There are already rumors Apple is developing a desktop version of their iPhone ARM processors, which have larger dies and much better performance than nearly every other ARM implementation..
"Some claims reflect extreme differences in estimated values. In one appeal filed in 2015, Apple said that a cluster of properties in and around Apple Park in Cupertino that the assessor valued at $1 billion was worth just $200. In another, property that the assessor valued at $384 million was, in Apple's view, worth $200, according to an appeal application."
What an amazing coincidence that two properties, one assessed at over double the value of the other, are both only worth $200 according to Apple.
The article continues, with an explanation why:
"Other assessors say large corporations are using their resources to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to eventually wear down county governments."
Can someone explain? The tariffs are designed to help American manufacturing, they make American products cheaper than foreign products.
This is a fallacy - when you impose tariffs on imports, domestic producers typically increase their prices, otherwise they'd be leaving money on the table.
Yes, you've finally gotten it right - an offer for funding is in fact considered "secured funding" in the financial world. It's the same thing when someone offers shares for sale on a stock exchange - the potential buyer hasn't contractually agreed to the seller's terms until he executes the transaction.
A loan offer from a bank is in fact considered "secured funding" since it represents a firm commitment by the bank. I didn't say a firm commitment means an executed commitment, ie funds delivered, so you're 0 for 2 on the relevance scale for posts.
You can't hedge the production of one type of energy against the consumption of an alternate type of energy, so there are in fact much better hedges against producing oil than an electric car manufacturer.
Apparently some people have trouble understanding the difference between "having secured funding sources" and "having negotiated a deal that's ready to present to shareholders for a vote".
And yet Musk has achieved neither so I'm not sure the difference you're highlighting is relevant. "Secured" in the financial world means a firm commitment. An investor "exploring how it can be involved" is nowhere near that threshold.
That's true, but economically exporting photovoltaic charges from solar cells across the oceans and around the world (in carriers such as Hydrogen) will require a lot of R&D before it's viable.
Tesla makes cars that consume energy and batteries which store it, whereas Saudi Arabia produces energy. It still requires energy to charge Tesla's batteries, which on a mass scale means natural gas for power plants (unless we're going to blanket the country with solar cells and wind farms) - Saudi Arabia has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, thus is already hedged against oil.
Your post doesn't make any sense, sorry. The purpose of announcing the private offering is to get the price above where it's been trading. Try restating your argument, this time with more logic and less pointless anger.
Nothing you wrote contracts what's stated in the article so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at. The purpose of having the shares about $360 at conversion time is so the bondholders convert to equity rather than demand payment, which allows Tesla to issue new shares as part of an offering rather than having to deliver cash. The bondholders can then immediately liquidate their shares on the open market and pocket the difference vs the implicit $360 collar of their conversion price. In other words, it becomes a stealth secondary offering for Tesla, which is much less harmful to them than having to do an official secondary offering.
The market manipulation he's accused of is announcing the existence of a private takeover offer with secured funding but where the funding may not actually exist, at least not at the time of his announcement. If that's proven to be the case then he made a material misstatement that affected the underlying price of his company's shares - that's called market manipulation.
Musk has to keep the price above $360/share, otherwise he has to pay back bondholders $960M in cash by March 1st, 2019. Based on its current cash position and expected expenditures Tesla wont have the funds to pay bondholders back.
Short sellers aren't priced that the price went up - they're pissed that it went up from alleged market manipulation by its CEO, the legality of which will ultimately be decided by the SEC. If the SEC finds that Musk did not have funding for the takeover secured as he claimed in his tweet then he's in for a world of legal hurt.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Musk wasn't forced to take his company public - he did so because it was financially beneficial to do so. You can't feed at the trough and then complain about how the trough is set up.
And back in more normal times, companies were required to have a track record of profit and profit growth before the markets would even consider buying into their public offering.
Slashdot Mirror
The notion of "ownership" makes perfect sense for things like houses and cars. For books, DVDs, and other IP-based materials? Not so much.
As in thermal runaway. No thanks.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/06/mar-lago-foreign-worker-visas/764053002/
Since they're all juiced up anyway. The game has become a contest of who has access to the best 'roids.
And played flight simulator in my room.
There are already rumors Apple is developing a desktop version of their iPhone ARM processors, which have larger dies and much better performance than nearly every other ARM implementation..
That trader should return the favor and send Musk a pair of handcuffs.
"Some claims reflect extreme differences in estimated values. In one appeal filed in 2015, Apple said that a cluster of properties in and around Apple Park in Cupertino that the assessor valued at $1 billion was worth just $200. In another, property that the assessor valued at $384 million was, in Apple's view, worth $200, according to an appeal application."
What an amazing coincidence that two properties, one assessed at over double the value of the other, are both only worth $200 according to Apple.
The article continues, with an explanation why:
"Other assessors say large corporations are using their resources to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to eventually wear down county governments."
We can identify banks by how much vaseline they had to use to screw us up the arse.
But if you are going to be evil, make sure you stamp the location of each act of evilness.
By just fixing Meltdown and Spectre :)
Can someone explain? The tariffs are designed to help American manufacturing, they make American products cheaper than foreign products.
This is a fallacy - when you impose tariffs on imports, domestic producers typically increase their prices, otherwise they'd be leaving money on the table.
Yes, you've finally gotten it right - an offer for funding is in fact considered "secured funding" in the financial world. It's the same thing when someone offers shares for sale on a stock exchange - the potential buyer hasn't contractually agreed to the seller's terms until he executes the transaction.
A loan offer from a bank is in fact considered "secured funding" since it represents a firm commitment by the bank. I didn't say a firm commitment means an executed commitment, ie funds delivered, so you're 0 for 2 on the relevance scale for posts.
You can't hedge the production of one type of energy against the consumption of an alternate type of energy, so there are in fact much better hedges against producing oil than an electric car manufacturer.
Apparently some people have trouble understanding the difference between "having secured funding sources" and "having negotiated a deal that's ready to present to shareholders for a vote".
And yet Musk has achieved neither so I'm not sure the difference you're highlighting is relevant. "Secured" in the financial world means a firm commitment. An investor "exploring how it can be involved" is nowhere near that threshold.
That's true, but economically exporting photovoltaic charges from solar cells across the oceans and around the world (in carriers such as Hydrogen) will require a lot of R&D before it's viable.
Tesla makes cars that consume energy and batteries which store it, whereas Saudi Arabia produces energy. It still requires energy to charge Tesla's batteries, which on a mass scale means natural gas for power plants (unless we're going to blanket the country with solar cells and wind farms) - Saudi Arabia has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, thus is already hedged against oil.
Only the most optimistic Tesla supporter would equate an investor "exploring how it can be involved in a potential deal" with "something concrete".
Your post doesn't make any sense, sorry. The purpose of announcing the private offering is to get the price above where it's been trading. Try restating your argument, this time with more logic and less pointless anger.
Nothing you wrote contracts what's stated in the article so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at. The purpose of having the shares about $360 at conversion time is so the bondholders convert to equity rather than demand payment, which allows Tesla to issue new shares as part of an offering rather than having to deliver cash. The bondholders can then immediately liquidate their shares on the open market and pocket the difference vs the implicit $360 collar of their conversion price. In other words, it becomes a stealth secondary offering for Tesla, which is much less harmful to them than having to do an official secondary offering.
The market manipulation he's accused of is announcing the existence of a private takeover offer with secured funding but where the funding may not actually exist, at least not at the time of his announcement. If that's proven to be the case then he made a material misstatement that affected the underlying price of his company's shares - that's called market manipulation.
Musk has to keep the price above $360/share, otherwise he has to pay back bondholders $960M in cash by March 1st, 2019. Based on its current cash position and expected expenditures Tesla wont have the funds to pay bondholders back.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4196101-elon-musk-desperately-needs-tesla-stock-stay-360
Short sellers aren't priced that the price went up - they're pissed that it went up from alleged market manipulation by its CEO, the legality of which will ultimately be decided by the SEC. If the SEC finds that Musk did not have funding for the takeover secured as he claimed in his tweet then he's in for a world of legal hurt.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Musk wasn't forced to take his company public - he did so because it was financially beneficial to do so. You can't feed at the trough and then complain about how the trough is set up.
And back in more normal times, companies were required to have a track record of profit and profit growth before the markets would even consider buying into their public offering.