9 ms·

There are a lot of things to respect about Musk. But he lied on twitter in a direct effort to cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock. You can't do

• beaconstudios 8y ago
  > But he lied on twitter in a direct effort to cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock. Do you have evidence of this, or is it speculation?
  • tomc1985 8y ago
    If you read his rants/tweets around this time it is pretty clear he is has it in for short sellers
    • 32847yjo87tj 8y ago
      That much is not illegal.
      • Asparagirl 8y ago
        But it provides motive.
  • harryh 8y ago
    The "lied on twitter" part is now clear. He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420 which he has now basically admitted was not true. The "cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock" is a bit of speculation but it seems basically obvious to all observers.
    • beaconstudios 8y ago
      > but it seems basically obvious to all observers. It doesn't seem obvious to me. It seems like one of a few interpretations, not limited to: - Elon was overly stressed (as has been documented recently) and didn't think before posting such an impactful statement - He considers twitter to be an official outlet for Tesla and just continued with his tendency to publicise his decisions and thought process constantly. - His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition and if the funding had been SEC-secured, the tweet would be a compliant form of public disclosure. [edit] To be clear, I'm not arguing that the tweet shouldn't be investigated. I'm saying that "he intentionally lied to screw over short sellers" is presumptive and that may not have been his intent.
      • chooseaname 8y ago
        So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed? or just Elon? > His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition ... He is the CEO. He's not allowed to have a different definition. Words mean things. That's how we communicate.
        • beaconstudios 8y ago
          > So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed? Are you putting words in my mouth on purpose? I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be investigated. I'm arguing that "trying to screw over short sellers" is not the only and "obvious" reason why he could have made the tweet.
          • emodendroket 8y ago
            I know whenever I'm stressed I go post falsehoods on my public Twitter account to blow off some steam.
          • aaomidi 8y ago
            Intent may not necessarily matter.
            • beaconstudios 8y ago
              for the investigation, no it probably doesn't. But that's not what I'm arguing, and I don't see why people think it is.
          • aslkdjaslkdj1 8y ago
            He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet. Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.
            • beaconstudios 8y ago
    • Reedx 8y ago
      It's not a fact that he lied. He believed he had funding and explained the rational behind that. He wasn't making it up. Intent matters. Certainly, it was a reckless thing to say and a bad idea given that it wasn't 100% closed. "Secured" was the wrong word to use, no doubt. Elon: "I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement." https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-tesla-private https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-tesla-private
      • romed 8y ago
        Intent does not matter. If Musk got up on Twitter and announced "I have secured orders for fifty million cars at $50000 each" because he was drunk at 8am, that would not be excusable either.
        • beaconstudios 8y ago
          Intent matters when determining if someone is lying or not. It doesn't matter when determining if someone committed an act. So in this case he seemingly committed the act of making an untrue statement. But whether he was lying while doing so is not so clear because we don't know if he was being intentionally misleading.
        • tptacek 8y ago
          Intent matters enormously in US criminal law.
          • harryh 8y ago
            Intent matters enormously but I think this is a different situation than some layman commenting on financial matters. Musk is the CEO of a ~50B public company with deep experience in fundraising and other matters of finance. Even if we can't say definitively what was going on inside his head when he posted that tweet we can say that any reasonable person in that role with that level of experience can be expected to understand what "funding secured" means. It's kind of like if I walk into a store and take something off a shelf without paying for it. I can't claim "it's not stealing because I didn't know this stuff wasn't just free for the taking" because any reasonable person in my situation should understand what a store is and how it works.
    • leesec 8y ago
      Obvious does not mean provable in a court of law. He also tweeted this: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688?lang=... Was this some elaborate stock exploitation? I don't mind the investigation but this whole thing, especially all the hate, like he ruined short sellers lives ( the stock is way down since the tweet ), is insane to me.
      • harryh 8y ago
        I actually do think your linked tweet is problematic (though on a much smaller scale than the "secured funding" one). While obviously a joke, it was at the very least an irresponsible one from a public company CEO and definitely could be viewed as an attempt to manipulate algorithmic traders via the dissemination of misinformation. CEOs have a legal duty to their shareholders and the public to communicate about their companies in a clear an honest manner.
        • leesec 8y ago
          I guess anything 'could be viewed as an attempt to manipulate algorithmic traders' then. At what point did obvious jokes become illegal?
          • harryh 8y ago
            I don't personally think this tweet is illegal however I do think it's irresponsible.
          • gamblor956 8y ago
            It's not an obvious joke to people who don't speak English as their primary language.
    • espeed 8y ago
      He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420 420...was is really $420? And then smoking weed on Joe Rogan? LOL, now that's funny ;-)
  • rigsby50 8y ago
    Are you saying he bought Twitter at $420 and the funding was secured for it? Because that sounded like an outright lie. He also doubled down by making that blog post thereby voicing this in his capacity as Tesla CEO. It wouldn't be illegal if there was a tender offer for the shares at $420.
• atonse 8y ago
  As sad as this makes me (because I want Tesla to be wildly successful), I have to agree. This is textbook and brazen stock manipulation, a flat out crime.
  • crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Isn't "Opening a civil and criminal investigation" without due process, also direct manipulation as well? Surely, prior to a fault/guilty verdict, running someone through the mud is furtherance of that, no? This reminds me of "perp watches" posed by police departments on Facebook and twitter. No charges, but arrested - and you get to live in the newspaper and social media regardless if you are exonerated. Cause, public shaming? edit: s/peep/perp/
    • jchw 8y ago
      A criminal investigation being opened is literally part of due process.
      • pathseeker 8y ago
        The big announcement is what OP is referring to.
        • aaomidi 8y ago
          The big announcement is part of transparency and keeping the US government accountable. There is simply no other way, the only reason this is a big announcement is because Elon is very active on social media.
        • _jal 8y ago
          Allow me a moment to note the irony of complaining about big announcements in this context.
        • jchw 8y ago
          I must've missed something, what I understood from reading the article was simply that there are insider reports of a criminal probe, not that the U.S. government made an announcement of such.
• ConfusedDog 8y ago
  Why is it a lie? Saudi did not invest Lucid when he posted the twit. You don't know that funding was not secured. As a matter of fact, if the board supported the decision, it would have been Tesla being invested. The statement itself is not necessarily a lie (could be) but it seems to me likely not.
  • whatok 8y ago
    Did you read the statement he put out? He basically said everything was a lie.
    • ConfusedDog 8y ago
      He you mean Elon Musk? He admitted the funding was not secured at the time and was never intended to buy back stock at $420? Why not post a link and let us see.
      • gamblor956 8y ago
        He actually did admit that funding was not secured to buy the stock back for $420. https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-tesla-private https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-tesla-private In the post, he also admits that the Saudi Arabian investment would only provide a small fraction of the necessary amount needed to go private.
        • dragontamer 8y ago
          That's DAYS after Musk made the initial "Funding Secured" tweet. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776?lang... Follow the original twitter feed yourself. Its not like its been deleted. Musk is very clear that "funding is secured", and in follow up tweets. > Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured. > Shareholders could either to sell at 420 or hold shares & go private > My hope is all current investors remain with Tesla even if we’re private. Would create special purpose fund enabling anyone to stay with Tesla. Already do this with Fidelity’s SpaceX investment. ---------- Days later, Musk posts a blogpost that directly contradicts his original tweets. IE: He was lying originally. We now know that there's no buyer who was willing to spend $70 Billion to buyout Tesla and take it private. The question then, is was this lie "negligence" (SEC fine), or was it intended to manipulate the price? (FBI jailtime). The DoJ case implies the FBI is looking into the jailtime question. While the SEC is looking into the negligence question. Both cases will move forward as appropriate. My bet is that SEC gets him on negligence, but I don't really know enough about history / other cases to know what kind of punishment Musk will get. I'm guessing a fine of some kind, but the SEC does have the power to remove Musk from his CEO position entirely.
• 32847yjo87tj 8y ago
  Except he didn't lie. Funding was secured. So much so that when shareholders objected and Musk retracted, the Saudi wealth fund went out and invested substantially in a Telsa competitor. This is all drama for drama's sake.
  • camjohnson26 8y ago
    A $1 billion investment isn't even close to what it would have cost to take Tesla private at $420.
  • rootusrootus 8y ago
    Guess we'll find out. He'll have documentation for the feds, and then they will not charge him with a crime.
• abalone 8y ago
  This is a massive oversimplification. Musk may be in peril but this is not as cut-and-dried a case of fraud like you make it seem. Consider this recent comment from the SEC: “When you talk about fraud,” [Jina Choi of the SEC] answered, “you’re talking about a state of mind, you’re talking about mens rea. We call it scienter. You have to do something with intentionality. The idea of just making a misstatement doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of fraud." Misstatements can “be the first step to fraud,” Choi had added. “But generally, when we talk about fraud the F word, I think we are talking about a state of mind that’s a little bit higher than that.”[1] That telegraphs a pretty lenient stance on misstatements that aren't completely fabricated. And there were actual serious negotiations happening here. That's not in dispute. Without question, Musk made a misstatement. But what was his state of mind? Was there intent to deceive, or was he merely overzealous in his interpretation of the negotiations? If he can argue the latter then it may not rise to the level of criminal fraud. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/a-tesla-investor-says-he-was-recently-questioned-by-u-s-regulators-about-that-infamous-funding-secured-tweet/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/a-tesla-investor-says-he-w...
  • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > That telegraphs a pretty lenient stance on misstatements that aren't completely fabricated American commercial law goes out of its way to avoid criminalizing stupidity. At a certain level, the difference between a genius and a madman is the genius was correct. They are indifferentiable without the benefit of hindsight. The nail in Elon's coffin (or lack thereof) will probably revolve around the degree to which he documented his animus towards short sellers in the days leading up to the misstatement.
    • abalone 8y ago
      Nah, it's clear Musk hates short sellers. That's not the issue. Nor is his desire to hurt them. The question is whether he had scienter when misstating the finality of the deal he was negotiating.
      • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
• na85 8y ago
  This. I'm sick of people giving high-profile people in the tech sector a pass on their shitty behaviour because of the pervasive hero-worship culture. Jobs, Zuck, Torvalds, etc. Irrespective of Musk "caring too much" or whatever other justification his fans have concocted, this is exactly the sort of behaviour (lying to manipulate the market) we have laws to prohibit. We see articles every so often about how Tech as an industry needs to play catch up on the Ethics side of things. Now's the chance.