"The FBI HAD access to the server last time, images of the server VMs which is exactly what the FBI wanted."
Except that is a very recent cover story that the FBI denies. The DNC hired Cloudstrike (a supporter/contributor) to "confirm" that the evil Russians had hacked their servers instead of legitimate law enforcement..
Maybe because there was nothing salacious there? Also note that the RNC cooperated with the FBI to investigate, whereas the DNC to this day will not allow the FBI to look at their servers or evidence.
I don't believe for a second that any foreign power hacked John Podesta's gmail account or the DNC servers. Every bit of evidence points to the gmail hack being incompetence on his part and the DNC leaks being an inside job.
More importantly, lessen the importance, scope and reach of the GOVERNMENT in our lives period. That's the difference between conservative and liberal. Government is the problem, not the solution.
Your superiority complex is showing. Keep believing how 65 million people are just beneath you, poorly educated and gullible. He's going to get even more votes next time because of the arrogance of the Left.
Nobody with a brain in their head denies that the climate changes. Climate has always changed since the planet formed. The idiots are the ones who don't recognize that or think that there's anything we humans can do to prevent it. They'd have us all go back to living in caves, killing millions more than their worst-case climate change predictions will.
Actually its the opposite. California stopped most logging and forest management activities decades ago at he behest of environmentalists. These fires are a result of that lack of management.
How can it be taken seriously when they are constantly changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis? In science you're supposed to change the hypothesis to match the data, not the other way around. What they're doing is religion.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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).
Tesla has NEVER been profitable. Even though it's existed since 2003 doesn't necessarily make it mature either.
TSLA is where it is by creating a cult of incredibly naive people who believe they are going to save the planet by destroying the environment even more and making Elon Musk a multi-billionaire.
The problem is the damage Musk is 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
"The FBI HAD access to the server last time, images of the server VMs which is exactly what the FBI wanted."
Except that is a very recent cover story that the FBI denies. The DNC hired Cloudstrike (a supporter/contributor) to "confirm" that the evil Russians had hacked their servers instead of legitimate law enforcement..
Maybe because there was nothing salacious there? Also note that the RNC cooperated with the FBI to investigate, whereas the DNC to this day will not allow the FBI to look at their servers or evidence.
I don't believe for a second that any foreign power hacked John Podesta's gmail account or the DNC servers. Every bit of evidence points to the gmail hack being incompetence on his part and the DNC leaks being an inside job.
More importantly, lessen the importance, scope and reach of the GOVERNMENT in our lives period. That's the difference between conservative and liberal. Government is the problem, not the solution.
Project much?
Yes, how dare those local leaders bring in thousands of new jobs!
Your superiority complex is showing. Keep believing how 65 million people are just beneath you, poorly educated and gullible. He's going to get even more votes next time because of the arrogance of the Left.
Nobody with a brain in their head denies that the climate changes. Climate has always changed since the planet formed. The idiots are the ones who don't recognize that or think that there's anything we humans can do to prevent it. They'd have us all go back to living in caves, killing millions more than their worst-case climate change predictions will.
Climate change is the perfect scam.
It's hot outside: climate change!
It's cold outside: climate change!
It's raining: climate change!
It's not raining: climate change!
It's snowing: climate change!
It's not snowing: climate change!
New additions:
Volcanoes are erupting: climate change!
Actually its the opposite. California stopped most logging and forest management activities decades ago at he behest of environmentalists. These fires are a result of that lack of management.
How can it be taken seriously when they are constantly changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis? In science you're supposed to change the hypothesis to match the data, not the other way around. What they're doing is religion.
Slashdot gotta get those clicks!
Is Vice really a valid source for news like this?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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).
Tesla has NEVER been profitable. Even though it's existed since 2003 doesn't necessarily make it mature either.
TSLA is where it is by creating a cult of incredibly naive people who believe they are going to save the planet by destroying the environment even more and making Elon Musk a multi-billionaire.
The problem is the damage Musk is 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.
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.
Or here: https://www.dailykos.com/user/...
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.
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.
It's Wells Notice, no apostrophe. Named after John Wells. I didn't catch it.
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.
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.