6 ms·
Right, he was projecting 2019 production publicly, and the SEC cites the first tweet as the projection that violated the original agreement.
by a-wu 8y ago
Right, 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?
- Dylan16807 8y agoDoes that change whether it counts as "information"? Harm to investors isn't the criteria for whether this breached the agreement. (And is probably low to zero for a couple tweets outside trading hours.)
- darkpuma 8y agoClaims about production numbers are 'information'.
- kevinpet 8y agoNot if they are already known.
- mamon 8y agoOriginal statement from the annual report was "Barring unexpected challenges with Gigafactory Shanghai, we are targeting annualized Model 3 output in excess of 500,000 units sometime between Q4 of 2019 and Q2 of 2020." So saying "we'll produce 500k cars in 2019" is a lot of new information: - it's now definitely 2019, not Q2 2020 - it's 500k total, not just "annualized output" - risk of "unexpected challeges" in Shanghai disappeared.