4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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".