Cite the code please. I'm looking at the Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 right now. The closest I can see is section 9a.5, but that's for people "selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security". I see nothing affecting people who are neither buying nor selling.
Also, to reiterate:
Your "case" is also premised on your concept that there actually aren't investors supporting the buyout deal. And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
OMG, news hurt your short positions. My heart breaks for you.
"GM's CEO announced that the company produced 13000 cars this week" "Interesting news, Sandra, although if he's lying he'll go to jail." -- said nobody ever.
Here's your logic train:
1) Musk announced news 2) You don't believe the news 3) Giant preemptive scandal without taking any time to substantiate your disbelief.
Meanwhile, preview of the future: here's how it's actually going to play out:
SEC: "Can we see your funding list?" Musk: "Here you go." SEC: "Huh, never would have thought that X would be in for that much. And Y's in too? Interesting. Okay, thanks!"
Market manipulation to what, exactly? Did Musk sell any shares? No? Really solid market manipulation case you've got there.
Your "case" is also premised on your concept that there actually aren't investors supporting the buyout deal. And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
OMG, news hurt your short positions. My heart breaks for you.
But, Musk should have warned them that there was major news upcoming that could have a serious negative impact on short sellers. You know, like he's been doing pretty much every bloody week recently.
The short argument to the SEC is basically, "Yeah, he warned us, but we didn't believe him! Also, he didn't tell us the exact date and time he would be announcing the news that would have a negative impact on us, or the exact details of what he was going to announce that was going to hurt short sellers. Also: we don't believe him now either!"
Yeah, I utterly believe anonymous sources who "confirm" talks about "taking tesla private"...
Oh, so Bloomberg is in on the conspiracy now too! Where does this stop - are the Illuminati trying to help Musk as well?
from what I've read Musk was desperate, offered himself, had a deal drafted... and was not bought. Eventually, he found money from other fools. https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Your article says literally the opposite of what you claim: "Musk broke off talks and the company has gone from strength to strength since, later launching in Europe, the UK and Australia."
All I see in this google search is a bunch of headlines from various people totally unconnected to Apple saying "Apple can buy Tesla".
No, saying Apple should buy Tesla. And I'll repeat the original claim, which you pooh-poohed: "Apple (has more cash today than they seemingly know what to do with, and we've seen a drumbeat of analysts over the past year opining "Apple should buy Tesla")"
Bloomberg from a few days ago, I'm sure you're capable enough to google it
1) Oh, so now Bloomberg is trustworthy?;) 2) I did google it and came up blank. So let me repeat myself: Ref?
Shorts refusing to believe Musk and shorting the stock on positive announcements isn't "news". Them repeatedly losing their shirts doing so also isn't news.
Google did not buy Tesla when it was allegedly offered to them for $5G, it ain't paying 10x that today.
It was precisely the other way around. Musk terminated the deal when Tesla had its first profitable quarter and no longer needed the cash. And it was for $6B at an $11B valuation, and that was when Tesla was a far smaller company.
The Saudis already indicated that they're not interested in holding more than what they already bought
Ref?
The rest of your rant is not even a speculation
For the record, what about "the rest" (written below) do you find "deranged"?
* The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (companies like Tesla are right up their alley, and Norway has the highest per-capita ownership of Teslas in the world)
* China (various) (lately seems to throw money at pretty much anything that moves, particularly if it has a plug, and it was already announced that Tesla was working with local Chinese investors concerning Gigafactory 3)
This. It's undergoing trials with early customers right now.
Where can I buy it?
From Tesla. Big waiting list, though, as rampup doesn't start until later this year, and will continue over next year.
Ah, it is the same thing as the famous "$35k electric car", a shiny piece of vaporware that exists only on the marketing brochures...
No, no, you're mixing up your short arguments! You're supposed to say that it's been scrubbed from the marketing brochures and has been cancelled! And deny all counterevidence when presented with it, including a tweet just the other day from Tesla discussing AWD availability on the SR.
I love how I'm apparently everyone, everywhere. It's neat being omnipresent.;)
BTW, did you mix up your short theses? The short thesis that's in vogue today is "there's no demand", not "Tesla can't produce".;) So you should be assuming I got my VIN and that there's nobody left on the list. Despite them not having opened up anywhere outside the US, and with no signs of them doing so any time soon.
Or I guess you could buck the trend and keep insisting on the "Tesla can't produce" short-selling hypothesis. I guess Bloomberg is in on the scam.
Maybe you could push your own hypotheses? Beat the curve and go straight to the competition hypothesis - "They can produce and there is demand, but soon they'll be drown in a wave of competition!" That one comes into vogue every few years and is usually quite stylish. Or you could go all Alex Jones and become a margin-denier.
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the SEC 8-K thing. It wouldn't be not due yet regardless. Regulations are for it to be filed within four business days after a material announcement - aka by the end of the day on Monday.
And yes, there's no shortage of possible candidates. Just some various examples:
* The Saudi sovereign wealth fund (recently bought 3-5% of the company on the open market)
* Softbank (was trying to buy the company last year, but negotiations broke down because Musk didn't want them to have as much control as they wanted)
* The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (companies like Tesla are right up their alley, and Norway has the highest per-capita ownership of Teslas in the world)
* China (various) (lately seems to throw money at pretty much anything that moves, particularly if it has a plug, and it was already announced that Tesla was working with local Chinese investors concerning Gigafactory 3)
* Apple (has more cash today than they seemingly know what to do with, and we've seen a drumbeat of analysts over the past year opining "Apple should buy Tesla")
* Alphabet (same situation, and Musk is good friends with Larry Page; Google had previously wanted to buy Tesla, but Tesla ultimately turned them down when they raised the money elsewhere)
One possibility that I'd moot is Facebook/Zuckerberg. Not just because they just lost a ton of value, but also because Musk and Zuck don't like each other.
Investors voted to take over SolarCity, with 85% of voting shareholders voting "Yes". Or was Musk using his mind control ray? It was taken over not for its loan-based solar install business (which is a dying model due to the continued declines in panel costs), but for the solar Gigafactory (Gigafactory 2) - which is what SolarCity accrued most of its debt on. It's not as far along the rampup as Gigafactory 1 (the battery / motor plant in Nevada), but I'm very much a fan of the potential of their solar roofing products, as they let you do a two-in-one install (aka installing a solar roof rather than installing a roof, then installing solar on it), and are aesthetically pleasing . Of course, the ultimate market penetration all depends on the price point they'll ultimately be able to achieve.
I was beginning to miss the five musk-sucking threads by BeauHD and Rei a week.
<feminist rant>
Why is it that "oral sex on a man" is a standard throw-around insult? When was the last time that you saw a man who was supportive of a woman being accused of "eating her out"? Rarely, if ever. Yet the opposite situation is a generic throwaway insult here. Why is it that male sexuality isn't seen as insulting at all, but female sexuality is supposed to be some sort of mark of shame?
If we have a situation where someone says something powerful about a powerful woman - say, from past US elections, Hillary Clinton - is the allegation that they want to have oral sex with her? No, just the opposite. Powerful women are presented as cold and sexless, and their supporters, henpecked. It's only when you have powerful men that they're painted as virile and their supporters - overwhelmingly with their female supporters - sleeping with them. Again: male sexuality is seen as normal and natural (the shame is to not be sexual), while female sexuality is presented as shameful, as an insult. Men aren't presumed to be exchanging sex for favour from powerful individuals, while women are automatically presumed to be doing so in relation to powerful men.
The funny thing is, you probably think you're being offensive, when all you do is flag yourself as a troglodyte.
</feminist rant>
Apart from that: sorry you lost your money betting against / shorting TSLA ($355,49). Better luck next time.;)
The Tesla forum admins can't keep up deleting posts that say "Tesla took my money, didn't deliver the car".
There are two other Tesla forums (Model 3 Owners Club and Tesla Motors Club) unconnected to Tesla itself, and I've never seen a post like that on either. Furthermore, your single example is a post on the Tesla forums that is most notable for not being deleted in any way, shape or form, despite being written way back in May. FYI: "Fcos154" only ever showed up at the forum to write this one thread (and a couple posts in it), then disappeared.
Do you FUDsters ever stop?
Of course there "have been" people with damage in transit. Because that happens to every manufacturer; they all use the same transport companies. Half a percent or so of vehicles receiving damage (usually minor, such as minor scratches or paint chips) in transit is normal. With a dealership model, customers never see this; the paint is corrected before the car goes on the lot. With Tesla, it either means a frustrating delay from their scheduled delivery date/time, or presenting them with a less-than-perfect car which they have to bring back. That said, the reaction to the vehicle, and overall impressions of Tesla, have been extremely positive.
I'm not going to repeat the exact same discussion we had last time, where you obsess with dividing figures, not realizing that you're supposed to subtract them (4B - 751M vs. 3,4B - 686M)
They were trying to make only a single type of battery. They created a second version of one minor part so that there are now two variants. And that's where the story ends.
Creating a second version of one of the parts had no impact whatsoever on their ability to produce AWD batteries. The time it took before AWD was introduced was... time to develop and test AWD. For obvious reasons. AWD was actually introduced sooner than initially planned. It was never planned to be an early option.
Slashdot Mirror
Cite the code please. I'm looking at the Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 right now. The closest I can see is section 9a.5, but that's for people "selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security". I see nothing affecting people who are neither buying nor selling.
Also, to reiterate:
*** She
"GM's CEO announced that the company produced 13000 cars this week" "Interesting news, Sandra, although if he's lying he'll go to jail." -- said nobody ever.
Here's your logic train:
1) Musk announced news
2) You don't believe the news
3) Giant preemptive scandal without taking any time to substantiate your disbelief.
Meanwhile, preview of the future: here's how it's actually going to play out:
SEC: "Can we see your funding list?"
Musk: "Here you go."
SEC: "Huh, never would have thought that X would be in for that much. And Y's in too? Interesting. Okay, thanks!"
Market manipulation to what, exactly? Did Musk sell any shares? No? Really solid market manipulation case you've got there.
Your "case" is also premised on your concept that there actually aren't investors supporting the buyout deal. And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
OMG, news hurt your short positions. My heart breaks for you.
But, Musk should have warned them that there was major news upcoming that could have a serious negative impact on short sellers. You know, like he's been doing pretty much every bloody week recently.
The short argument to the SEC is basically, "Yeah, he warned us, but we didn't believe him! Also, he didn't tell us the exact date and time he would be announcing the news that would have a negative impact on us, or the exact details of what he was going to announce that was going to hurt short sellers. Also: we don't believe him now either!"
Funny how this "complete fail" company keeps earning the highest customer satisfaction rating in the industry, huh?
Funny all of the people on the forums and YouTube who can't shut up about how much they love their car.
Funny the results of the ownership survey.
Guess it's a mass delusion.
Oh, so Bloomberg is in on the conspiracy now too! Where does this stop - are the Illuminati trying to help Musk as well?
Your article says literally the opposite of what you claim: "Musk broke off talks and the company has gone from strength to strength since, later launching in Europe, the UK and Australia."
No, saying Apple should buy Tesla. And I'll repeat the original claim, which you pooh-poohed: "Apple (has more cash today than they seemingly know what to do with, and we've seen a drumbeat of analysts over the past year opining "Apple should buy Tesla")"
1) Oh, so now Bloomberg is trustworthy? ;)
2) I did google it and came up blank. So let me repeat myself: Ref?
Not like you care, but...
Shorts refusing to believe Musk and shorting the stock on positive announcements isn't "news".
Them repeatedly losing their shirts doing so also isn't news.
Come to the wired.
God is here.
Hate to break it to you...
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
It was precisely the other way around. Musk terminated the deal when Tesla had its first profitable quarter and no longer needed the cash. And it was for $6B at an $11B valuation, and that was when Tesla was a far smaller company.
Ref?
For the record, what about "the rest" (written below) do you find "deranged"?
* The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (companies like Tesla are right up their alley, and Norway has the highest per-capita ownership of Teslas in the world)
* China (various) (lately seems to throw money at pretty much anything that moves, particularly if it has a plug, and it was already announced that Tesla was working with local Chinese investors concerning Gigafactory 3)
This. It's undergoing trials with early customers right now.
From Tesla. Big waiting list, though, as rampup doesn't start until later this year, and will continue over next year.
No, no, you're mixing up your short arguments! You're supposed to say that it's been scrubbed from the marketing brochures and has been cancelled! And deny all counterevidence when presented with it, including a tweet just the other day from Tesla discussing AWD availability on the SR.
Lol, shorts now thinking Tesla should be worth more money? Now I've seen everything.
To repeat: "Help, SEC, save me from my losses!"
Perhaps you're looking at a different TSLA than me. Because in the reality I exist in, TSLA was under $300 just a couple weeks ago.
Would have been a nice way to start the day. Oh well. :P
"Help, SEC, save me from my losses!" is always the final Hail Mary of a short seller. Every time.
And it's almost always a fumble.
I love how I'm apparently everyone, everywhere. It's neat being omnipresent. ;)
BTW, did you mix up your short theses? The short thesis that's in vogue today is "there's no demand", not "Tesla can't produce". ;) So you should be assuming I got my VIN and that there's nobody left on the list. Despite them not having opened up anywhere outside the US, and with no signs of them doing so any time soon.
Or I guess you could buck the trend and keep insisting on the "Tesla can't produce" short-selling hypothesis. I guess Bloomberg is in on the scam.
Maybe you could push your own hypotheses? Beat the curve and go straight to the competition hypothesis - "They can produce and there is demand, but soon they'll be drown in a wave of competition!" That one comes into vogue every few years and is usually quite stylish. Or you could go all Alex Jones and become a margin-denier.
There's so many ways for a short to dress!
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the SEC 8-K thing. It wouldn't be not due yet regardless. Regulations are for it to be filed within four business days after a material announcement - aka by the end of the day on Monday.
And yes, there's no shortage of possible candidates. Just some various examples:
* The Saudi sovereign wealth fund (recently bought 3-5% of the company on the open market)
* Softbank (was trying to buy the company last year, but negotiations broke down because Musk didn't want them to have as much control as they wanted)
* The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (companies like Tesla are right up their alley, and Norway has the highest per-capita ownership of Teslas in the world)
* China (various) (lately seems to throw money at pretty much anything that moves, particularly if it has a plug, and it was already announced that Tesla was working with local Chinese investors concerning Gigafactory 3)
* Apple (has more cash today than they seemingly know what to do with, and we've seen a drumbeat of analysts over the past year opining "Apple should buy Tesla")
* Alphabet (same situation, and Musk is good friends with Larry Page; Google had previously wanted to buy Tesla, but Tesla ultimately turned them down when they raised the money elsewhere)
One possibility that I'd moot is Facebook/Zuckerberg. Not just because they just lost a ton of value, but also because Musk and Zuck don't like each other.
4 years is actually a pretty reasonable length of time as an executive in a company these days. Particularly in a silicon valley growth company.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you from all the way up here atop this pile of money.
Investors voted to take over SolarCity, with 85% of voting shareholders voting "Yes". Or was Musk using his mind control ray? It was taken over not for its loan-based solar install business (which is a dying model due to the continued declines in panel costs), but for the solar Gigafactory (Gigafactory 2) - which is what SolarCity accrued most of its debt on. It's not as far along the rampup as Gigafactory 1 (the battery / motor plant in Nevada), but I'm very much a fan of the potential of their solar roofing products, as they let you do a two-in-one install (aka installing a solar roof rather than installing a roof, then installing solar on it), and are aesthetically pleasing . Of course, the ultimate market penetration all depends on the price point they'll ultimately be able to achieve.
<feminist rant>
Why is it that "oral sex on a man" is a standard throw-around insult? When was the last time that you saw a man who was supportive of a woman being accused of "eating her out"? Rarely, if ever. Yet the opposite situation is a generic throwaway insult here. Why is it that male sexuality isn't seen as insulting at all, but female sexuality is supposed to be some sort of mark of shame?
If we have a situation where someone says something powerful about a powerful woman - say, from past US elections, Hillary Clinton - is the allegation that they want to have oral sex with her? No, just the opposite. Powerful women are presented as cold and sexless, and their supporters, henpecked. It's only when you have powerful men that they're painted as virile and their supporters - overwhelmingly with their female supporters - sleeping with them. Again: male sexuality is seen as normal and natural (the shame is to not be sexual), while female sexuality is presented as shameful, as an insult. Men aren't presumed to be exchanging sex for favour from powerful individuals, while women are automatically presumed to be doing so in relation to powerful men.
The funny thing is, you probably think you're being offensive, when all you do is flag yourself as a troglodyte.
</feminist rant>
Apart from that: sorry you lost your money betting against / shorting TSLA ($355,49). Better luck next time. ;)
There are two other Tesla forums (Model 3 Owners Club and Tesla Motors Club) unconnected to Tesla itself, and I've never seen a post like that on either. Furthermore, your single example is a post on the Tesla forums that is most notable for not being deleted in any way, shape or form, despite being written way back in May. FYI: "Fcos154" only ever showed up at the forum to write this one thread (and a couple posts in it), then disappeared.
Do you FUDsters ever stop?
Of course there "have been" people with damage in transit. Because that happens to every manufacturer; they all use the same transport companies. Half a percent or so of vehicles receiving damage (usually minor, such as minor scratches or paint chips) in transit is normal. With a dealership model, customers never see this; the paint is corrected before the car goes on the lot. With Tesla, it either means a frustrating delay from their scheduled delivery date/time, or presenting them with a less-than-perfect car which they have to bring back. That said, the reaction to the vehicle, and overall impressions of Tesla, have been extremely positive.
I'm not going to repeat the exact same discussion we had last time, where you obsess with dividing figures, not realizing that you're supposed to subtract them (4B - 751M vs. 3,4B - 686M)
You're exceedingly confused.
They were trying to make only a single type of battery.
They created a second version of one minor part so that there are now two variants.
And that's where the story ends.
Creating a second version of one of the parts had no impact whatsoever on their ability to produce AWD batteries. The time it took before AWD was introduced was... time to develop and test AWD. For obvious reasons. AWD was actually introduced sooner than initially planned. It was never planned to be an early option.