???
First off, he never made an offer. He said that he was thinking about taking it private and that he had secured money for $420/share.
He would have to fully tender the offer and then the board and us stockholders have to decide.
Finally, the only ones he has to prove to, is the SEC. And they will investigate on their own time. More importantly, I think that the ONLY issue that they will have is did he secure the financing, or least make the attempt to do so. If no attempt, well, he just manipulated. OTOH, if he was trying to obtain it, and had reason to think that he had secured it (but had not), then he was legal.
why has he screwed up? If he actually got the funding, likely from Saudi Arabia, then everything that he said was accurate.
As such, the SEC can not touch him.
And I suspect that the board knew EVERYTHING about this.
Sorry, but I think that Rox is correct. Elon said that he had funding for it. He himself does not have 82B. As such, he would have had to secure it from elsewhere. If he did, then not a problem. OTOH, if he lied about that, I agree with Rox. Elon would in a world of hurt.
Of course, Musk has not been a liar. His timelines suck, but a liar? Nope.
what proof do you have that he did not secure funding? The fact that you are posting as an AC indicates that you have the veracity of Chanos or many others here.
First off, he announced the price that he thought was fair, which was 420. That was above it, so, he is legally fine. In addition, I would assume that he had lined up money prior to that announcement, like he said. Assuming that he did, then EVERYTHING was legal and above board.
The real problem is when you have ppl like Chanos, or his good buddy, David Tamberrino, manipulating the stock with loads of lies, well, they are likely the ones that will be getting into trouble with the SEC.
What is really bothersome is that CHanos has been smart about Enron as well as China. But now, he is getting greedy and wanting to manipulate the markets. BIG mistake.
Seriously, these ppl hope to manipulate the hell out of Tesla stock and are upset that Musk announced the private stance PRIOR to their finding out. Yeah, they lost money, and now, they want to blame somebody else for their fuck-ups. No doubt Chanos has a LOT to do with the shorters esp. pushing these lawsuits.
And are you claiming that the education and health system were immoral under the Nazis or other gov?
Nazi gov, like many, was immoral, but that does not mean all that worked there were/are.
really? So, what immoral actions do you have on Google? Have they been selling data to ppl, corporations, or even gov. that is tied to individuals? If so, give us a link.
You think that working for a gov is immoral? Ok. How did you get your education, medical bills, (normally) eat safe food, etc?
again, where is the link at Google, that allows me to buy data that is connected to ppl, in the same way that I could buy from Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook?
Basically, I remember Clinton signing it and not having an issue with it (OTOH, he opposed things like taking out the IFR (dems killed it), as well as gutting NASA (mostly GOP) ). Did not realize that he was pushed that way. Thanx.
yeah, but it was news media that was prevented from owning too many, not general channels. As far as the channels go, the de-regulating that actually helped things. Stations collapse and others are created. BUT, news is a different matter. Very expensive to get into, and esp for the national news. As such, it was far better to have left this with 3 max (IIRC). Now, we have groups like I heart, Tribune, SInclair, Fox, etc that do their best to control the industry and have turned American news from one of the best into junk.
Before Clinton, owners were prohibited from owning more than 3 areas. As such, the media had a LOT of competition. It meant that 1 owner could not really dominate any area, except for small rural areas. Then Clinton dropped that regulation which IIFC, had gone all the way back to Great Depression. After that, our media has not only gone downhill, but become uncompetitive and unable to deal with the internet.
how many nasty nasty animals, bugs, etc are coming from China to the west esp. America.
Snakehead.
Lion Fish.
etc. etc. etc.
I would suspect that China is also suffering. Like Brazil and other rain forest, they have some unique fauna and animals (which is also why they invade elsewhere).
Slashdot Mirror
???
First off, he never made an offer. He said that he was thinking about taking it private and that he had secured money for $420/share.
He would have to fully tender the offer and then the board and us stockholders have to decide.
Finally, the only ones he has to prove to, is the SEC. And they will investigate on their own time. More importantly, I think that the ONLY issue that they will have is did he secure the financing, or least make the attempt to do so. If no attempt, well, he just manipulated. OTOH, if he was trying to obtain it, and had reason to think that he had secured it (but had not), then he was legal.
he has to get the board and our approval for that. We stockholders DO have a say.
why has he screwed up? If he actually got the funding, likely from Saudi Arabia, then everything that he said was accurate.
As such, the SEC can not touch him.
And I suspect that the board knew EVERYTHING about this.
Sorry, but I think that Rox is correct. Elon said that he had funding for it. He himself does not have 82B. As such, he would have had to secure it from elsewhere. If he did, then not a problem. OTOH, if he lied about that, I agree with Rox. Elon would in a world of hurt.
Of course, Musk has not been a liar. His timelines suck, but a liar? Nope.
As long as they got your money, they would be happy to keep you around.
what proof do you have that he did not secure funding? The fact that you are posting as an AC indicates that you have the veracity of Chanos or many others here.
First off, he announced the price that he thought was fair, which was 420. That was above it, so, he is legally fine. In addition, I would assume that he had lined up money prior to that announcement, like he said. Assuming that he did, then EVERYTHING was legal and above board.
The real problem is when you have ppl like Chanos, or his good buddy, David Tamberrino, manipulating the stock with loads of lies, well, they are likely the ones that will be getting into trouble with the SEC.
What is really bothersome is that CHanos has been smart about Enron as well as China. But now, he is getting greedy and wanting to manipulate the markets. BIG mistake.
Yes, but not when you have ppl like Chanos who is manipulating the market.
Seriously, these ppl hope to manipulate the hell out of Tesla stock and are upset that Musk announced the private stance PRIOR to their finding out. Yeah, they lost money, and now, they want to blame somebody else for their fuck-ups. No doubt Chanos has a LOT to do with the shorters esp. pushing these lawsuits.
And yet, you have Bing and other search engines . Basically, you can not come up with one.
And are you claiming that the education and health system were immoral under the Nazis or other gov? Nazi gov, like many, was immoral, but that does not mean all that worked there were/are.
Nowhere in there does that data give you my name or yours. It is aggregated.
really? So, what immoral actions do you have on Google? Have they been selling data to ppl, corporations, or even gov. that is tied to individuals? If so, give us a link.
You think that working for a gov is immoral? Ok. How did you get your education, medical bills, (normally) eat safe food, etc?
ok, then show us links to stories about that. I can get links about others, but good luck coming up with anything on Google.
again, where is the link at Google, that allows me to buy data that is connected to ppl, in the same way that I could buy from Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook?
Seriously, the companies that design hidden antennas for sat companies will do a lot of sales.
really? So, all big tech companies are immoral while small ones are moral?
really? So, you can buy data from Google that is attached to anybody's name?
Bet you can not get a link to that.
Basically, I remember Clinton signing it and not having an issue with it (OTOH, he opposed things like taking out the IFR (dems killed it), as well as gutting NASA (mostly GOP) ). Did not realize that he was pushed that way. Thanx.
yeah, but it was news media that was prevented from owning too many, not general channels. As far as the channels go, the de-regulating that actually helped things. Stations collapse and others are created. BUT, news is a different matter. Very expensive to get into, and esp for the national news. As such, it was far better to have left this with 3 max (IIRC). Now, we have groups like I heart, Tribune, SInclair, Fox, etc that do their best to control the industry and have turned American news from one of the best into junk.
For those of you far righties that are speaking out against Sinclair and implying that they are liberals:
Sinclair's stations have been known for featuring news content and programming that promote conservative political positions, and have been involved in various controversies surrounding politically-motivated programming decisions,[170][3] such as news coverage and specials during the lead-ups to elections that were in support of the Republican Party.[171][172][170] A study by Emory University political scientists Gregory J. Martin and Josh McCrain found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market."[173]
Like your favorite Faux News, Breitbart and Daily Stormer, Sinclair is pretty far right.
Yeah, sinclair is about equal to Fox News.
Before Clinton, owners were prohibited from owning more than 3 areas. As such, the media had a LOT of competition. It meant that 1 owner could not really dominate any area, except for small rural areas. Then Clinton dropped that regulation which IIFC, had gone all the way back to Great Depression. After that, our media has not only gone downhill, but become uncompetitive and unable to deal with the internet.
??? Why do u think Kissinger screwed over China?
how many nasty nasty animals, bugs, etc are coming from China to the west esp. America. Snakehead.
Lion Fish.
etc. etc. etc.
I would suspect that China is also suffering. Like Brazil and other rain forest, they have some unique fauna and animals (which is also why they invade elsewhere).