7 ms·
According to the filing posted by another user, the first one.
by a-wu 8y ago
According to the filing posted by another user, the first one.
- bostonpete 8y agoThat's incorrect if you read the SEC filling the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly
- a-wu 8y agoRight, he was projecting 2019 production publicly, and the SEC cites the first tweet as the projection that violated the original agreement.
- mlindner 8y agoExcept that was already public information.
- jaimex2 8y agoCorrect. It was in the outlook of the last quarterly: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-9225c2cb0ae0 http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-922...
- ikeboy 8y agoThat says 500k annualized, not 500k for the year
- Dylan16807 8y agoAnd 500k annualized is what he claims the meaning of the tweet to be. Unless Tesla updates their projections soon, that's probably not a lie.
- ikeboy 8y agoNobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> Nobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. I was talking about whether "Musk meant the annualized number." is true or a lie. > The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements. The agreement was that he would get approval for posts with material information. If he's citing a number everyone already knows from the public report, then it's not material information. (except in some kind of unreasonably-broad sense that would make "Tesla makes cars." an offending tweet) So if he says 500k, and he's talking about the annualized number in the previous public report, then there is a strong argument that he doesn't need approval. If he says 500k and it's not annualized, then it's a new number, and he does need approval.
- ikeboy 8y agoIt doesn't matter what he meant, it matters what the statement would be reasonably expected to mean. Saying we'll produce 500k can't reasonably be read as we'll have an annualized rate of 500k, which is why he needed to issue a correction.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> It doesn't matter what he meant, it matters what the statement would be reasonably expected to mean. That depends on whether you consider a misphrasing to be "information".
- darkpuma 8y agoDid investors know it was a 'misphrasing' before he issued a correction hours later?
- xenadu02 8y ago> the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly That is also incorrect. The settlement only mandated that Musk get company approval for Tesla-related tweets. It would have been as simple as him sending an email with the proposed tweet to get signoff before blasting it out there. This is actually extremely common and partially for these sorts of reasons. The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing.
- CydeWeys 8y agoI'm just a random nobody and I have to get way more approval posting anything work-related than Elon Musk, apparently.
- bostonpete 8y agoThe settlement required approval for statement containing information material to shareholders, not any tweet about Tesla. That's why the 2019 projection was mention as the problematic tweet in the SEC filing
- Derek_MK 8y ago> The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing. This is the unbelievable part. "We agree to NOT do X, under penalty of law." [Does X] "Did you do X?" "yeah lol"
- darkpuma 8y agoElon is the guy who fucked up, not Telsa. Whoever the FEC asked that question to at Tesla was probably not Elon himself, and the person on the receiving end of that question probably didn't want to lie to a fed.
- Derek_MK 8y agoYeah, I guess I understand why they confirmed it, it's just wild that this is happening right now.