5 ms·

Stepping down as chairman is much less of a punishment than stepping down as CEO. Looks like the SEC blinked.

thinkcontext 8y ago
To those downvoting, he didn't accept the previous deal, presumably this one is more to his liking. What other explanation is there besides the SEC giving ground?
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Maybe he sobered up and talked to some attorneys who told him the SEC had him dead to rights and he should go back and agree to settle with them.
- bjl 8y ago
  This deal is strictly worse than the one he refused. Fines doubled from 10M to 20M, chairman ban increased from two years to three, new communication review process (not in the original deal), and they still have to install two new board members.
  - thinkcontext 8y ago
    Are you joking? A 10m fine vs 20m is totally immaterial to a billionaire. 3 years is longer than 2 but it's clear giving up CEO was unacceptable to him.
    - bjl 8y ago
      You speculated that this deal was more to his liking than the previous one. I was just pointing out how absurd that statement was given that this deal is worse than the other one in every respect.
      - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
        > this deal is worse than the other one in every respect. Is it? I thought the other settlement included Musk not being able to lead companies for two years: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-rolling-the-dice-and-buying-time-by-turning-down-sec-settlement-2018-09-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-rolling-the-dice...
        kentm 8y ago
        According to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon-musk-tesla-sec-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon-musk-tesla-... the original terms were The plan, as it was negotiated by lawyers, was for Mr. Musk to step down as chairman of Tesla within 45 days and not resume that post for two years. The company, also a party to the proposed agreement, would add two new directors to its board. Mr. Musk and the company would pay tens of millions of dollars in fines, according to the people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. In other words, it’s the exact same deal presented before with some of the penalties increased. There’s no other way to explain it than Musk rejected the real and then realized he messed up when the SEC started with the lawsuit.
    - cjhopman 8y ago
      But giving up CEO wasn't part of the original deal he turned down. This one is strictly worse.
    - Agathos 8y ago
      You may be confusing the original rejected settlement (no CEO ban) with the complaint that the SEC filed on Thursday (yes CEO ban). The latter is more painful than the settlement offer. It has to be, or there's no incentive to settle.
- 68c12c16 8y ago
  don't worry about those downvotes...if they want to downvote, then let them downvote... Just look at those HN karma point votes in the past few years, the upvotes for those really awesome hacking technical articles have been frequently outpaced by those downvotes for those petty trifles...If we take that as a measurement, in a certain aspect, we can see that people's hatred and acrimony grow faster than their kindness and sympathy these days... so I've stopped worrying about those points...for the knowledge value of their corresponding text, they do not reflect as much as they used to reflect....
- kentm 8y ago
  The facts in the above post were incorrect. It’s the same deal with worse penalties. The deal Musk rejected was also for stepping down as chairman rather than CEO. In other words, Musk blinked not the SEC.
kzrdude 8y ago
Why is that? Changes in the board come closer to his formal control of the company a shareholder and owner, so it technically seems like a much bigger intervention.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Then why would he accept one and not the other?

To those downvoting, he didn't accept the previous deal, presumably this one is more to his liking. What other explanation is there besides the SEC giving ground?

ubernostrum 8y ago
Maybe he sobered up and talked to some attorneys who told him the SEC had him dead to rights and he should go back and agree to settle with them.
bjl 8y ago
This deal is strictly worse than the one he refused. Fines doubled from 10M to 20M, chairman ban increased from two years to three, new communication review process (not in the original deal), and they still have to install two new board members.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Are you joking? A 10m fine vs 20m is totally immaterial to a billionaire. 3 years is longer than 2 but it's clear giving up CEO was unacceptable to him.
  - bjl 8y ago
    You speculated that this deal was more to his liking than the previous one. I was just pointing out how absurd that statement was given that this deal is worse than the other one in every respect.
    - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
      > this deal is worse than the other one in every respect. Is it? I thought the other settlement included Musk not being able to lead companies for two years: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-rolling-the-dice-and-buying-time-by-turning-down-sec-settlement-2018-09-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-rolling-the-dice...
      - kentm 8y ago
        According to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon-musk-tesla-sec-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon-musk-tesla-... the original terms were The plan, as it was negotiated by lawyers, was for Mr. Musk to step down as chairman of Tesla within 45 days and not resume that post for two years. The company, also a party to the proposed agreement, would add two new directors to its board. Mr. Musk and the company would pay tens of millions of dollars in fines, according to the people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. In other words, it’s the exact same deal presented before with some of the penalties increased. There’s no other way to explain it than Musk rejected the real and then realized he messed up when the SEC started with the lawsuit.
  - cjhopman 8y ago
    But giving up CEO wasn't part of the original deal he turned down. This one is strictly worse.
  - Agathos 8y ago
    You may be confusing the original rejected settlement (no CEO ban) with the complaint that the SEC filed on Thursday (yes CEO ban). The latter is more painful than the settlement offer. It has to be, or there's no incentive to settle.
68c12c16 8y ago
don't worry about those downvotes...if they want to downvote, then let them downvote... Just look at those HN karma point votes in the past few years, the upvotes for those really awesome hacking technical articles have been frequently outpaced by those downvotes for those petty trifles...If we take that as a measurement, in a certain aspect, we can see that people's hatred and acrimony grow faster than their kindness and sympathy these days... so I've stopped worrying about those points...for the knowledge value of their corresponding text, they do not reflect as much as they used to reflect....
kentm 8y ago
The facts in the above post were incorrect. It’s the same deal with worse penalties. The deal Musk rejected was also for stepping down as chairman rather than CEO. In other words, Musk blinked not the SEC.

kzrdude 8y ago

Why is that? Changes in the board come closer to his formal control of the company a shareholder and owner, so it technically seems like a much bigger intervention.

thinkcontext 8y ago
Then why would he accept one and not the other?