3 ms·

Irrationally over valued stock becomes slightly less over valued. Is Musk to blame for the market becoming slightly more rational? (To be clear, I do not think

Irrationally over valued stock becomes slightly less over valued. Is Musk to blame for the market becoming slightly more rational? (To be clear, I do not think that is the case for the price drop. Rationality isn't entering into it.) Or do stock holders feel that he is obligated only to improve the value of their stock? What if this is just a dip then? Will they be liable for "tarnishing his image" if this turns out to be some sort of ninja move, and somehow Musk and any company he's associated with becomes, once again, the flavor of the day; "stonks" for serious folks? "Line stopped going up" does not seem to be a sound basis for a lawsuit.

monsecchris 4y ago
AMZN is down much more and Bezos didn't have a thousand articles about it, perhaps the media are just getting around to writing articles about him being a very bad and stupid man. I'm sure the Washington Post is ready to take on the case.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > AMZN is down much more AMZN is down, proportionally, less than TSLA from its 12-month high (AMZN -49.7%, TSLA -62.5%; AMZN is also down proportionally less since close on Dec. 31, 2021 (AMZN -47.5%, TSLA -57.2%)..
  - monsecchris 4y ago
    The title uses an absolute value. You are desperate to split hairs and missing the larger point.
eesmith 4y ago
> "Line stopped going up" does not seem to be a sound basis for a lawsuit. I don't see any mention of a lawsuit, only people wanting a new CEO, and wanting a share buyback. Literally no major shareholder expects there will never be a dip, it's certainly not mentioned in the article, so I don't know why you cared to write this comment. The three listed reasons for shareholder activism are: "The combination of slumping stock, a distracted CEO and concerns about the Tesla brand being tarnished." Shareholders have the right to make recommendations to the board on important topics - a right you seem to reject. > What if this is just a dip then By that logic, investor activism is never appropriate. Because it could always change tomorrow. > do stock holders feel that he is obligated only to improve the value of their stock You do appear to like strawman arguments.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> "Line stopped going up" does not seem to be a sound basis for a lawsuit. “Line stopped going up” is the injury requirement for tort liability, there still needs to be a wrong, and a causal link between the two. Elon’s flouting of legal rules makes it likely thar you’ll find plenty of examples of the first, its the last that is likely to take more work.
Zigurd 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the actual complaint would be more specific: - Is Elon doing what he is paid to do? - Is it OK to take Tesla resources and use them for an Elon-owned project? - Do his actions or statements negatively affect the value of $TSLA? re "Or do stock holders feel that he is obligated only to improve the value of their stock?" Read your employment agreement. There should be a non-disparagement clause in it. If you are high up enough, you might even have a morals clause. These exist because you don't want an employee, even the CEO, to trash the value of an asset by their words or actions. Another reason for a SH suit is that the board is Elon's lapdog. Boards exist, in part, to prevent a rogue CEO from trashing a company's reputation. I can't imagine any other car maker or tech company would tolerate this performance in a CEO.

monsecchris 4y ago

AMZN is down much more and Bezos didn't have a thousand articles about it, perhaps the media are just getting around to writing articles about him being a very bad and stupid man. I'm sure the Washington Post is ready to take on the case.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> AMZN is down much more AMZN is down, proportionally, less than TSLA from its 12-month high (AMZN -49.7%, TSLA -62.5%; AMZN is also down proportionally less since close on Dec. 31, 2021 (AMZN -47.5%, TSLA -57.2%)..
- monsecchris 4y ago
  The title uses an absolute value. You are desperate to split hairs and missing the larger point.

eesmith 4y ago

> "Line stopped going up" does not seem to be a sound basis for a lawsuit. I don't see any mention of a lawsuit, only people wanting a new CEO, and wanting a share buyback. Literally no major shareholder expects there will never be a dip, it's certainly not mentioned in the article, so I don't know why you cared to write this comment. The three listed reasons for shareholder activism are: "The combination of slumping stock, a distracted CEO and concerns about the Tesla brand being tarnished." Shareholders have the right to make recommendations to the board on important topics - a right you seem to reject. > What if this is just a dip then By that logic, investor activism is never appropriate. Because it could always change tomorrow. > do stock holders feel that he is obligated only to improve the value of their stock You do appear to like strawman arguments.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> "Line stopped going up" does not seem to be a sound basis for a lawsuit. “Line stopped going up” is the injury requirement for tort liability, there still needs to be a wrong, and a causal link between the two. Elon’s flouting of legal rules makes it likely thar you’ll find plenty of examples of the first, its the last that is likely to take more work.

Zigurd 4y ago

I'm pretty sure the actual complaint would be more specific: - Is Elon doing what he is paid to do? - Is it OK to take Tesla resources and use them for an Elon-owned project? - Do his actions or statements negatively affect the value of $TSLA? re "Or do stock holders feel that he is obligated only to improve the value of their stock?" Read your employment agreement. There should be a non-disparagement clause in it. If you are high up enough, you might even have a morals clause. These exist because you don't want an employee, even the CEO, to trash the value of an asset by their words or actions. Another reason for a SH suit is that the board is Elon's lapdog. Boards exist, in part, to prevent a rogue CEO from trashing a company's reputation. I can't imagine any other car maker or tech company would tolerate this performance in a CEO.