6 ms·

> That said, my belief that there is more than enough funding to take Tesla private was reinforced during this process. Is this some kind of threat or position

by rhema 8y ago

> That said, my belief that there is more than enough funding to take Tesla private was reinforced during this process. Is this some kind of threat or positioning towards actors somewhere? Is this like someone in a relationship saying, "I know I be with someone else if I wanted to, but this is working out for now."? What's the point of all of this, besides saying that Tesla has lots of funding options?

dforrestwilson 8y ago
This past week was about covering the legal angles so that Elon doesn’t go to jail while still attempting to mollify bulls.
tedunangst 8y ago
Blame the shorts, blah, blah. "I could totally squeeze the shorts at 420 but I won't because I don't care even one bit about the shorts."
mdorazio 8y ago
It's almost certainly an attempt to stave off the SEC investigation into misleading statements by Elon when he tweeted originally that funding was secured.
- meritt 8y ago
  If Tesla was actually going private his "Funding Secured" tweet wouldn't be viewed with as much scrutiny. Instead, coupled with his on-going public threats against short sellers, that tweet is now even more likely to be viewed as intentional market manipulation. This will only continue and reinforce the SEC investigation.
- karpodiem 8y ago
  This does this opposite. This is the opposite of 'funding secured', because now he has to PROVE that funding actually was secured. It wasn't.
freerobby 8y ago
It reinforces the narrative that this was his choice about what is best for Tesla, and not a market-driven outcome to remain public in spite of a desire to privatize.
jnmandal 8y ago
I think he is saying this because of the risk of his going to jail. If it comes out that he was bluffing, statements he made could very well be considered securities fraud since it amounted to an announcement on a public forum and he had cited a specific price. So by reiterating in an official press release that he had adequate funding but just chose not to do it, there's kind of a supporting evidence to defend himself against any SEC investigations.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  Fined at worst. Jail is absurd unless he, like, sold a bunch of shares at the top or something (which he didn't).
  - karpodiem 8y ago
    Martin Shkreli is serving seven years in prison for less.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Meanwhile Brian Krzanich is wandering around as free as a coconut on open water after selling as much as he legally could right before the spectre/meltdown announcement.
      - slivym 8y ago
        It's very difficult to say that what Krzanich did was related to Spectre/Meltdown given what we now know was going on. It seems a lot more likely he was lining up his position to resign.
    - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
      Martin Shkreli is also much more hate-able, less charismatic, and less wealthy. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does.
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
flafla2 8y ago
I understood this comment as Elon reaffirming to his shareholders that he was not trying to defraud them, and that there actually was adequate funding to take Tesla private. This could also be part of a preemptive legal defense against the SEC in case Elon is formally investigated / questioned. However I feel that the SEC would be more interested in the specific wording of the "funding secured" tweet, which was blatantly false in light of Tesla's previous post [1] (For those who aren't following along: Elon basically only had a verbal offer to take Tesla private from Saudi investors, not anything in writing). It's also worth mentioning that the idea of breaking long-term financial news for a Fortune 500 company via Twitter of all places is highly unorthodox and suspect in its own right, so I doubt this comment would have much effect in practice. [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-Tesla-private https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-Tesla-private
- freerobby 8y ago
  > It's also worth mentioning that the idea of breaking long-term financial news for a Fortune 500 company via Twitter of all places is highly unorthodox and suspect in its own right, so I doubt this comment would have much effect in practice. Elon can't have this both ways, though. Tesla has disclosed that it will use social media for financially material announcements, and Elon has embraced this. It can't be legitimate most of the time and illegitimate when it makes for a convenient defense. Personally, I don't think Elon's intention was to defraud -- I think he was impulsive and careless, and I expect the SEC will reach the same conclusion. But I think if he's going to use Twitter to talk about such things, his tweets need to carry the same weight as an equivalent SEC filing.
  - dixie_land 8y ago
    I also don't think pumping up stock price to avoid a convertible bond conversion is fraud. And of course OJ is innocent too.
    - karpodiem 8y ago
      lol
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dawhizkid 8y ago
He’s saying it because if it was totally untrue then he likely committed massive securities fraud

by rhema 8y ago

dforrestwilson 8y ago

This past week was about covering the legal angles so that Elon doesn’t go to jail while still attempting to mollify bulls.

tedunangst 8y ago

Blame the shorts, blah, blah. "I could totally squeeze the shorts at 420 but I won't because I don't care even one bit about the shorts."

mdorazio 8y ago

It's almost certainly an attempt to stave off the SEC investigation into misleading statements by Elon when he tweeted originally that funding was secured.

meritt 8y ago
If Tesla was actually going private his "Funding Secured" tweet wouldn't be viewed with as much scrutiny. Instead, coupled with his on-going public threats against short sellers, that tweet is now even more likely to be viewed as intentional market manipulation. This will only continue and reinforce the SEC investigation.
karpodiem 8y ago
This does this opposite. This is the opposite of 'funding secured', because now he has to PROVE that funding actually was secured. It wasn't.

freerobby 8y ago

It reinforces the narrative that this was his choice about what is best for Tesla, and not a market-driven outcome to remain public in spite of a desire to privatize.

jnmandal 8y ago

I think he is saying this because of the risk of his going to jail. If it comes out that he was bluffing, statements he made could very well be considered securities fraud since it amounted to an announcement on a public forum and he had cited a specific price. So by reiterating in an official press release that he had adequate funding but just chose not to do it, there's kind of a supporting evidence to defend himself against any SEC investigations.

Robotbeat 8y ago
Fined at worst. Jail is absurd unless he, like, sold a bunch of shares at the top or something (which he didn't).
- karpodiem 8y ago
  Martin Shkreli is serving seven years in prison for less.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Meanwhile Brian Krzanich is wandering around as free as a coconut on open water after selling as much as he legally could right before the spectre/meltdown announcement.
    - slivym 8y ago
      It's very difficult to say that what Krzanich did was related to Spectre/Meltdown given what we now know was going on. It seems a lot more likely he was lining up his position to resign.
  - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
    Martin Shkreli is also much more hate-able, less charismatic, and less wealthy. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does.
    - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

flafla2 8y ago

I understood this comment as Elon reaffirming to his shareholders that he was not trying to defraud them, and that there actually was adequate funding to take Tesla private. This could also be part of a preemptive legal defense against the SEC in case Elon is formally investigated / questioned. However I feel that the SEC would be more interested in the specific wording of the "funding secured" tweet, which was blatantly false in light of Tesla's previous post [1] (For those who aren't following along: Elon basically only had a verbal offer to take Tesla private from Saudi investors, not anything in writing). It's also worth mentioning that the idea of breaking long-term financial news for a Fortune 500 company via Twitter of all places is highly unorthodox and suspect in its own right, so I doubt this comment would have much effect in practice. [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-Tesla-private https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-Tesla-private

freerobby 8y ago
> It's also worth mentioning that the idea of breaking long-term financial news for a Fortune 500 company via Twitter of all places is highly unorthodox and suspect in its own right, so I doubt this comment would have much effect in practice. Elon can't have this both ways, though. Tesla has disclosed that it will use social media for financially material announcements, and Elon has embraced this. It can't be legitimate most of the time and illegitimate when it makes for a convenient defense. Personally, I don't think Elon's intention was to defraud -- I think he was impulsive and careless, and I expect the SEC will reach the same conclusion. But I think if he's going to use Twitter to talk about such things, his tweets need to carry the same weight as an equivalent SEC filing.
- dixie_land 8y ago
  I also don't think pumping up stock price to avoid a convertible bond conversion is fraud. And of course OJ is innocent too.
  - karpodiem 8y ago
    lol

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dawhizkid 8y ago

He’s saying it because if it was totally untrue then he likely committed massive securities fraud