off on the agreement, on the basis that Musk would stick to it, and if he didn't he would be held in contempt by the court for not obeying its instructions.
  See, the SEC isn't dumb. They made sure that the agreement had legal force by having the court agree it, creating this consequence if Musk ignored it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Fake News by Tomahawk · 2019-02-26 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  "@elonmusk [Feb 19] Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019"
  Isn't "around" effectively a range?
19. Re: Fake News by DarenN · 2019-02-26 00:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In fairness, they're claiming he broke the agreement, and he disagrees.
  His counterpoint is that the number he tweeted was already available in the earnings report and thus could not move the stock price. This is reasonable - the SEC cannot expect him to not publicize Tesla's successes, and given this was public information for investors already it seems unlikely to move the stock price.
  
  --
  Rational thought is the only true freedom
20. Re:Fake News by religionofpeas · 2019-02-26 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  350-500k Model 3s vs 500k vehicles
21. Re:Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  You should be Musk's lawyer.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re: Fake News by Rei · 2019-02-26 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  That's not what was said during the call. What was said was:
  
  Colin Rusch
  Thanks so much. Can you talk a little bit about the geographic dispersion for the guidance for 2019, where you're expecting the Model 3s to sell through as well as the other models?
  Elon Musk
  Well, I think we did, actually. Yes, it's clear in our letter.
  Deepak Ahuja
  We indicated in Q1, we will start delivering Model 3s in Europe and China. And we also shared a chart showing the potential market size for midsized premium sedans in North America, Europe and Asia, suggesting those markets could be even bigger. So I think that gives a good sense of where we'll be. And we'll launch the right-hand drive version at some point to go to the other markets.
  Elon Musk
  Yes. Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year.
  Absolutely nothing whatsoever about these being annualized figures. Specifically "this year". And only about Model 3s, not counting S+X.
  Again, those numbers might be wrong, but they were public guidance given in an official context. Indeed, Musk's tweet was so non-market moving (premarket) that the last trade of TSLA before Musk's tweet was $307,10, and the average price of all trades after it up until the "correction" was $307,24. Effectively no budge whatsoever. Volume was light as well compared to pre-tweet.
  
  --
  When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
23. Re: Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  the SEC cannot expect him to not publicize Tesla's successes
  Sure they can, when that's what he agreed to do. He doesn't seem to have held up the agreement to have his tweets vetted either.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Fake News by Solandri · 2019-02-26 00:38 · Score: 2
  
  As Elon pointed out, he gave that figure in the last earnings report way before that tweet....
  The fact that the figure he tweeted had previously been disclosed is irrelevant. The SEC's argument isn't that he published new undisclosed information outside of the regular financial statements. They're saying that he broke the terms of his settlement, where he agreed not to publish anything written (including tweets) without first getting them approved (though I'm unclear on who exactly is supposed to do the approving). He could've tweeted something as benign as "Tesla went public in 2010" and if he didn't first get it approved, it still would've been a violation.
  
  In other words, they're saying that if he had been in compliance, whoever at Tesla was supposed to be doing the approving would've noticed the error in the "500,000" figure, and corrected it to "350k to 500k" to match the earnings report before it was tweeted to the public. And thus his followup tweet (clarifying that 500k was the expected end-of-year rate not the end of year total) shouldn't have been necessary. They're saying the fact that a correction tweet was necessary is evidence that he's shooting tweets from the hip again, instead of first getting them approved like he's supposed to be doing.
  
  The SEC is actually trying to do him a favor by trying to get him to stop his drunken midnight tweets.
25. Re:Fake News by Cmdln+Daco · 2019-02-26 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Did Fortune REALLY say "impacted" when referring to certain car models?
  Did another Tesla in 'autopilot' plow into a Lincoln?
26. Re:Fake News by CanadianMacFan · 2019-02-26 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  So he's saying that they aren't going to be making 500k Model 3 vehicles with his Tweet?
27. Re: Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the joint statement that he and the SEC submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/...
  Note how it requires him to submit his Tesla related tweets to the agreed review process before publication. Note how he didn't.
  Tesla appointed someone to review his tweets, and they quit after one day. So none of his Tesla related tweets have been reviewed. Musk shouldn't even have been tweeting about anything Tesla related according to that settlement, until Tesla put the review process in place.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
28. Re: Fake News by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 01:40 · Score: 2
  
  Here's the settlement letter he signed along with the SEC and submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/...
  Note how it says he won't tweet anything about Tesla without having it put through the review process first.
  Since Tesla failed to implement the review process, he shouldn't be tweeting abut Tesla at all, even if it is 100% true and accurate.
  Doesn't matter if it influenced anyone, or if it was public information or not. He agreed not to do it and settled for only $40 million. He broke the terms of the settlement, there in black and white.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
29. Re:Fake News by Austerity+Empowers · 2019-02-26 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well for what it's worth I love my Tesla. For the money, they could have done a bit more I think in terms of interior design (is it a sports car? Or a sedan? Make up your mind. If sedan, think of families), and post-ownership the sales interaction I get is almost non-existent compared to other cars.
  But it is fun to drive, and does exactly what it should do. It is far more fuel efficient than the gas car, and my transportation costs have decreased considerably. I've watched the gas station sign change 30% in the past month, but my electricity cost has not changed at all. The engineering is definitely sound, and I don't think I will buy another gas car again. Even when I drive the mini-van around for the kids, I feel like I'm getting in a buggy and slapping horses around.
  I am not sure about Elon and his management. I think in the long run Tesla gets bought by someone. That will definitely make their car worse, particularly if that someone is say: GM. But hopefully enough EVs come on the market that I will have a choice to make next time around.
30. Re: Fake News by GLMDesigns · 2019-02-26 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why is sending people to Mars "without conscience?"
  
  If people, who know the risk, chose to go then what's the problem? They WANT to go.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
31. Re:Fake News by oh_my_080980980 · 2019-02-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Musk agreed to get permissions BEFORE he posts such information. So Musk is in violation.
  
  You can stop dick suck Musk now.
32. Re:Fake News by oh_my_080980980 · 2019-02-26 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  And yet not in a shareholder letter issued before which said
  
  "In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018. In this range, we are expecting to have posit ive GAAP net income and to generate positive free cash flow (operating cash flow less capex) in every quarter beyond Q1 2019. We believe these results will be substantially driven by our restructuring action and the ongoing financial discipl ine with which we are managing the business. " http://ir.tesla.com/static-fil...
33. Re: Fake News by c6gunner · 2019-02-26 02:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Note how it requires him to submit his Tesla related tweets to the agreed review process before publication.
  No, it doesn't. You are lying again. The exact wording is "written communications that reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or it's shareholders". That's nowhere near the same as all Tesla related tweets. Moreover you first suggested that he was completely prohibited from tweeting about Tesla, and now you've changed that to "well he has to have it reviewed first". If you keep changing your claim you will eventually be in the realm of factual commentary, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that that's what you're doing.
  
  Tesla appointed someone to review his tweets, and they quit after one day.
  
  And now you're just repeating bullshit you read from other idiots on here. Who was this mysterious person who quit after one day? There seems to be no record of him. If you're referring to Dane Butswinkas, he left after two months, so you've only underestimated his actual length of employment by a factor of 60 or so.
34. Re:Fake News by lgw · 2019-02-26 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  hy would a short be sweating bullets? The stock is down 15% over the last 12 months.
  
  I've been long Tesla stock from time to time. My buddy goes short from time to time. We both make money.
  Tesla's been going violently sideways for almost two years now, and it went sideways for three and a half years before that. It's much ado about nothing.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
35. Re:Fake News by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, minivans are notorious for being under-engined. But I don't understand people whose transportation costs are lowered by getting a Tesla. My transport costs are lower than just the purchase price of a Tesla (amortized over expected lifetime, etc).
  But a regular gas car (not minivan) tends to work pretty well. And, givien that the constraint for my dirivng isn't the car, but the cars around me, it's hard to imagine wanting to upgrade the vehicle for speed. Hell, it would just make me more frustrated to be in a Tesla stuck in traffic.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
36. Re:Fake News by DredJohn · 2019-02-26 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles. Holy shit! Can you imagine the bad press that would ensue if Tesla had to do that? But with Ford, hardly anyone blinks an eye.
  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/2... (Tesla recalls 123k cars).
  There wasn't much bad press when it occurred at Tesla. At the time of that article, Tesla's annual production was about 125k.
37. Re:Fake News by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he could have avoided this by submitting his tweet to the review process. He didn't. If he ran a red light, he could get a ticket even if the road was empty.
  None of your statements seem equivalent to me. (380k +/- 20k) vs. Model 3 made (425k +/- 75k) vs. Total Made (500k +/- 0) Then you added in the S/X numbers without citing them.
  It would be reasonable to read this tweet as clarification they expect to hit the high point of an expansive range.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
38. Re: Fake News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-02-26 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  You realize the soil is radioactive on Mars right?
  You realize the soil is radioactive on Earth, right?
  
  And that with the lack of atmosphere there it's also flooded with UV radiation from the sun?
  Yes, that - not the 610 Pa average pressure - is what will prevent you from sunbathing on the beach on Mars.
  Seriously, the other reasons for having something between your skin and the Martian environment make the UV thingy kind of irrelevant.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
39. Re:Fake News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-02-26 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not, unless Tesla stopped making all other vehicles this year.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
40. Re: Fake News by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-02-26 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  ou realize the soil is radioactive on Mars right?
  
  This didn't stop people from settling Colorado or coastal Brazil.
41. Re:Fake News by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are there any online firms that make it easy with good tools for an individual investor to hedge option risk, etc.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
42. Re: Fake News by MachineShedFred · 2019-02-26 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  The soil and seawater here on earth are radioactive too. It's all a matter of degree, and what type of radiation is being emitted. And damn, guess I can't go running around naked on Mars? There is exactly nobody that thought they would be.
  You're kind of a moron.
  Here's a hint: UV radiation, RF radiation, and particle radiation are not equal. And forms of particle radiation are not equal either.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
43. Re:Fake News by samwichse · 2019-02-26 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh
44. Re:Fake News by samwichse · 2019-02-26 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC they produced about 100k cars Model S and X range in both 2017 and 2018.
  Assuming that stays the same, then that would be 450-600k total vehicles.
45. Re: Fake News by Rei · 2019-02-26 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  And the market disagrees with the SEC. Don't look now, but Tesla is actually up. In what world does the market think that the SEC has a plausible case against a company and actually go up after the SEC takes the CEO to court? And this is against negative macros!
  
  --
  When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
46. Re: Fake News by MachineShedFred · 2019-02-26 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From your own link:
  
  implementation of mandatory procedures to oversee and pre-
  approve Mr. Musk’s Tesla-related written communications that reasonably
  could contain information material to the company or its shareholders,
  He didn't violate the agreement, because what he tweeted on 19 February was already public information released on 30 January during the investor call.
  The tweet contained no "information material to the company or its shareholders" because they already had access to the information. As it turns out, "material information" has a defined meaning. Note the bit about "when it is revealed to the public" - if it's already public, then it's no longer material information.
  You are wrong. You are not a lawyer. You are definitely not a securities lawyer, and neither am I. Don't act like one.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
47. Re: Fake News by MachineShedFred · 2019-02-26 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Except that he tweeted information made available to investors two weeks prior, and you think that somehow constitutes a violation of a court order to not tweet material information without prior board approval.
  You completely whiff on the idea that it wasn't material information, which has a defined legal meaning that includes the information not being public.
  You are wrong.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
48. Re:Fake News by MachineShedFred · 2019-02-26 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Totally false. 100% FUD.
  Do you know anything about cars, at all? What is magical about a Tesla that would cause 100% of any recalled vehicle to have to go back to the Fremont factory, but any other car manufacturer could do it at a dealership service center? You know that Tesla has service centers, right? Moreover, they have on-site service vans that can take care of lots of service appointments at your convenience wherever the car is, so you don't have to go to a service center. If the recall is on a part that is easily swapped at a service center, or by their on-site service crews (does Ford have that?) then why would it have to go back to the factory?
  Here's a hint: my Model 3 needed to have the turn signal stalk replaced because it wasn't auto-cancelling on a left turn. A guy in a van showed up and replaced it in my driveway in about 20 minutes. I regarded this as excellent customer service I would have never gotten from any other car manufacturer I've bought a new vehicle from in my life, including FCA, Subaru, BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Toyota, and Jaguar Land Rover.
  Why are you lying on the internet, bro?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
49. Re:Fake News by strikethree · 2019-02-26 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles. Holy shit! Can you imagine the bad press that would ensue if Tesla had to do that? But with Ford, hardly anyone blinks an eye.
  That is an expected result for Ford. FORD = Found On Road Dead
  Tesla is held to a higher standard, rightfully or not. *shrug*
  I doubt I will ever buy a Tesla (I don't want information transmitters outside of my control and inside of my car), but I will NEVER willingly buy a Ford.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
50. Re: Fake News by Type44Q · 2019-02-26 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Beats me why anyone would think a billionaire any of them are heroes...
  Because Elon's put his money where his mouth is in order to bring about great change that's much needed.
51. Re: Fake News by gravewax · 2019-02-26 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  and they have explicitly stated they DID NOT approve of this tweet.
52. Re: Fake News by DarenN · 2019-02-27 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pointing out that this is hardly slam-dunk on the SEC's side. I think it will be very difficult to get a judge to agree that he violated the "material information" clause given the previous investor call. Material information has a specific definition and him saying "350-500K" in the investor call, then causally saying "around 500k" on a tweet might not breach it. It almost certainly won't because the more specific information in the investor call would be more material than the tweet and occurred 2 weeks earlier. We'll see.
  
  --
  Rational thought is the only true freedom
world's smartest idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 15:35 · Score: 1

he is his own worst enemy
1. Re:world's smartest idiot by SirAstral · 2019-02-25 15:54 · Score: 2
  
  This is true of everyone, there is no one that will harm you more than yourself. Humans excel at self sabotage and contradictory behavior. You tell someone it's not a good idea to walk off a cliff... wham... lined up like lemmings. You tell them tats are a bad idea... they get covered head to toe, you tell them that you don't agree with their religion they hate you, you tell them that you don't agree with their conclusions about science they hate you, you tell them you don't agree with their politics they hate you... and then they turn around and ask why everyone hates everyone and that all the hate needs to stop... while never stopping their own hate.
Shouldn't we wait by saloomy · 2019-02-25 15:35 · Score: 1

To see if he was right before saying this tweet was wrong? He did correct himself and say it was closer to 400k but would end with a run rate of 500k (10k / week).
1. Re:Shouldn't we wait by 110010001000 · 2019-02-25 15:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It has nothing to do with the tweet being "wrong" or "right". The settlement is that his Tweets need to be approved, and they aren't.
2. Re:Shouldn't we wait by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes we know for certain because the answers both Tesla and Musk filed with the SEC's contempt complaint admit it. Nobody was consulted before his first tweet and then Tesla's corporate attorney rushed to meet with Musk to write the correction he tweeted four hours later. They do not dispute that.
  Also of note is that the SEC is only going after Musk for contempt. The company cooperated. They're finally tossing Musk under the bus.
3. Re:Shouldn't we wait by SNRatio · 2019-02-25 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  to dot the "i": Musk said in a TV interview that he doesn't always follow the rule.
4. Re:Shouldn't we wait by slashdice · 2019-02-25 16:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, the SEC knows for certain he didn't "consult with the board." Look man, last week the SEC sent Tesla's lawyers a letter asking if that tweet had been pre-approved. Their response was, "uhh, no.". It was worse than that! They made it clear that nobody looks at tweets until after they're sent. SEC asked for a list of all tweets that had been pre-approved. They got back a blank sheet of paper. Tesla hired a well known, well respected securities lawyer to babysit Musk's twitter account. HE QUIT THE NEXT DAY. Probably filed a whistle blower claim so he can collect 10% of the fine, too.
  
  --
  Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
5. Re:Shouldn't we wait by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-25 17:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Forward projections of material facts issued by corporation directors are required to be issued to all shareholders simultaneously, and to be accompanied by specific legal disclaimers.
  The proper way to release material information is in quarterly reports, or in pre-announced earnings calls.
  Issuing these projections by tweet is never ok. It is especially bad for Elon because he has already been spanked once for this behavior, and had signed a consent decree to not do it again.
6. Re:Shouldn't we wait by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  "The proper way"
  You mean the way in which the SEC or whoever somehow gets a cut for distributing a fucking PDF.
  If everyone has the same information at the same time the SEC can suck it.
7. Re:Shouldn't we wait by gravewax · 2019-02-25 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  right or wrong is irrelevant, he isn't allowed to tweet material information without approval.
8. Re:Shouldn't we wait by gravewax · 2019-02-25 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  NO, the SEC does not have to be involved in the distribution at all. The proper way simply has to be the official company channel for release of the material. In this case there is an added restriction that If done via tweets it must be board approved first.
9. Re:Shouldn't we wait by h33t+l4x0r · 2019-02-25 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  A contemptible tweet?!? *clutches pearls* Who does he think he is?
10. Re:Shouldn't we wait by olau · 2019-02-25 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  They're finally tossing Musk under the bus.
  He paid Tesla's part of the previous fine himself. If you think they're throwing him under the bus, you're not understanding the situation correctly.
11. Re:Shouldn't we wait by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2019-02-25 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  I agree it is bad. SEC is going to ask to see their oversight process for Elon. Wish he kept his mouth shut. He should not be tweeting.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
12. Re:Shouldn't we wait by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Forward projections of material facts issued by corporation directors are required to be issued to all shareholders simultaneously, and to be accompanied by specific legal disclaimers.
  The proper way to release material information is in quarterly reports, or in pre-announced earnings calls.
  Issuing these projections by tweet is never ok. It is especially bad for Elon because he has already been spanked once for this behavior, and had signed a consent decree to not do it again.
  You mean this earnings report released in Q4 last year which quotes the annualized 500k figure? http://ir.tesla.com/static-fil...
13. Re:Shouldn't we wait by CanadianMacFan · 2019-02-26 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  From the report:
  "we are targeting annualized Model 3 output in excess of 500,000 units sometime between Q4 of 2019 and Q2 of 2020"
  His tweet talks about 2019 which is different. The report says 500k rate over a 9 month period while Elon said they would actually build around 500k cars in 2019.
14. Re:Shouldn't we wait by samwichse · 2019-02-26 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  But they could easily reach 500k cars in 2019 with those numbers, since there are two other models they make besides the 3.
  They make about 100k of the Model S and X yearly.
15. Re:Shouldn't we wait by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  His tweet talks about 2019 which is different.
  
  His tweet is different but if the earnings report talks about hitting those numbers with a Model 3, imagine what Tesla could do if they actually had more than one model on the market...
16. Re:Shouldn't we wait by CanadianMacFan · 2019-02-26 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  But he's only allowed to tweet information that is already public or that he's gotten permission to send out. Nobody previewed his tweet and so he's supposedly providing new information to the market. But is he screwing around with the short-sellers again or is this real information. That's why the SEC is on his case about the tweet.
Musk saving the world by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 15:35 · Score: 1

and Trump appointees trying their best to tear him down.
1. Re:Musk saving the world by NicknameUnavailable · 2019-02-25 16:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or he's another Silicon Valley hack out for world domination who has a bunch of friends and a mentality that he can get away with anything because he's rich. The regulations in place work to keep every other American down (you'd experience similar if you started a company making wild claims,) what's wrong with them applying to him?
2. Re:Musk saving the world by Brett+Buck · 2019-02-25 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Trump is not responsible for laws that have existed for decades, or is he responsible for Musk quite obviously violating the terms of his settlement.
  He broke the law, he agreed to a settlement to keep him out of jail and reduce the fine, and then he broke the settlement. This is black and white.
3. Re:Musk saving the world by squiggleslash · 2019-02-26 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Musk isn't trying to save the world, and I assure you the dislike is bipartisan. Indeed, I'd be unsurprised if Trump doesn't know what any of this is about and has no opinion about it or Musk.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
4. Re:Musk saving the world by NicknameUnavailable · 2019-02-26 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't trust the assessment of anyone outside of Silicon Valley over someone who made a fortune there you're already hopelessly lost in life.
I don't know by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 15:36 · Score: 1

Can't anything he says affect stock price?
1. Re:I don't know by gravewax · 2019-02-25 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  yes, hence why all CEO's have strict requirements about what they can and can't talk about. anything that is public information is open for discussion, provided you strict to EXACTLY what the formal released position is. and no their formal position was NOT ~500k. it was a range. Musk has the added restriction of must obtain board approval first due to his previous illegal actions.
2. Re: I don't know by psycho12345 · 2019-02-25 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  And any and all of the first amendment can be removed via due process. The SEC went through due process, found Musk had violated the law and instead of criminally prosecuting and jailing him, they offered a settlement, which he agreed to. He has now violated that settlement and now can face charges for it. It is no different then being put under house arrest or under gag order or restraining order.
3. Re: I don't know by gravewax · 2019-02-25 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  No they are not. As a executive of a publicly traded company he agreed to abide by certain laws and regulations.
4. Re: I don't know by JesseMcDonald · 2019-02-26 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  And any and all of the first amendment can be removed via due process.
  Following due process is a necessary but not sufficient condition to justify infringing someone's fundamental rights. If due process were sufficient on its own then the First Amendment would be worthless, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The legal process must not only be followed but must itself also be just, and the punishment proportional to the crime.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
OOPS! s/FCC/SEC/g by SuperKendall · 2019-02-25 15:37 · Score: 1

All those government TLA's start to blend together, what can I say.
I would complain about lack of the ability to quickly correct a misspelling, but hell if even Twitter can't manage it...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
make vs sell by OppMan29 · 2019-02-25 15:59 · Score: 1

he can say we will make a billion of this things,, but doesnt mean all will sell lol
Public companies = misery by WaffleMonster · 2019-02-25 16:02 · Score: 1

The only way to win is not to play. It's not worth it.
Re:I'm no Musk fanboy, but this is whacko by Luckyo · 2019-02-25 16:30 · Score: 1

The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
And yes, freedom to speak about specific things in a specific setting can be signed away by a person. That is what NDAs are for example.
It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-25 16:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

It was obvious to me from the outset that the conditions of the settlement effectively place a gag order on Musk that forbids him from mentioning virtually anything about Tesla, since almost anything he might publicly say could affect stock prices.
If I were him, I'd quit. Sell off his shares of the company to the highest bidder and get as far the hell away as possible from such a blatantly oppressive work environment that only seems to want to ruin the guy. He made his fortune once.... he's a smart guy, he can do it again somewhere else.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:It was inevitable... by Jeremi · 2019-02-25 17:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I were him, I'd be more careful what I post on Twitter. In fact, I wouldn't post to Twitter at all. There, problem solved.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
2. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-25 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said... a gag order that effectively prohibits him from talking about anything on social media.
  I'd sell off 100% my shares to the highest bidder and be done with Tesla forever if I were him. It is obvious from this that his ongoing affiliation with them is going to continue to cause harm to the company, and is unreasonably oppressive to his right to express any his own thoughts publicly, since any of them could adversely impact the price of Tesla stock, even if they are entirely true. The simple fact that *HE* said it might carry more weight than something that anyone who did a bit of research could have also found out.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:It was inevitable... by chispito · 2019-02-25 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  If I were him, I'd be more careful what I post on Twitter. In fact, I wouldn't post to Twitter at all. There, problem solved.
  Hush you. He posts a lot of really interesting stuff about Spacex. Way more interesting than anything to do with Tesla.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
4. Re:It was inevitable... by squiggleslash · 2019-02-26 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  All he literally had to do to comply with the SEC agreement was to pass his tweets by a Tesla employed fact checking lawyer before actually posting them. That was it. And he agreed to that because normally blatantly lying while in your position as CEO of a company in order to manipulate your company's stock price would net you massive fines and/or jail time.
  That's "oppressive" to you? But jail wouldn't have been? Or is your position that nobody should suffer any consequences from trying to defraud investors?
  But yeah, having to pass a tweet by a lawyer you employ and can easily afford to employ is somehow a "gag order". Right.
  The more I hear about Musk, the more I think he's a poster child for people with money who shouldn't have it. Normally the jerks who are rich and misuse their positions are there through inhereted wealth, but Musk got lucky with Paypal and we've been paying for it ever since, from FUD campaigns against long needed infrastructure expansion, to lies about everything from company performance to the sexual preferences of rescue divers.
  He's a jerk, and despite his fans he's clearly a net negative for society. I wish they'd prosecuted rather than settled. Hopefully that'll happen now.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
5. Re:It was inevitable... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  FFS, mot engineers working on projects I know aren't allowed to tweet about their work. It's not unreasonable from the companies point of view. He should just stop tweeting about Tesla/at all.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
6. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-26 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Understood... but what they are not allowed to talk about is a closed set of things, not being allowed to say anything on social media that might affect stock prices is an unbounded set.
  For chrissake, this post wasn't Musk trying to manipulate stocks or trying to disregard a court order, it comes across entirely as a guy being happy and excited about the direction he saw the company going.
  If the guy can't even publicly talk about *that* without being called out for supposedly affecting stock prices, then he shouldn't be working there at all. It's probably better for everyone. Musk, Tesla, and investors.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-26 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  You think getting fired isn't a consequence? Because that's what I think should happen here.
  Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice what can be explained through ignorance.
  Can you be held in contempt of court for simply being excited about what you do for a living? That is all that has happened here, and telling someone what they are and are not allowed to even FEEL is something I would most definitely call oppressive.
  Consequences certainly, but to treat it as if it's deliberate when it's very obvious how it wasn't is just being a vindictive dick.
  It's better for everyone, Musk, Tesla, and investors, if Musk gets as far the hell away from Tesla as he can as soon as fucking as possible..
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-26 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly why I think he should be discharged from Tesla entirely, and as time goes on, anything he might have known about the future of Tesla will become increasingly irrelevant. The guy clearly cannot be corporately affiliated with that company because he has shown abundantly that he is unfit to operate in that capacity.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
9. Re:It was inevitable... by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not going to condone breaking investment law, but the guy is a positive force in society, if only because of what he did for cost to near Earth orbit. He'd have to do a lot more bad stuff before becoming a net negative.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
10. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, company can lawfully require that you not disclose confidential information, effectively limiting what you are permitted to talk about.
  However, it gets kind of fuzzy when you say that a person isn't allowed to talk about *anything* on social media that *might* impact stock prices without clearing it through Tesla's board first. This is arguably overbroad, since there is no clearly defined objective metric.
  This tweet illustrates this perfectly. It comes across to me as a guy who is excited and happy for the direction that the company he is part of is heading, and then he gets all shat on for saying stuff that might affect their stock prices without clearing it through the board.
  Musk is clearly not capable of continuing to be affiliated with Tesla and still abide by the court order, so I think that Musk should be removed from Tesla entirely, his shares sold for the current market value, and they should distance themselves from eachother as far away as fucking possible. It would be best for Musk, best for Tesla, best for everyone.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
11. Re: It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-27 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  If they publicly make untrue statements that impacts that company, then definitely.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
12. Re:It was inevitable... by mark-t · 2019-02-27 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, even *IF* you assume that it was because of stupidity or ignorance or what have you, that does not absolve the person from consequences.
  It is important, however, that if one is to accept that it was unintentional, however stupid, then it not be treated as deliberate.
  Even his original comment that caused this whole thing never struck me as a statement he made with any intent to manipulate stock prices.. it was simply a thoughtless remark that he did not anticipate the response to. This is ignorance to the point of incompetence, and is why, as I also said, it is clear that this guy cannot both continue to be affiliated with Tesla and abide by the terms of the settlement.
  And honestly, you can't tell me that basically firing the guy or forcing him to permanently resign would not be a pretty hefty consequence.... so don't think I'm suggesting that the "I'm stupid" defense should necessarily get one out of any negative consequences for their actions, but it should, where such a defense is sufficiently probable, be still treated as an accident.
  I'm not even particularly wanting to defend the guy, but anyone who thinks that even brilliant people can't say spectacularly stupid shit from time to time have no idea what people are like in real life. When he made that first tweet, honest to God, the very first thing I thought was "Musk needs to take a long vacation... it's clear to me that stress is starting to take a toll on his sanity". Then people reacted to it as if it was deliberate attempt to manipulate stock prices, and honestly, I always felt like that was an overreaction.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
why? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 16:43 · Score: 1

Trump is never held accountable for any of his tweets. I'm waiting for him to start WW3 over Twitter. Why should Musk be held to a higher standard? To be clear, his comments were pretty stupid for any senior executive to make.
1. Re:why? by Brett+Buck · 2019-02-25 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Trump is *the duly-elected President of the United States*, he can say exactly what he wants to say at any time. He has also abided by every court decision that applied - even though he doesn't have to - the executive is *co-equal* to the judicial branch.
  Elon Musk is a nouveau-riche huskster trying to manipulate stock prices, and has already been sanctioned for it - and is now ignoring the sanctions.
2. Re:why? by mark-t · 2019-02-26 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately explained by ignorance".
  I saw the tweet, and it is not at all evident to me that he was *trying* to manipulate stock prices, it just comes across as someone who is excited and happy about the direction his company is going.
  Now granted, you could argue that such ignorance is tantamount to incompetent negligence, but I don't think anyone can make a fair case that it was deliberate or intentional. Can you be held in contempt of court for accidentally violating a court order? Consequences certainly, but contempt?
  Honestly, it seems to me like the best course of action for everyone, Tesla included, is for Musk to never have anything to do with Tesla ever again. His shares should be sold, and he should be free to do whatever the heck he wants, whether that's start another company or retire on some tropical island somewhere. He would still be barred from talking about any knowledge that he acquired while there that isn't already public, but Tesla would then move foward as a company without him, and the scope of what he can't actually talk about will become increasingly limited as times goes on.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:why? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not accidental. The court said "you have to have a lawyer review your tweets (or whatever system Tesla cam up with.) " He didn't. Intention no longer matters. It did before with the earlier SEC investigation, but this extra rule is a limit he agreed to as part of a settlement.
  
  Can you be held in contempt of court for accidentally violating a court order?
  
  Yes. All that needs to happen is someone (usually the SEC) show that he violated a court order, in this case the settlement with the SEC.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
4. Re:why? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  He has also abided by every court decision that applied - even though he doesn't have to - the executive is *co-equal* to the judicial branch.
  Holy fucking wrongness. Co-equal doesn't mean "can ignore each other". It means "has power over each other" You know, checks and balances. Ignoring a court ruling isn't a thing. If he doesn't like it, he has things he can do, but none of them are ignore the court.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
5. Re:why? by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  You are saying that the President is above the law. Just because the Executive Branch is co-equal doesn't mean what one does can't affect the other.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
6. Re:why? by mark-t · 2019-02-26 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's not accidental.
  Unproven.
  
  The court said "you have to have a lawyer review your tweets" (or whatever system Tesla cam up with.)
  
  No, the conditions of the settlement were that Musk would run any statements he planned to make which might affect stock prices by Tesla. There is no evidence that he intended to manipulate stock prices with this comment, so the infraction can reasonably be taken as inadvertent. Hanlons' razor is entirely applicable.
  Even assuming this, however, it is clear to me that he cannot both continue to be affiliated with Tesla and comply with the court order... this infraction should be reasonably treated as an act of ignorance to the point of incompetence and all affilliation with the company should permanently cease. His shares should be sold off for fair market value, paying a fine as a percentage of those shares for his thoughtless remarks and he should go on his way, either to retire somewhere or maybe start another company. He would be prohibited from disclosing anything that he knew about where Tesla was headed as a company before he left, but as time goes on and Tesla moves forward without him, the quantity of such information he had which did not eventually become public anyways would both shrink and become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time. Notwithstanding the occasional thoughtless public remark like this, he's actually a pretty smart guy... he made a fortune once, he could do it again if he wanted to somewhere else.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re: why? by mark-t · 2019-02-26 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Based on your own earlier comment, you should be fired for making an untrue statement on the internet, unless you are a hypocrite?
  Yes, actually. Objectively, I would am forced to admit that I would have brought such a situation upon myself for being so stupid and careless.
  It's not particularly likely to happen in my case, however, since I have objectively certain guidelines on what I am not allowed to say about the company I work for or what their future direction is. "material information that might affect stock prices" is far too vague to be objectively certain about it. Honestly, I don't know if I'd even want to work for a company that put those kinds of restrictions on what I were to talk about in the first place. And Musk, with his billions, has even more freedom to do what he wants than I do.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:why? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, technically the Courts have their own armed officers and could throw the President in jail for contempt, and technically the Justice Department can appoint an independent prosecutor to look into the President and indict him (I mean, he'd still be the President, but in jail), and technically other areas of the Executive Branch could just comply with the court order and not him (oaths are to the Constitution) which might cause a fun Civil War.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
Id make a second twit accopunt, by wolfheart111 · 2019-02-25 16:47 · Score: 1

NotElon :)

--
[($)]
Re:I'm no Musk fanboy, but this is whacko by JBMcB · 2019-02-25 17:01 · Score: 1

The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
It isn't even necessarily about the agreement. If you are an officer of a company, *all* of your public statements are considered to be communications to shareholders. Unless you disclaim something first, saying you are going to produce 500,000 cars this year is basically a promise to shareholders that you are going to build 500,000 cars this year. In the annual report, the range was 350,000 - 500,000. So now he's committed Tesla to the higher number. If they don't hit that number, the stockholders have grounds to sue.
This is what got him in trouble before. His excuse was some hand waving and "oh you know I was just saying stuff," which is the kind of legal defense that gets you, best case scenario, sued into oblivion or, worst case, thrown in jail by the SEC.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
This is bullshit. by bistromath007 · 2019-02-25 17:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even if what Musk is doing is somehow unethical, it's bullshit. The SEC goes ripshit on him for puffing himself up on Twitter, but never says boo about normal everyday fuckery that is far worse. This is the agency that gives a dumb smile and a thumbs-up through every fraud-driven speculation bubble, every stock manipulation, and every business destruction by buyout and offloading of debt, all of which the news just makes up dumb garbage to explain. (For example, your gas prices pretty much never go up because of an actual supply problem, and Sears didn't implode because of Amazon.) The institutional gangsters of high finance are pulling this shit 24/7, and they're never at risk of more than a wrist slap because the next job they're most likely to have is a position at the SEC. They go after Musk because he had the audacity to make companies that disrupted some of their favorite scam factories. Fuck them.
1. Re:This is bullshit. by bistromath007 · 2019-02-25 18:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  So, let me get this straight.
  
  1) Taxpayers fund an organization whose only apparent purpose is to enable billionaires to moderately inconvenience one another.
  2) I should be happy they're doing this very important work.
  3) A braggart on Twitter is who I should really be upset about.
2. Re:This is bullshit. by gravewax · 2019-02-25 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  They are funded to regulate publicly traded companies, they are not a huge organisation and exist solely to ensure the regulations are being followed. specifically that companies and the directors of said companies are only releasing factual information and that all investors are being treated equally and given equal access to that information. To many people like yourself seem to conflate them with some massive agency, they aren't nor are they intended to be.
  
  from their own site.
  It is the responsibility of the Commission to:
  interpret and enforce federal securities laws;
  issue new rules and amend existing rules;
  oversee the inspection of securities firms, brokers, investment advisers, and ratings agencies;
  oversee private regulatory organizations in the securities, accounting, and auditing fields; and
  coordinate U.S. securities regulation with federal, state, and foreign authorities.
Re: article summarized by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-25 17:40 · Score: 1

Real summary: criminal gets wrist slap from SEC. Breaks law again a few months later in same way. Internet moron think criminal is victim.
What you should get out of this article: by ZenShadow · 2019-02-25 19:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

We should all be far more concerned that people are basing financial decisions on something posted on Twitter of all places.

--
-- sigs cause cancer.
1. Re:What you should get out of this article: by bws111 · 2019-02-26 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  That is the whole point. Some people WILL base their decisions on any available information. This can give them a significant advantage over people who only trust 'official' sources of information. Hence, the rule that all material information must only come from official sources.
2. Re:What you should get out of this article: by JesseMcDonald · 2019-02-26 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  This can give them a significant advantage over people who only trust 'official' sources of information.
  Or a significant disadvantage, if their 'unofficial' sources are wrong. Deciding which sources to trust is part of an investor's job. The SEC is essentially "leveling the playing field" by neutralizing an advantage more skilled investors have over less skilled ones, and by doing so, eliminating an important feedback mechanism which would select for more accurate information about the market.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
3. Re:What you should get out of this article: by strikethree · 2019-02-26 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  We should all be far more concerned that people are basing financial decisions on something posted on Twitter of all places.
  Hm. It is Mr. Musk using Twitter, so it is a valid source, which is what gives the government leeway to go after him. What I find absurd is that the language is casual. Absolutely NOBODY should be expecting firm results based on casual language. Words like "almost" and "around" are not words that say anything definite. If it is not definite, why is it a problem?
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
wrong metaphors by DrYak · 2019-02-25 19:48 · Score: 1

i think you lost your train of thoughts somewhere midway through your metaphor:
why would one need "decontamination" after sitting in microwace combined with UV bed ?

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:wrong metaphors by MachineShedFred · 2019-02-26 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly because he's an idiot and doesn't understand the differences between RF radiation, UV radiation, and particle radiation.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A Wired article about him and his past... by antdude · 2019-02-25 22:59 · Score: 1

https://www.wired.com/story/el... was a pretty good long read.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Details by sjbe · 2019-02-26 02:35 · Score: 1

Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
You are aware that Chrysler is generally at or near the bottom of the quality rankings and that they have numerous huge recalls of their own... right?

So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles.
Umm... You might want to check your figures. Ford sells more than that in the US alone each year with global production around 6 million per year.
1. Re:Details by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-03-03 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Don't care that Chrysler ranks low. Mine has been good to me. That was sort of a tongue-in-cheek remark anyway.
  And I did get the Ford production number wrong..I could have sworn I lifted it out of an article reporting on that, but I must have misread something.
Re: article summarized by mark-t · 2019-02-26 03:10 · Score: 1

My takeaway from this is that Musk cannot competently be part of Tesla, and should be discharged from the company as soon as fucking possible, for everyone's sake.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re: OOPS! s/FCC/SEC/g by aliquis · 2019-02-26 04:48 · Score: 1

If that ever happened not without a fight.
Re:Tweet freely at will by bws111 · 2019-02-26 04:54 · Score: 1

Maybe, just maybe, you don't understand the problem. Suppose Musk tweets out something about production problems. Some people will read that and decide that they should sell their stock - not necessarily a bad decision. Others though, will ignore the tweet (because they are so smart). Because of the selling, the stock price plummets. Who is potentially hurt? The people who ignored the tweet.
Since there is no way to stop anyone from acting on a tweet, the proper thing to do is make sure that all material communication comes only from official sources.
Re: article summarized by mark-t · 2019-02-26 04:58 · Score: 1

Why? There's no evidence that this was done with any thought or deliberate intent to violate the court order... it's simply a guy who was happy and excited about the direction the company was going.
Yes, he should have cleared this before saying it, but I don't think he intended to violate the court order, so I don't think this should be treated the same as contempt.
Reasonably, I think that the consequences for this should be that he not be involved with Tesla in *any* capacity, ever again. His shares should be sold at current market value, he pays a percentage of that as a penalty for his careless tweet, and is allowed to go on his way. He still would be under NDA to not disclose anything he knew about where Tesla was heading, but as Tesla moves forward without him, such knowledge would become either public knowledge or increasingly irrelevant with time.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Bullshit by mark-t · 2019-02-26 05:14 · Score: 1

Musk is not my hero, but sincerely I think Hanlon's razor applies here. I don't think there should be no consequences, but I do not see this as being a willful violation of a court order, but simply a guy who was happy and excited for what his company was doing.
Thoughtlessness should rightfully have its consequences though... I believe he should be forced to resign entirely and sell 100% of his shares in the company at current market value. An NDA would still reasonably apply to anything he happened to know about the insides of the company that are not yet public, but as Tesla moves forward without him, the volume of that information would either shrink as it becomes public knowledge or become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
poor media management by hdyoung · 2019-02-26 06:07 · Score: 1

Once Musk got into hot water with the SEC, he should have turned all his social media posting over to a small group of professional outreach people with a lawyer on the team. Why he kept control of it himself is a mystery to me. You do NOT screw with an SEC order like that. Ouch, what a dumb lesson for a very intelligent person to have to learn the hard way.

Kind of reminds me of the Roger Stone situation. This is a VERY media-savvy guy. For some reason, he thought that he could get away with posting physically threatening imagery aimed at a federal judge, and violate a gag order at the same time. But this is frikkin federal judge we're talking about. Forget about "I'm famous in the tabloids and slightly rich" .... federal judges have REAL power. What was he thinking?'

Same thing goes for people like Trump and Manafort, thinking that they can somehow get around Mueller with a little bit of politicking and misdirection.

Come on, people. Learn to identify the real heavyweights or get squashed.
Re:all 4 members of SEC are Trump appointed by iggymanz · 2019-02-26 06:41 · Score: 1

your idol Musk is just as much a manboy.
You probably think he's an inventor, when he's invented nothing. Sure, he's an engineer but that's it.
Now he smokes dope and makes all kind of ridiculous statements that if true would inflate stock prices....but of course they are lies.