4 ms·
> 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 overl
by 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 agoSo, 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 agoI know whenever I'm stressed I go post falsehoods on my public Twitter account to blow off some steam.
- aaomidi 8y agoIntent may not necessarily matter.
- beaconstudios 8y agofor 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 agoHe 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> He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet. Source? I legitimately haven't seen this. > Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation. I'm not saying it does. Where did I say it does? I don't understand why I keep getting this response.
- phdp 8y agoHe sent shorts to David Einhorn https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-makes-good-on-promise-to-send-short-seller-david-einhorn-a-box-of-short-shorts-2018-8-1027450239 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-ma...
- metalsahu 8y agoIt was a company, Chubbies, that sent short shorts to David Einhorn not Elon. https://insideevs.com/chubbies-sends-short-shorts-tesla-shorter/ https://insideevs.com/chubbies-sends-short-shorts-tesla-shor...
- badwolf 8y agoHeh. That's actually kind of a chuckleworthy story. Thanks for that.
- SkyPuncher 8y ago> Words mean things. That's how we communicate. Yes, but words are often nuanced and ambiguous. It's why we have an entire legal system to interpret exactly what "words" mean.
- chooseaname 8y agoJust how "nuanced" can the word "secured" mean here?
- RivieraKid 8y agoI've read every tweet he posted in the last year or so. He hates the short sellers passionately. He tried to cause a short squeeze two times before the funding secured tweet. The likelihood that causing harm to short sellers was not part of his motivation is approximately zero.