Na, more like a 4 month pattern involving a surge of AMD following a good product release, and it losing ground steadily to faster Intel parts. But go ahead and characterize it however helps you feel less stupid.
Earth to you: see the big fat 45% [wccftech.com] share from this German retailer?
You just keep moving goalposts, don't you.
We were discussing gamers. Use numbers that matter to the argument. If you can't, then give up the argument.
The Ryzen refresh just landed and guess what? Higher performance for less money.
Yep. Higher performance in a specific fashion that matters to an incredibly small amount of CPU purchasers. Again, leave the goalposts where they were, thanks. You don't win by changing the argument.
Tell me who wouldn't want a kickass 2700X for cheap, come on, don't lie.
Me. That's why I have an 8700K that performs better in the ways I use it. The ways that the fucking vast majory of the world uses their machine, in fact.
Now AMD has turned around its fortunes in servers too, the first gen Epyc was a hit, they couldn't make enough of them. Second gen is here, it's a huge success, multiple brand name vendors will ship it. New Laptops designs are coming out now on the strength AMD's APUs.
This huge pile of garbage... You just don't fucking get it. Nobody is arguing that. You're like a fucking walking AMD advertisement trying to sell me shit I don't need.
None of that matters to me. None of that matters to fucking anyone.
If you want a machine that performs normal every day tasks better than anything else, you get an Intel. The benchmarks back that up. I really don't give a flying fuck what AMD does well. Good for AMD. Good for the people who own AMDs, even if they can't really figure out a real-world application for their part.
Even Intel will ship AMD GPUs now. Talk about endorsement.
I'm typing this post to you on an i7 8705G right now, in fact. One of those very processors. Intel doesn't have an integrated GPU that can match AMDs offering, and AMD doesn't have a mobile CPU that can match Intel's offering. It's a match made in heaven, and I *love it*. But what was your point again?
AMD's 7nm parts are ramping up, we will see 7nm Ryzens and Threadrippers in 1H19 while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.
Cool! Will it let them build a Ryzen that outperforms contemporary i7 chips in a way that people care about?
while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.
I don't care if they're building them out of gingerbread, as long as they continue to be the best desktop processors on the market.
Many folks who went Ryzen this year got addicted to the creamy smooth 8 core performance
Well, according to Steam, more people decided to upgrade to an i7-8700K or i7-8086K. Can't say I blame them.
I guess they probably liked the fact that the 6 core Intel performance still felt faster than the 8 core Ryzens.
and will drop serious bucks on Threadripper next year, me among them.
Right on. And I sincerely hope you are all happy with your purchase!
This is reality, you can fool yourself, but who the fuck cares?
Ah, reality. Yes. The reality is that Intel is still managing to crush AMD in the market because their bet that higher core clocks matters more than core counts was simply correct. The Threadripper is an awesome chip. But nobody gives a fuck about it.
Yah, Intel screwed up, AMD didn't. It happens.
LOL, yes, that's what the numbers indicate. You are so desperate to justify your purchase. Come on man, go have a beer and quit trying to seek affirmation from the rest of the world for your choices.
Negative. I demonstrated the downward trend with solid numbers, and a hypothesis to explain it.
The people who have been waiting for a competitive AMD part grabbed one. After that, the market for AMD parts amongst the gamers was saturated. After that, a clear trend toward higher clock speed Intels, even at the cost of AMD market share, is clearly observable by the breakdown by clock speed and manufacturer, also available at that link.
You argued that AMD parts were "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part," and I countered with evidence showing otherwise.
Is it a decent gaming part? Ya. Is it "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part?" No. Sorry. There's no evidence to back that up, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, unless we want to quibble on whether or not the definition of "perfectly good" includes "unacceptable" or "undesired."
The gamers want the higher single and quad core thread performance of Intel parts, because the majority of games being played perform better with that part, period. It's not magical thinking or stupidity, it's picking the best part for the application.
Games that actually use Vulkan, regardless of support implemented in the engine
Nobody said Vulkan isn't the way forward. Some day, everything will be some running on some graphics API derivative of DX12 or Vulkan, or at least designed upon the ideals they were. But we're nowhere even fucking close to there.
3 games on the 25 top selling games list in Steam support Vulkan/DX12.
That's less market share than AMD processors have, though unlike AMD processors in the gaming segment, at least Vulkan adoption is increasing.
You literally cherry picked AMD's initial bump, which saturated in literally a month, and has been declining since, while Intel has been increasing.
You are literally a fucking moron.
You don't care about a damn thing other than not feeling stupid. Unfortunately, reality is dealing you some soul-crushing cognitive dissonance in that department.
I'm happy that you're happy with your AMD. It's still not going to come close to knocking the crown off of Intel's head. I'm sorry you're too dim witted to see that numbers for what they are.
Being that you seem to think that engines that don't use Vulkan are obsolete, I'm not really sure there's any point in going back and forth with you anymore. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Vulkan is an optimized pipeline for engines that want more raw access. In some cases, it provides performance increases. In some, it's slower. It speaks absolutely *nothing* to the obsolescence of an engine. Shame on you. At least learn to recognize when your ignorance is fouling up the air around you.
Not undone at all. There was a 5% bump in share- which is awesome for AMD.
15% against 85%.
And all recent gains have been for high end Intel procs, while AMD has declined in every segment except Linux users.
You need to learn to read.
So? There's always a faster car next year too. Liking fast cars doesn't make me stupid. It means I have disposable income.
You mean crap games, not yet using Vulkan/D12.
No. That's not what I meant at all. And that's a pretty bone-headed correlation for you to make. Do I need to point out how stupid it is, or can we forget you said it?
Beyond that- you *are* correct that the margin is very much reduced or inverted with the 2 DX12/Vulkan games out there.
And "kills" is a wild exaggeration.
No, it's not. Usually between a 10-30% lead in performance. That's killing, sorry.
2700X is widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part,
Vomit. Please. It's just another processor. It's built to make money, that's it.
and also the best workstation in class.
You've got a real argument here.
Cores to spare, aggregate throughput without peer.
If only that mattered to people.
I recognize that a lot of people are fucking stupid, I will give you that. Nutrition may not matter to them either.
Wait, who's the idiot here? The person picking up the processors with better performance for their average workload, or the person picking up 32-core machines desperately looking for a use for them?
There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen.
It will continue to compete, because enough people want the fastest, and that is simply the i7, period.
My 8700K kills a 2700X in every game I've ever seen benchmarked.
I fully understand that aggregate core performance of the 2700X per dollar is superior- but you need to accept that that metric just doesn't fucking matter to a whole lot of people.
Because it performs better?
My i7-8700K outperforms a 2700X in every game I play, why would I want a 2700X?
The 2700X is better bang for buck in terms of aggregate core performance, but I'm really not sure that matters to enough people to matter.
Then you should try harder to inform yourself about corporate governance, and your rights as a shareholder in an LBO or MBO.
Nobody needs 82B in cash to make this happen, and you as a minority holder who will likely join in a minority disagreement to have your stocks converted to private stocks with shareholder agreements attached- really do need to know what's coming.
Frankly though- you'll do fine either way.
If you're forced to sell, you'll make an obscene profit, and if you're not, you'll have the option to- at an obscene profit.
The short-lived spike in the price of the stock due to his unfounded claims (and it is already clear that the claims were unfounded, there is no indication that even his board knew about the secured financing), people may have made decisions that materially affected them.
He's under no obligation to have informed his board. But one could definitely argue it would have been wise.
However, being he has control of the board, and they couldn't muster the votes to boot him out if they wanted, one could also argue that lack of wisdom is his prerogative.
And it is not only "shorts" who may have been, it is quite possible that some holders bought the stock during the spike, would not have done so had there been no misleading tweet from the CEO.
You're correct. And if his statements are found by the SEC to be false, or were made with intent to mislead, as I said, they'll char broil his ass. But your reasoning behind the belief of it being a falsehood is wrong on its face, which is not to say that you're wrong. Just ignorant or bad at comprehension.
Discussing the irresponsible behavior of Musk by his investors is totally relevant
Agreed. But chanting 'lock her up' makes me roll my eyes, and that's what your'e doing.
Actually, his board should also take notice and rein him in.
They can only take symbolic action against him.
If not, they will see more activist investor action, not less. And not very far in the future.
Probably true. However- Musk is not wrong that something sticks with the short position. It really does smell like there's a well funded vendetta against him, and like it or not, he does have an interest in crushing it- and he may well be about to do that.
In a legal, SEC "I can release the information" standard, yes secured funding has a very specific meaning.
You're completely full of shit, and you know it. I invite you to cite the rule or statute. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Meaning - you have it.
Negative. That's one possible meaning to it, but generally the term is used in LBOs or MBOs to infer that you have the money available in good faith. Usually, this means an investor has offered you the money with a set of stipulations.
No, you're talking out of your ass. Saying "funding secured" means effectively having the money "in hand", because such agreements are implemented in only one way - by a bunch of expensive lawyers, using a third party escrow, usually a very large bank as a guarantee that neither party can walk away. Such things make the news, or they don't exist.
Literally everything you said in that paragraph was wrong.
Otherwise it isn't an agreement
Secured funding can be nothing more than a promise. Nor does it need to make the news.
I've been member to an MBO. You're either painfully stupid, or you're on a mission to misinform.
In this case, with a self-confessed goal of "squeezing the shorts". Which is, well, criminal.
There is nothing illegal about "squeezing shorts"
In fact, any CEO doing his job right will be "squeezing shorts"
AC, I've seen you shitposting all over this articles commentary. I just want to know- how much are you out because of this?
No, he needs to be able to buy out everyone who can potentially sell
No. I'm sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Having been a part of a MBO, that is simply not how it works.
Minority shareholders who object to the sale will be offered a dollar amount and be forced to take it.
Non-objecting shareholders do not have to be bought out at all, their shares can be converted to private shares, *if* that's the goal of the MBO.
This isn't usually too much of a concern of the new ownership since the private shares will be subject to shareholder agreements.
It was a childish and idiotic attempt to "squeeze shorts"
Oh I don't think he's trying to squeeze them. I think he's sinking them.
brought about by paranoia and the accidental billionaire's belief that they are beyond the law.
Not liking the guy isn't a good reason to fabricate shit on the internet.
No, it isn't, and you're 100% right- the only issue at play, period, is whether the public statement of having funding is false or not, which *will* be interpreted as manipulating the market if it is not. But like I said, it has to be *really* false in order to be criminal.
He has no legal obligation to the board at this point whatsoever.
Or do you believe that there are loads of ppl and companies that have 82B in cash?
I no longer think you're an investor in Tesla at all. I think you're lying about it.
You seem completely ignorant of Tesla's supermajority voting rules, and the actual stakes that will have to be bought out.
However, your example doesn't apply to Musk in this instance at all.
"Funding secured." puts him in legal jeopardy if he is lying. There is significant wiggle room though, because he just needs believable math indicating he has parties agreeing to buy out the amount of people he anticipates not wanting their shares to become private.
Nor does he need to, though.
He only needs to buy out the holdouts.
Musk and other reliable insiders control about 25.5% of Tesla's voting stock.
He only needs to secure funding for the amount he imagines will not want their shares to become private.
In the end, he will need to have actual funding for the actual amount that do not want their shares to become private.
I suspect given Tesla's investor loyalty, he won't actually have to buy many people out.
The corporation I work for has gone through all kinds of ownership changes, board shakeups, and sales.
Secured funding does not mean in hand. It doesn't even mean 'there isn't a whole fuckload of strings attached'
What the fuck is your position in this? You spend some money on the short?
The SECs interest revolves around the 'Funding secure' claim. There's no legal jeopardy in saying that he is considering taking the company private, unless someone has direct evidence that he said it with intent to mislead.
The SEC will see if it was reasonable for him to say the funding is secure, and if it is not, they'll char broil his ass. I don't really see why there is so much speculation about what is or is not illegal, or how anyone can claim the guy is guilty of anything at this point.
I'm pretty sure there would be a literal line of interested parties to pick up Tesla. Even if the business side of things aren't looking too fantastic, the product they're selling is performing positively amazingly. That's worth every penny.
Slashdot Mirror
One month of retrace and you flip out about it
Na, more like a 4 month pattern involving a surge of AMD following a good product release, and it losing ground steadily to faster Intel parts. But go ahead and characterize it however helps you feel less stupid.
Earth to you: see the big fat 45% [wccftech.com] share from this German retailer?
You just keep moving goalposts, don't you.
We were discussing gamers. Use numbers that matter to the argument. If you can't, then give up the argument.
The Ryzen refresh just landed and guess what? Higher performance for less money.
Yep. Higher performance in a specific fashion that matters to an incredibly small amount of CPU purchasers. Again, leave the goalposts where they were, thanks. You don't win by changing the argument.
Tell me who wouldn't want a kickass 2700X for cheap, come on, don't lie.
Me. That's why I have an 8700K that performs better in the ways I use it. The ways that the fucking vast majory of the world uses their machine, in fact.
Now AMD has turned around its fortunes in servers too, the first gen Epyc was a hit, they couldn't make enough of them. Second gen is here, it's a huge success, multiple brand name vendors will ship it. New Laptops designs are coming out now on the strength AMD's APUs.
This huge pile of garbage... You just don't fucking get it. Nobody is arguing that. You're like a fucking walking AMD advertisement trying to sell me shit I don't need.
None of that matters to me. None of that matters to fucking anyone.
If you want a machine that performs normal every day tasks better than anything else, you get an Intel. The benchmarks back that up. I really don't give a flying fuck what AMD does well. Good for AMD. Good for the people who own AMDs, even if they can't really figure out a real-world application for their part.
Even Intel will ship AMD GPUs now. Talk about endorsement.
I'm typing this post to you on an i7 8705G right now, in fact. One of those very processors. Intel doesn't have an integrated GPU that can match AMDs offering, and AMD doesn't have a mobile CPU that can match Intel's offering. It's a match made in heaven, and I *love it*. But what was your point again?
AMD's 7nm parts are ramping up, we will see 7nm Ryzens and Threadrippers in 1H19 while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.
Cool! Will it let them build a Ryzen that outperforms contemporary i7 chips in a way that people care about?
while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.
I don't care if they're building them out of gingerbread, as long as they continue to be the best desktop processors on the market.
Many folks who went Ryzen this year got addicted to the creamy smooth 8 core performance
Well, according to Steam, more people decided to upgrade to an i7-8700K or i7-8086K. Can't say I blame them.
I guess they probably liked the fact that the 6 core Intel performance still felt faster than the 8 core Ryzens.
and will drop serious bucks on Threadripper next year, me among them.
Right on. And I sincerely hope you are all happy with your purchase!
This is reality, you can fool yourself, but who the fuck cares?
Ah, reality. Yes. The reality is that Intel is still managing to crush AMD in the market because their bet that higher core clocks matters more than core counts was simply correct. The Threadripper is an awesome chip. But nobody gives a fuck about it.
Yah, Intel screwed up, AMD didn't. It happens.
LOL, yes, that's what the numbers indicate. You are so desperate to justify your purchase. Come on man, go have a beer and quit trying to seek affirmation from the rest of the world for your choices.
Negative. I demonstrated the downward trend with solid numbers, and a hypothesis to explain it.
The people who have been waiting for a competitive AMD part grabbed one. After that, the market for AMD parts amongst the gamers was saturated. After that, a clear trend toward higher clock speed Intels, even at the cost of AMD market share, is clearly observable by the breakdown by clock speed and manufacturer, also available at that link.
You argued that AMD parts were "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part," and I countered with evidence showing otherwise.
Is it a decent gaming part? Ya. Is it "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part?" No. Sorry. There's no evidence to back that up, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, unless we want to quibble on whether or not the definition of "perfectly good" includes "unacceptable" or "undesired."
The gamers want the higher single and quad core thread performance of Intel parts, because the majority of games being played perform better with that part, period. It's not magical thinking or stupidity, it's picking the best part for the application.
Games that actually use Vulkan, regardless of support implemented in the engine Nobody said Vulkan isn't the way forward. Some day, everything will be some running on some graphics API derivative of DX12 or Vulkan, or at least designed upon the ideals they were. But we're nowhere even fucking close to there.
3 games on the 25 top selling games list in Steam support Vulkan/DX12.
That's less market share than AMD processors have, though unlike AMD processors in the gaming segment, at least Vulkan adoption is increasing.
11.15% 15.96% 16.33% 16.22% 15.17%
+4.81% +0.37% -0.11% -1.05%
Intel's:
88.86% 84.04% 83.63% 83.74% 84.79%
-4.82% -0.41% +0.11% +1.05%
You literally cherry picked AMD's initial bump, which saturated in literally a month, and has been declining since, while Intel has been increasing.
You are literally a fucking moron.
Nice deflection. It's ok, I didn't always know what the word obsolete meant, either. There's still hope for you.
None of those technical reasons being English, and the definition of the word obsolete, I suppose.
Stop it dude, you're making a fool of yourself.
The numbers are there, and they don't lie, imbecile.
You don't care about a damn thing other than not feeling stupid. Unfortunately, reality is dealing you some soul-crushing cognitive dissonance in that department.
I'm happy that you're happy with your AMD. It's still not going to come close to knocking the crown off of Intel's head. I'm sorry you're too dim witted to see that numbers for what they are.
Being that you seem to think that engines that don't use Vulkan are obsolete, I'm not really sure there's any point in going back and forth with you anymore. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Vulkan is an optimized pipeline for engines that want more raw access. In some cases, it provides performance increases. In some, it's slower. It speaks absolutely *nothing* to the obsolescence of an engine. Shame on you. At least learn to recognize when your ignorance is fouling up the air around you.
Not undone at all. There was a 5% bump in share- which is awesome for AMD.
15% against 85%.
And all recent gains have been for high end Intel procs, while AMD has declined in every segment except Linux users.
You need to learn to read.
That's a fool's game.
That's like, your opinion, man.
There is always a faster one next quarter.
So? There's always a faster car next year too. Liking fast cars doesn't make me stupid. It means I have disposable income.
You mean crap games, not yet using Vulkan/D12.
No. That's not what I meant at all. And that's a pretty bone-headed correlation for you to make. Do I need to point out how stupid it is, or can we forget you said it?
Beyond that- you *are* correct that the margin is very much reduced or inverted with the 2 DX12/Vulkan games out there.
And "kills" is a wild exaggeration.
No, it's not. Usually between a 10-30% lead in performance. That's killing, sorry.
2700X is widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part,
By you, sure.
Why speculate?
Steam CPU Statistics Look at all that recognition!
built for the future instead of the past
Vomit. Please. It's just another processor. It's built to make money, that's it.
and also the best workstation in class.
You've got a real argument here.
Cores to spare, aggregate throughput without peer.
If only that mattered to people.
I recognize that a lot of people are fucking stupid, I will give you that. Nutrition may not matter to them either.
Wait, who's the idiot here? The person picking up the processors with better performance for their average workload, or the person picking up 32-core machines desperately looking for a use for them?
Steam CPU Statistics
I'll just leave this here.
Being all the game benchmarks show 8th gen i7s eating the 2700X's lunch in just about every game that's popular, I'd say... Most people.
There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen.
It will continue to compete, because enough people want the fastest, and that is simply the i7, period.
My 8700K kills a 2700X in every game I've ever seen benchmarked.
I fully understand that aggregate core performance of the 2700X per dollar is superior- but you need to accept that that metric just doesn't fucking matter to a whole lot of people.
Because it performs better?
My i7-8700K outperforms a 2700X in every game I play, why would I want a 2700X?
The 2700X is better bang for buck in terms of aggregate core performance, but I'm really not sure that matters to enough people to matter.
Then you should try harder to inform yourself about corporate governance, and your rights as a shareholder in an LBO or MBO.
Nobody needs 82B in cash to make this happen, and you as a minority holder who will likely join in a minority disagreement to have your stocks converted to private stocks with shareholder agreements attached- really do need to know what's coming.
Frankly though- you'll do fine either way.
If you're forced to sell, you'll make an obscene profit, and if you're not, you'll have the option to- at an obscene profit.
The short-lived spike in the price of the stock due to his unfounded claims (and it is already clear that the claims were unfounded, there is no indication that even his board knew about the secured financing), people may have made decisions that materially affected them.
He's under no obligation to have informed his board. But one could definitely argue it would have been wise.
However, being he has control of the board, and they couldn't muster the votes to boot him out if they wanted, one could also argue that lack of wisdom is his prerogative.
And it is not only "shorts" who may have been, it is quite possible that some holders bought the stock during the spike, would not have done so had there been no misleading tweet from the CEO.
You're correct. And if his statements are found by the SEC to be false, or were made with intent to mislead, as I said, they'll char broil his ass. But your reasoning behind the belief of it being a falsehood is wrong on its face, which is not to say that you're wrong. Just ignorant or bad at comprehension.
Discussing the irresponsible behavior of Musk by his investors is totally relevant
Agreed. But chanting 'lock her up' makes me roll my eyes, and that's what your'e doing.
Actually, his board should also take notice and rein him in.
They can only take symbolic action against him.
If not, they will see more activist investor action, not less. And not very far in the future.
Probably true. However- Musk is not wrong that something sticks with the short position. It really does smell like there's a well funded vendetta against him, and like it or not, he does have an interest in crushing it- and he may well be about to do that.
In a legal, SEC "I can release the information" standard, yes secured funding has a very specific meaning.
You're completely full of shit, and you know it. I invite you to cite the rule or statute. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Meaning - you have it.
Negative. That's one possible meaning to it, but generally the term is used in LBOs or MBOs to infer that you have the money available in good faith. Usually, this means an investor has offered you the money with a set of stipulations.
Quit. Fucking. Lying.
No, you're talking out of your ass. Saying "funding secured" means effectively having the money "in hand", because such agreements are implemented in only one way - by a bunch of expensive lawyers, using a third party escrow, usually a very large bank as a guarantee that neither party can walk away. Such things make the news, or they don't exist.
Literally everything you said in that paragraph was wrong.
Otherwise it isn't an agreement
Secured funding can be nothing more than a promise. Nor does it need to make the news.
I've been member to an MBO. You're either painfully stupid, or you're on a mission to misinform.
In this case, with a self-confessed goal of "squeezing the shorts". Which is, well, criminal.
There is nothing illegal about "squeezing shorts"
In fact, any CEO doing his job right will be "squeezing shorts"
AC, I've seen you shitposting all over this articles commentary. I just want to know- how much are you out because of this?
No, he needs to be able to buy out everyone who can potentially sell
No. I'm sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Having been a part of a MBO, that is simply not how it works.
Minority shareholders who object to the sale will be offered a dollar amount and be forced to take it.
Non-objecting shareholders do not have to be bought out at all, their shares can be converted to private shares, *if* that's the goal of the MBO.
This isn't usually too much of a concern of the new ownership since the private shares will be subject to shareholder agreements.
It was a childish and idiotic attempt to "squeeze shorts"
Oh I don't think he's trying to squeeze them. I think he's sinking them.
brought about by paranoia and the accidental billionaire's belief that they are beyond the law.
Not liking the guy isn't a good reason to fabricate shit on the internet.
No, it isn't, and you're 100% right- the only issue at play, period, is whether the public statement of having funding is false or not, which *will* be interpreted as manipulating the market if it is not. But like I said, it has to be *really* false in order to be criminal.
He has no legal obligation to the board at this point whatsoever.
Or do you believe that there are loads of ppl and companies that have 82B in cash?
I no longer think you're an investor in Tesla at all. I think you're lying about it.
You seem completely ignorant of Tesla's supermajority voting rules, and the actual stakes that will have to be bought out.
You are of course totally correct.
However, your example doesn't apply to Musk in this instance at all.
"Funding secured." puts him in legal jeopardy if he is lying. There is significant wiggle room though, because he just needs believable math indicating he has parties agreeing to buy out the amount of people he anticipates not wanting their shares to become private.
He himself does not have 82B
Nor does he need to, though.
He only needs to buy out the holdouts.
Musk and other reliable insiders control about 25.5% of Tesla's voting stock.
He only needs to secure funding for the amount he imagines will not want their shares to become private.
In the end, he will need to have actual funding for the actual amount that do not want their shares to become private.
I suspect given Tesla's investor loyalty, he won't actually have to buy many people out.
You are talking out of your ass. Stop it.
The corporation I work for has gone through all kinds of ownership changes, board shakeups, and sales.
Secured funding does not mean in hand. It doesn't even mean 'there isn't a whole fuckload of strings attached'
What the fuck is your position in this? You spend some money on the short?
The SECs interest revolves around the 'Funding secure' claim. There's no legal jeopardy in saying that he is considering taking the company private, unless someone has direct evidence that he said it with intent to mislead.
The SEC will see if it was reasonable for him to say the funding is secure, and if it is not, they'll char broil his ass. I don't really see why there is so much speculation about what is or is not illegal, or how anyone can claim the guy is guilty of anything at this point.
I'm pretty sure there would be a literal line of interested parties to pick up Tesla. Even if the business side of things aren't looking too fantastic, the product they're selling is performing positively amazingly. That's worth every penny.