4 ms·

'Funding secured' has a very specific meaning in finance. And it definitely implies that he has a party that, contingent on a shareholder vote, has a legal obli

by bjl 8y ago

'Funding secured' has a very specific meaning in finance. And it definitely implies that he has a party that, contingent on a shareholder vote, has a legal obligation to buy out all existing shares (if necessary).

eduah 8y ago
I really still don't understand why the whole world seems to be ignoring the first part of that "Funding secured" tweet that clearly says this entire thing is something simply under consideration by Musk himself. Why are all you ignoring the words in the same tweet proceeding "Funding secured" to interpret is as a statement meant to indicate the existence of a done deal on the side of Tesla the company or the investors.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." The first half suggests that he might go through with the transaction of taking Tesla private, meaning, acquiring sufficient stock for cash that it falls below the SEC reporting thresholds and delisting it from stock exchanges. The second half of the statement states that, whatever he decides, he has already lined up the funding necessary to carry out contemplated action in the first statement. People don't interpret the "funding secured" to mean that he has a going-private deal locked up. They do interpret it to mean that he has locked up whatever financing he would need to go private, were he to choose to do so. And the problem is that his follow-up blog post, tweets, and Tesla statements indicate that neither the going-private transaction, or the funding for such a transaction, has been finalized--or even has progressed to the point of concrete terms being discussed.
  - pbreit 8y ago
    So you're saying that all the subsequent communications back a liberal reading of the original twete?
- bjl 8y ago
  The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material statement of fact. Literally the only thing that matters is whether or not the statement 'Funding secured' was true at the time of the tweet. If it was, then nothing happens (except a strongly worded letter from the SEC on proper disclosure methods). If it wasn't, however, then at the very least he's going to have to pay restitution to all the investors (both long and short) who lost money as a result of the tweet. At worst he's going to prison.

by bjl 8y ago

eduah 8y ago

I really still don't understand why the whole world seems to be ignoring the first part of that "Funding secured" tweet that clearly says this entire thing is something simply under consideration by Musk himself. Why are all you ignoring the words in the same tweet proceeding "Funding secured" to interpret is as a statement meant to indicate the existence of a done deal on the side of Tesla the company or the investors.

gamblor956 8y ago
"Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." The first half suggests that he might go through with the transaction of taking Tesla private, meaning, acquiring sufficient stock for cash that it falls below the SEC reporting thresholds and delisting it from stock exchanges. The second half of the statement states that, whatever he decides, he has already lined up the funding necessary to carry out contemplated action in the first statement. People don't interpret the "funding secured" to mean that he has a going-private deal locked up. They do interpret it to mean that he has locked up whatever financing he would need to go private, were he to choose to do so. And the problem is that his follow-up blog post, tweets, and Tesla statements indicate that neither the going-private transaction, or the funding for such a transaction, has been finalized--or even has progressed to the point of concrete terms being discussed.
- pbreit 8y ago
  So you're saying that all the subsequent communications back a liberal reading of the original twete?
bjl 8y ago
The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material statement of fact. Literally the only thing that matters is whether or not the statement 'Funding secured' was true at the time of the tweet. If it was, then nothing happens (except a strongly worded letter from the SEC on proper disclosure methods). If it wasn't, however, then at the very least he's going to have to pay restitution to all the investors (both long and short) who lost money as a result of the tweet. At worst he's going to prison.