3 ms·

Good luck to the "shareholders" (I assume they are not long) trying to prove Elon was defrauding them. All shareholders now have a hugely better value than befo

Good luck to the "shareholders" (I assume they are not long) trying to prove Elon was defrauding them. All shareholders now have a hugely better value than before he tweeted that.

FireBeyond 7y ago
What part of "I have secured funding for taking Tesla private" was accurate and honest? If he had not secured funding, how was his statement not deceptive? And if you sold shares based on his statement, OR as a result of the enforcement activities that came after, then you lost potential earnings, as a result of (reacting to) his statement. Martin Shkreli's investors made a profit. But he was still guilty of running a fraudulent pyramid scheme to get them that profit.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  People don't seem to understand that the current share price of Tesla is largely irrelevant to this case. What matters is the harm to the shareholders (or former shareholders) at the time the 420 tweet was still relevant (i.e., back in summer 2018).
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > What part of "I have secured funding for taking Tesla private" was accurate and honest? We don't know. He might have chosen to not disclose his discussions with other people. > If he had not secured funding, how was his statement not deceptive? He might have meant it in earnest. For fraud, surely he must have had the intention to profit from it personally at the expense of shareholders? > And if you sold shares based on his statement, Who would have done that and with what reasoning? Why would you sell for a lower price if you believed you'd get $420 very soon? That's a silly notion. > a fraudulent pyramid scheme A pyramid scheme is by definition a system where most (i.e. the last) investors get screwed, i.e. they don't make a profit.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > He might have chosen to not disclose his discussions with other people. Including the SEC? > He might have meant it in earnest. You can be as earnest as you like and still be capable of making statements that are factually incorrect. As to your previous point, one would presume that an absolute defense against the SEC's charges about making materially false statements would be to show that said statements were not, in fact, materially false. That didn't happen though. > For fraud, surely he must have had the intention to profit from it personally at the expense of shareholders? You mean the hope that the share price would go up, with him as a large shareholder. "At the expense of shareholders" would include "shareholders who may have bought, sold, or changed their strategies, or not, based on Mr Musk not making said statements as a matter of fact, that weren't".

Good luck to the "shareholders" (I assume they are not long) trying to prove Elon was defrauding them. All shareholders now have a hugely better value than before he tweeted that.

FireBeyond 7y ago

What part of "I have secured funding for taking Tesla private" was accurate and honest? If he had not secured funding, how was his statement not deceptive? And if you sold shares based on his statement, OR as a result of the enforcement activities that came after, then you lost potential earnings, as a result of (reacting to) his statement. Martin Shkreli's investors made a profit. But he was still guilty of running a fraudulent pyramid scheme to get them that profit.

gamblor956 7y ago
People don't seem to understand that the current share price of Tesla is largely irrelevant to this case. What matters is the harm to the shareholders (or former shareholders) at the time the 420 tweet was still relevant (i.e., back in summer 2018).
lazyjones 7y ago
> What part of "I have secured funding for taking Tesla private" was accurate and honest? We don't know. He might have chosen to not disclose his discussions with other people. > If he had not secured funding, how was his statement not deceptive? He might have meant it in earnest. For fraud, surely he must have had the intention to profit from it personally at the expense of shareholders? > And if you sold shares based on his statement, Who would have done that and with what reasoning? Why would you sell for a lower price if you believed you'd get $420 very soon? That's a silly notion. > a fraudulent pyramid scheme A pyramid scheme is by definition a system where most (i.e. the last) investors get screwed, i.e. they don't make a profit.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > He might have chosen to not disclose his discussions with other people. Including the SEC? > He might have meant it in earnest. You can be as earnest as you like and still be capable of making statements that are factually incorrect. As to your previous point, one would presume that an absolute defense against the SEC's charges about making materially false statements would be to show that said statements were not, in fact, materially false. That didn't happen though. > For fraud, surely he must have had the intention to profit from it personally at the expense of shareholders? You mean the hope that the share price would go up, with him as a large shareholder. "At the expense of shareholders" would include "shareholders who may have bought, sold, or changed their strategies, or not, based on Mr Musk not making said statements as a matter of fact, that weren't".