4 ms·

I don't see how he can reasonably defend himself in this situation. His tweet was both material and inaccurate. Tweeting material information without clearance

I don't see how he can reasonably defend himself in this situation. His tweet was both material and inaccurate. Tweeting material information without clearance is obviously against his settlement. What confuses me is that TSLA's price hasn't suffered. I have a hunch this isn't as serious of a matter as is being reported, but I'm not sure why.

macinjosh 8y ago
I think it is not serious because on Tesla's earning call they already announced the same 500k number.
- unityByFreedom 8y ago
  To be held in contempt may not mean much to Musk. The SEC apparently takes violations of agreements seriously, as it should. We don't need companies building up their valuations with fake news so that we can end up with another 2008. It's in taxpayers' interest to keep misleading CEO's like Musk in check. And, this is a very small "check" to his power. In fact, it is something he already agreed to do. If he didn't want to follow the agreement, he didn't need to settle with the SEC, which is what he did for about a day before turning back and settling with them. It seems he is changing his mind again about that settlement. Apparently nothing is settled with Musk. He changes his mind daily. How can someone run a company like this? Employees must be afraid to do anything without his say-so, and even then it may not hold true for long.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's easy of you consider he's just promoting facts as any normal CEO would. He's not yet used to the idea he has to be hyper specific with some data. He's a showman, a salesperson, he's always going to err on the positive. Constantly pitching, selling. It's the SEC etc. that care about very specific details that could affect the company. So while you're right - as a CEO has has 'no excuse' - the fact he would do it makes perfect sense. I don't think he's trolling anyone, he's the same as he ever was, probably under a lot of stress, a little manic, and avoiding what he probably thinks is the narrow confines of corporate culture and language.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  He's been a CEO for 9 years and the settlement didn't say be more specific, it said get your tweets approved.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Yeah, you are right. I'm not defending him, just trying to explain it.
sangnoir 8y ago
> What confuses me is that TSLA's price hasn't suffered. If I'm to speculate, it's because last time Tesla tangoed with the SEC, it got a slap on the wrist. Perhaps the market is expecting more of the same. Tangentally - I don't know how common this belief is, but Matt Levine in his newsletter argued that the best way the SEC could protect Tesla's shareholders is to not get rid of Elon Musk regardless of his behaviour. I'm not saying that is Levine's belief - it might have been a thought experiment - and I disagree wholeheartedly with it because it doesn't consider 2nd order effects on CEO behaviour against a powerless SEC and how this would impact other non-Tesla shareholders.
anth_anm 8y ago
The problem is that he engaged in pretty blatant stock manipulation before (Funding secured!) which did change the stock price and part of his settlement was getting his tweets cleared. He flagrantly violated that condition of his settlement. That's what makes it a big deal.

macinjosh 8y ago

I think it is not serious because on Tesla's earning call they already announced the same 500k number.

unityByFreedom 8y ago
To be held in contempt may not mean much to Musk. The SEC apparently takes violations of agreements seriously, as it should. We don't need companies building up their valuations with fake news so that we can end up with another 2008. It's in taxpayers' interest to keep misleading CEO's like Musk in check. And, this is a very small "check" to his power. In fact, it is something he already agreed to do. If he didn't want to follow the agreement, he didn't need to settle with the SEC, which is what he did for about a day before turning back and settling with them. It seems he is changing his mind again about that settlement. Apparently nothing is settled with Musk. He changes his mind daily. How can someone run a company like this? Employees must be afraid to do anything without his say-so, and even then it may not hold true for long.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It's easy of you consider he's just promoting facts as any normal CEO would. He's not yet used to the idea he has to be hyper specific with some data. He's a showman, a salesperson, he's always going to err on the positive. Constantly pitching, selling. It's the SEC etc. that care about very specific details that could affect the company. So while you're right - as a CEO has has 'no excuse' - the fact he would do it makes perfect sense. I don't think he's trolling anyone, he's the same as he ever was, probably under a lot of stress, a little manic, and avoiding what he probably thinks is the narrow confines of corporate culture and language.

anth_anm 8y ago
He's been a CEO for 9 years and the settlement didn't say be more specific, it said get your tweets approved.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Yeah, you are right. I'm not defending him, just trying to explain it.

sangnoir 8y ago

> What confuses me is that TSLA's price hasn't suffered. If I'm to speculate, it's because last time Tesla tangoed with the SEC, it got a slap on the wrist. Perhaps the market is expecting more of the same. Tangentally - I don't know how common this belief is, but Matt Levine in his newsletter argued that the best way the SEC could protect Tesla's shareholders is to not get rid of Elon Musk regardless of his behaviour. I'm not saying that is Levine's belief - it might have been a thought experiment - and I disagree wholeheartedly with it because it doesn't consider 2nd order effects on CEO behaviour against a powerless SEC and how this would impact other non-Tesla shareholders.

anth_anm 8y ago

The problem is that he engaged in pretty blatant stock manipulation before (Funding secured!) which did change the stock price and part of his settlement was getting his tweets cleared. He flagrantly violated that condition of his settlement. That's what makes it a big deal.