641–650 of 884 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law says a lot of things. I'm ok with short sellers losing their shirts regardless.
A lot of longs loaded up on Tesla shares because they believed his "funding secured" tweet. Are you OK with them losing their shirts, too? Because many of them did.
Also someone that bought stock in that period would have lost something like 355->320 which is only 10%.
If someone leveraged up to take advantage of a short-term pricing condition then they get vastly reduced sympathy no matter which direction their position was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk's tweet said "Funding secured", which has a very different implication than a company simply "being interested".
Right. If he was just complaining and said he was only thinking of taking it private and talking to people he could probably get away with it. Instead he said he heavily implied that he would take it private and already had all the money he needed from various investors. There’s a world of difference between those two statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess there's a difference between "head of a large public company" and "founder of a large public company". His track record at the latter speaks for itself. But the fact that someone who founded a company isn't necessarily the best person to run it long term is uncomfortable. Especially on a website like this one, with so many aspiring founders.
Except, you know, he didn't found Tesla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Billionaires don't go to jail.
Leona Helmsley, Federal Prisoner #15113-054. Michael Milken.
> Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His sentence was later reduced to two years for cooperating with testimony against his former colleagues and for good behavior
How common is that for the common person? I'm not arguing that it isn't, I'm just not sure.
This comment I made a few weeks ago is coming alot closer to the truth than I would have expected. I hope for Space X and Tesla's sake that the reports of a directory and Executive ban don't come true. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016250#18016292 SpaceX is doing well, Tesla has pulled itself back from the brink and may actually become a profitable car company. All Elon had to do was keep his head down and n…
What means stopped out? The bank forcing the lender to give the stock back right at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More buys = higher price. More sells = lower price. Shorting is selling* . This is neither magic nor controversial. * And buying back later of course. But in the meantime, does a short-sell look any different than a sell on the order book?
Every transaction has a buyer and a seller. Shorting is selling? Selling to whom? Ah, right, a buyer. Telsa share price has risen through extreme short interest for years. How?
A buyer who would otherwise have had to buy from a seller who wanted a higher price.
The stock price is really the value for which shares were most recently exchanged. If the price is $500, shares were exchanged for $500.
That isn't the same as what other people value the shares at, which is different for each person. The people who own shares value them at more than their market price (or they would sell) and the people who can afford but don't own shares value them less (or they would buy). Someone could own shares and value them at $600, so they wouldn't even sell at $550, meanwhile another owner values them at no more than $500.02, so they sell as soon as the price hits $500.02.
That's where the bid/ask spread comes from. The lowest seller values the shares at $500.02, the highest buyer values them at $499.98, so the seller keeps their shares and the buyer keeps their money, and the share price is still considered to be $500.00 because that's what the last actual sale went through as. To get another transaction either the seller or the buyer has to "cross the spread" and meet the other side's price and then the price goes up or down based on whether it was the buyer or the seller.
So what happens when someone makes a short sale? They borrow shares and cross the spread to sell for $499.98. Now the share price has gone down two cents. Moreover, the buyer willing to pay $499.98 now has their shares. The next highest bid is $499.97. If another short seller supplies that buyer with shares, the share price drops again and so does the bid price, because the previous high bid already has their shares. The more short sellers, the lower the sale price.
This is one of the reasons why short selling is frequently unprofitable. If you're not an early short seller, you're selling shares for $450 that all else equal would be worth $500 once the existing shorts close their positions, and at some point you have to buy them back. Which means to make money the company doesn't just have to lose value, it has to fail hard enough to prevent your profits from being erased by other shorts buying back shares to close their positions.
> Telsa share price has risen through extreme short interest for years. How?
If the share price would rise by $3 while short selling would cause it to decline by $1 then on net the price rises by $2, i.e. $1 less than it would have but still a positive value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law says a lot of things. I'm ok with short sellers losing their shirts regardless.
A lot of longs loaded up on Tesla shares because they believed his "funding secured" tweet. Are you OK with them losing their shirts, too? Because many of them did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea he’ll join all the other billionaires in jail. I would say he looks pretty guilty of fraud but agree he will never see a cell, just heavy fines. And spaceX may survive without him but losing musk would suck a ton of wind out of their sails.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
> charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just revisionist history and completely wrong. Steve Jobs pretty much set Apple on the premium goods track when he returned. The iMac, iPod, iPad, iPhone were all developed under his watch and all were premium priced. Apple has pushed the margins higher but that's only because the market can absorb it. Computing is more central to people's lives and they are willing to pay a premium for a good experience.
I've started to think Apple is more competitive on laptops than it looks from the price. Every time I've priced out a laptop with similar configuration to my MBP (including a good-quality display, NvME SSD, good battery life), it always ends up costing about the same as an MBP. And then Apple's customer service definitely tips in their favor (I've been spoiled by fast, convenient, competent repair service at the Appl…