4 ms·

I don't believe so. I have been a Tesla owner and investor for a long time now. I know where Elon comes from, what missions and goals he has stated for years no

I don't believe so. I have been a Tesla owner and investor for a long time now. I know where Elon comes from, what missions and goals he has stated for years now, and what he is trying to accomplish. I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. He's said he wanted to do so in the past, and even has said they never wanted to go public, but were left with no choice. I don't think any part of Elon was trying to commit fraud or security manipulation. He made a mistake, we all do. He said something that should not have been said at that given point of time. I'm sure he was excited. He even said he typed that tweet in the car after leaving SpaceX. Should he be fined? That is up to the SEC. Will I and many other investor lose trust in what Elon's mission is? Absolutely not.

pdeuchler 8y ago
> I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. According to the hard facts the SEC is presenting this is patently false, there was absolutely no reason for Musk to "legitimately" think that. > even has said they never wanted to go public, but were left with no choice. Also just not even close to true. Elon would have been canned and Tesla would have been bankrupt by now if they didn't go public. If by "left with no choice" means "structured the company so that only a public IPO could sustain it and allow for the path he wanted" then I guess you're right? See: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk-is-working-too-hard https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk...
bduerst 8y ago
Au contraire - I think what's more fascinating about this is Musk's personal branding, which apologists like you have bought into. Just hear me out. I mean, insiders and the SEC clearly know he didn't have an offer to go private on the table when he announced. With Musk's pattern of behavior on twitter recently (pedophile name-calling, weed gifs, etc.) it's much more likely that he was reacting to the short sellers that got under his skin, rather than making a calm, confident announcement of acquisition as you say. When Musk's team finally scrambled together an offer after the announcement, Musk rejected it outright because he was paranoid about Volkswagen [1], a manufacturer that would have helped solve Tesla's scaling problems. There's always going to be short sellers. There are not always going to be CEOs who let them get under their skin or let hubris in the way of business. [1] http://archive.is/cuuor http://archive.is/cuuor
- fooker 8y ago
  >clearly know This is clearly your opinion..
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Read the linked WSJ article. He tweeted before there was even an offer on the table. This is the Musk apologizing I'm talking about.
dragontamer 8y ago
> I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. That's cool and all. And that's probably why the DoJ case will fail (at least, I'm betting that the DoJ case will turn up nothing). But this is the SEC: they only have to prove recklessness or negligence. That Musk was NEGLIGENT in his ability to properly vet the information before tweeting. In particular: > Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions. https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Securities-and-Exchange-Commission-v-Musk https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Secu... As a CEO, his responsibility is to report on the news of the company to his investors in a responsible manner. If Musk is negligent and/or reckless about the facts, then that is ALONE sufficient to have him removed from the position. That's the thing about this SEC case. They do not have to prove scienter (criminal knowledge of wrongdoing) or malice. They only have to prove recklessness or negligence. EDIT: Upon further review, paragraph 79 claims that Elon Musk has scienter of these events. So the SEC is in fact claiming that Elon Musk deliberately knew that making these statements were wrong, and did it anyway. This is above and beyond "reckless" or "negligent" !!
- rohit2412 8y ago
  I find it hilarious that intent is under doubt. Somehow people have forgotten "short burn off the century". If shorts squeeze did happen, there would be cheering everywhere.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Personally, I don't doubt intent. But "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as well as the necessity for a "malice" in the DoJ's case makes me think that... the DoJ has way too hard of a case to pull together. I mean, I might be proven wrong. But... showing off a couple of rage tweets in court to prove malice doesn't seem plausible to me. Would a Jury of 12 (and remember: all 12 have to agree) be convinced over a couple of "who likes short-shorts" tweets? If a SINGLE jury member, 1 out of the 12, disagrees, then you get a hung case aka a mistrial. As per the rules of the DoJ investigation anyway. That's why I don't think the DoJ will go anywhere, because proof and evidence is at a way harder standard in a criminal case.

pdeuchler 8y ago

> I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. According to the hard facts the SEC is presenting this is patently false, there was absolutely no reason for Musk to "legitimately" think that. > even has said they never wanted to go public, but were left with no choice. Also just not even close to true. Elon would have been canned and Tesla would have been bankrupt by now if they didn't go public. If by "left with no choice" means "structured the company so that only a public IPO could sustain it and allow for the path he wanted" then I guess you're right? See: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk-is-working-too-hard https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk...

bduerst 8y ago

Au contraire - I think what's more fascinating about this is Musk's personal branding, which apologists like you have bought into. Just hear me out. I mean, insiders and the SEC clearly know he didn't have an offer to go private on the table when he announced. With Musk's pattern of behavior on twitter recently (pedophile name-calling, weed gifs, etc.) it's much more likely that he was reacting to the short sellers that got under his skin, rather than making a calm, confident announcement of acquisition as you say. When Musk's team finally scrambled together an offer after the announcement, Musk rejected it outright because he was paranoid about Volkswagen [1], a manufacturer that would have helped solve Tesla's scaling problems. There's always going to be short sellers. There are not always going to be CEOs who let them get under their skin or let hubris in the way of business. [1] http://archive.is/cuuor http://archive.is/cuuor

fooker 8y ago
>clearly know This is clearly your opinion..
- bduerst 8y ago
  Read the linked WSJ article. He tweeted before there was even an offer on the table. This is the Musk apologizing I'm talking about.

dragontamer 8y ago

> I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. That's cool and all. And that's probably why the DoJ case will fail (at least, I'm betting that the DoJ case will turn up nothing). But this is the SEC: they only have to prove recklessness or negligence. That Musk was NEGLIGENT in his ability to properly vet the information before tweeting. In particular: > Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions. https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Securities-and-Exchange-Commission-v-Musk https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Secu... As a CEO, his responsibility is to report on the news of the company to his investors in a responsible manner. If Musk is negligent and/or reckless about the facts, then that is ALONE sufficient to have him removed from the position. That's the thing about this SEC case. They do not have to prove scienter (criminal knowledge of wrongdoing) or malice. They only have to prove recklessness or negligence. EDIT: Upon further review, paragraph 79 claims that Elon Musk has scienter of these events. So the SEC is in fact claiming that Elon Musk deliberately knew that making these statements were wrong, and did it anyway. This is above and beyond "reckless" or "negligent" !!

rohit2412 8y ago
I find it hilarious that intent is under doubt. Somehow people have forgotten "short burn off the century". If shorts squeeze did happen, there would be cheering everywhere.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Personally, I don't doubt intent. But "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as well as the necessity for a "malice" in the DoJ's case makes me think that... the DoJ has way too hard of a case to pull together. I mean, I might be proven wrong. But... showing off a couple of rage tweets in court to prove malice doesn't seem plausible to me. Would a Jury of 12 (and remember: all 12 have to agree) be convinced over a couple of "who likes short-shorts" tweets? If a SINGLE jury member, 1 out of the 12, disagrees, then you get a hung case aka a mistrial. As per the rules of the DoJ investigation anyway. That's why I don't think the DoJ will go anywhere, because proof and evidence is at a way harder standard in a criminal case.