4 ms·

> There was never any chance Musk would have been banned from running public companies. Why are you so confident? The SEC had a very strong case (or Musk woul

> There was never any chance Musk would have been banned from running public companies. Why are you so confident? The SEC had a very strong case (or Musk would never have settled). Had they pursued it to its fullest extent, I see no reason why they couldn't get a strong ruling in their favor. This comment reminds me of the comments that "this will never amount to anything" when rumors of SEC interest in Musk's announcement just begun circulating. And yet, here we are...

twblalock 8y ago
The SEC offered a deal that did not include Musk being banned. If they wanted him banned, why would they have offered such a deal? Negotiators start by asking for more than they want, not less. The other big factor is that removing Musk as CEO would have caused more harm to Tesla shareholders than Musk’s tweets did. The SEC does not want that outcome. The SEC wants to find outcomes that punish rule violators without harming investors.
- dahdum 8y ago
  They offer a deal better than they will seek if you force them to go trial. If he fought it I have no doubt they'd have gone for the throat.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The SEC offered a deal that did not include Musk being banned. If they wanted him banned, why would they have offered such a deal? Because the SEC, like most other litigants, is willing to accept less than its ideal solution for a certain, cheap, immediate, and final resolution; what you seek going to court is everything you would ever want, what you ask for in a settlement is may be more than the minimum you will accept (if you want negotiating room, OTOH, you may want to do a best offer to maximize the chance of immediate acceptance and just move on to litigation if that fails) but will always be less than everything you would want, unless your case is so strong that you view settlement as basically a gift of swift resolution of a foregone conclusion to the other side, which is rare. > The other big factor is that removing Musk as CEO would have caused more harm to Tesla shareholders than Musk’s tweets did. Tesla shareholders as a class aren't the harmed party the SEC seeks to address a harm to, they are the principal who failed to adequately supervise their agent who is the bad actor in this case, which is why Tesla as well as Musk is, even with the settlement, paying a fine.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > Tesla shareholders as a class aren't the harmed party the SEC seeks to address a harm to, they are the principal who failed to adequately supervise their agent who is the bad actor in this case, which is why Tesla as well as Musk is, even with the settlement, paying a fine. Then why did the SEC say "The resolution is intended to prevent further market disruption and harm to Tesla’s shareholders"? Source: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      The SEC cares about the public in general. Tesla shareholders are part of the public. So are potential investors who do not currently hold stock, and investors who short Tesla and/or invest in its competitors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to minimize harm to Tesla shareholders, in fact that would be part of the SEC's stated mission. However, it is not the only part. If Musk used fraud to inflate Tesla's share value, benefiting Tesla shareholders but harming many other people, then the SEC would still intervene. In other words, it's a consideration, but not the only one.

twblalock 8y ago

The SEC offered a deal that did not include Musk being banned. If they wanted him banned, why would they have offered such a deal? Negotiators start by asking for more than they want, not less. The other big factor is that removing Musk as CEO would have caused more harm to Tesla shareholders than Musk’s tweets did. The SEC does not want that outcome. The SEC wants to find outcomes that punish rule violators without harming investors.

dahdum 8y ago
They offer a deal better than they will seek if you force them to go trial. If he fought it I have no doubt they'd have gone for the throat.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The SEC offered a deal that did not include Musk being banned. If they wanted him banned, why would they have offered such a deal? Because the SEC, like most other litigants, is willing to accept less than its ideal solution for a certain, cheap, immediate, and final resolution; what you seek going to court is everything you would ever want, what you ask for in a settlement is may be more than the minimum you will accept (if you want negotiating room, OTOH, you may want to do a best offer to maximize the chance of immediate acceptance and just move on to litigation if that fails) but will always be less than everything you would want, unless your case is so strong that you view settlement as basically a gift of swift resolution of a foregone conclusion to the other side, which is rare. > The other big factor is that removing Musk as CEO would have caused more harm to Tesla shareholders than Musk’s tweets did. Tesla shareholders as a class aren't the harmed party the SEC seeks to address a harm to, they are the principal who failed to adequately supervise their agent who is the bad actor in this case, which is why Tesla as well as Musk is, even with the settlement, paying a fine.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Tesla shareholders as a class aren't the harmed party the SEC seeks to address a harm to, they are the principal who failed to adequately supervise their agent who is the bad actor in this case, which is why Tesla as well as Musk is, even with the settlement, paying a fine. Then why did the SEC say "The resolution is intended to prevent further market disruption and harm to Tesla’s shareholders"? Source: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    The SEC cares about the public in general. Tesla shareholders are part of the public. So are potential investors who do not currently hold stock, and investors who short Tesla and/or invest in its competitors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to minimize harm to Tesla shareholders, in fact that would be part of the SEC's stated mission. However, it is not the only part. If Musk used fraud to inflate Tesla's share value, benefiting Tesla shareholders but harming many other people, then the SEC would still intervene. In other words, it's a consideration, but not the only one.