3 ms·

> the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly That is also incorrect. The settlement only mandated that Musk get company approval for Tesl

> 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 ago
I'm just a random nobody and I have to get way more approval posting anything work-related than Elon Musk, apparently.
bostonpete 8y ago
The 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 ago
  Elon 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 ago
    Yeah, I guess I understand why they confirmed it, it's just wild that this is happening right now.
- Rodyland 8y ago
  It's not unbelievable at all (the admittance, not the act, to clarify). In fact I'd say it's rather refreshing. Firstly, these people work for Tesla. They don't work for Elon Musk. Hoping it's not just me, but there is no way I'm lying to the cops (corporate cops, criminal cops, federal cops, whatever) to protect my CEO. Especially if I'm directly asked "Did you* do X" (* where "you" means "Tesla CEO"). Double-especially in this case where the "X" is "not Y" and the person doing "Y" actively avoided you making sure they did "not Y". If it's my job to make sure my Boss doesn't do something illegal, and he actively circumvents my ability to do my job, damn straight I'm rolling over to the Feds.

CydeWeys 8y ago

I'm just a random nobody and I have to get way more approval posting anything work-related than Elon Musk, apparently.

bostonpete 8y ago

The 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 ago
Elon 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 ago
  Yeah, I guess I understand why they confirmed it, it's just wild that this is happening right now.
Rodyland 8y ago
It's not unbelievable at all (the admittance, not the act, to clarify). In fact I'd say it's rather refreshing. Firstly, these people work for Tesla. They don't work for Elon Musk. Hoping it's not just me, but there is no way I'm lying to the cops (corporate cops, criminal cops, federal cops, whatever) to protect my CEO. Especially if I'm directly asked "Did you* do X" (* where "you" means "Tesla CEO"). Double-especially in this case where the "X" is "not Y" and the person doing "Y" actively avoided you making sure they did "not Y". If it's my job to make sure my Boss doesn't do something illegal, and he actively circumvents my ability to do my job, damn straight I'm rolling over to the Feds.