4 ms·

The "imo" he added at the end clarifies it's his personal opinion. The market deserves this for being so irrational; the people who sold probably all made prof

by loceng 7y ago

The "imo" he added at the end clarifies it's his personal opinion. The market deserves this for being so irrational; the people who sold probably all made profit because they bought it far lower, and then it'll bounce back up - where the long-gamers will repurchase it at a discount taking a risk/gamble that they'd expect irrational dump of stock for the opportunity to buy when it's low. Stock market games aren't as obvious as people make them out to be - and they wouldn't be happening if Elon wasn't convinced by someone to not take Tesla private like he wanted to.

ljw1001 7y ago
CEOs of publicly traded companies aren't allowed to express "personal" opinions in public. If they do, they're not personal; they're guidance.
- DarthGhandi 7y ago
  Are you sure about that? Care to point to the legislation?
  - athriren 7y ago
    Not to be too glib, but 15 U.S.C. § 78a, which created the SEC and invested in it broad power to regulate financial markets.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      My understanding is that this legislation does not universally prohibit a CEO from stating an opinion about the value of their company's stock.
  - loceng 7y ago
    They won't be able to elaborate - and if such a law did somehow pass, it's against a person's First Amendment rights.
- loceng 7y ago
  And Elon will argue that's against his First Amendment rights, correctly so imo.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    The thing is, your opinion is irrelevant here. We have tons of laws restricting speech -- against false advertising, against fraud, against libel. Contrary to your opinion, these laws are not against the first amendment. Similarly, officers of a publicly traded company are prohibited from sharing types of information about the company except at certain times and places. No serious judge or legal scholar considers this to be contrary to the first amendment. The first amendment isn't a slogan, it's led to an entire jurisprudence around it which you could familiarize yourself with if you so chose.
    - loceng 7y ago
      Slaves were legal at one point - I hope you're not trying to claim all current laws in place are juste. I hope you understand regulatory capture as well, where the market and industry will influence/manipulate laws to benefit for themselves - and whole systems of indoctrination including the legal profession. Arguably I've thought through this more, deeper than you have, re:"your opinion is irrelevant here" comment.

by loceng 7y ago

ljw1001 7y ago

CEOs of publicly traded companies aren't allowed to express "personal" opinions in public. If they do, they're not personal; they're guidance.

DarthGhandi 7y ago
Are you sure about that? Care to point to the legislation?
- athriren 7y ago
  Not to be too glib, but 15 U.S.C. § 78a, which created the SEC and invested in it broad power to regulate financial markets.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    My understanding is that this legislation does not universally prohibit a CEO from stating an opinion about the value of their company's stock.
- loceng 7y ago
  They won't be able to elaborate - and if such a law did somehow pass, it's against a person's First Amendment rights.
loceng 7y ago
And Elon will argue that's against his First Amendment rights, correctly so imo.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  The thing is, your opinion is irrelevant here. We have tons of laws restricting speech -- against false advertising, against fraud, against libel. Contrary to your opinion, these laws are not against the first amendment. Similarly, officers of a publicly traded company are prohibited from sharing types of information about the company except at certain times and places. No serious judge or legal scholar considers this to be contrary to the first amendment. The first amendment isn't a slogan, it's led to an entire jurisprudence around it which you could familiarize yourself with if you so chose.
  - loceng 7y ago
    Slaves were legal at one point - I hope you're not trying to claim all current laws in place are juste. I hope you understand regulatory capture as well, where the market and industry will influence/manipulate laws to benefit for themselves - and whole systems of indoctrination including the legal profession. Arguably I've thought through this more, deeper than you have, re:"your opinion is irrelevant here" comment.