391–399 of 399 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but proving intent is the easy part of this, what with Musk's propensity to trash-talk short-sellers.
Disliking short sellers is not the same as intent to defraud the public. Every CEO dislikes short sellers. Intent to commit fraud is absolutely the hardest part of this to prove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "lied on twitter" part is now clear. He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420 which he has now basically admitted was not true. The "cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock" is a bit of speculation but it seems basically obvious to all observers.
> but it seems basically obvious to all observers. It doesn't seem obvious to me. It seems like one of a few interpretations, not limited to: - Elon was overly stressed (as has been documented recently) and didn't think before posting such an impactful statement - He considers twitter to be an official outlet for Tesla and just continued with his tendency to publicise his decisions and thought process constantly. - H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? He's succeeded against all odds in making a fantastic car, that's not in dispute, and they'll be profitable almost in q3 and definitely in q4.
Just making profitability is irrelevant if they can't pay back the enormous loans coming due over the next year. (Also I don't think they'll be profitable)
So what's your take?
>"the matter should be quickly resolved as they review the information they have received."
If anything the public statement says the opposite. I actually believe there may have been some email, or conversations about a buyout of Tesla. Wouldn't be the first time, Google almost bought Tesla in 2008 during the financial crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the middle ground here? Are all public figures supposed to completely hold back all views and follow some unspoken social rules? It's one thing not to make dumb mistakes that hurt your company but the end result of this outrage/apology tour culture we're developing and forever expanding the scope of is going to create a completely risk averse, milquetoast, and boring culture where honesty from public figures…
> What is the middle ground here? Are all public figures supposed to completely hold back all views and follow some unspoken social rules? If you're a major public figure, try to hold back on accusing someone who has just shown themselves to be pretty heroic by rescuing stuck children, a pedo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
^ Jefro118 is correct. This is the a significant phrase in financial and regulatory circles.
How about on Twitter?
So, either way...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just making profitability is irrelevant if they can't pay back the enormous loans coming due over the next year. (Also I don't think they'll be profitable)
Nothing is guaranteed, but can you explain why they won't be? Selling lots more cars, they cost less than they sell them for, that should at the very least greatly reduce their loss,they think it will be enough to make them profitable. So what's your take?
Even if they manage, I fail to see why they should be priced much differently than GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota as far as long-term stock valuation goes. The "synergy" promised from SolarCity and Powerwall and so on doesn't seem to be a thing any longer.
I'm curious - supposing HN had the power to decide, would you replace Elon Musk as CEO of Tesla? What kind of future does the company have without its founder? Personally, I think I would be much more confident in Tesla, and much more likely to buy a Tesla product, if he were not in charge.
No. Use the Apple model. Steve Jobs was needed until the IPhone was really established (not to mention the IPod.) Only then should you bring in a guy like Cook.