211–220 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so, the intent was not to mislead investors, but to insult the fcc. snowflake committees much
No, the intent is that he doesn't take the secs censure seriously. It helps to address the question of if this was an honest mistake or not, and the judgement will likely take that into account.
But they also point out that yeah, maybe he's doing it on purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the company his twitter feed is an official source of information about the company.
So if he created two twitter accounts, ElonMuskCorp and ElonMuskPersonal, would he be in the clear on the 'Personal account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't matter what he meant, it matters what the statement would be reasonably expected to mean. That depends on whether you consider a misphrasing to be "information".
Did investors know it was a 'misphrasing' before he issued a correction hours later ?
Harm to investors isn't the criteria for whether this breached the agreement. (And is probably low to zero for a couple tweets outside trading hours.)
At this point, the board of directors should just demand deletion of his Twitter account. I admire Elon for his vision, and actually also admire his radical style despite of its unpopular image - I watched the video where he smoked pot on the radio show. It was a really amazing conversation about future of humanity. He just needs to stop tweeting. You may say it’s fixing the symptom, but here if we take Twitter away,…
Twitter's value is providing a direct connection from people of note to the masses, bypassing newspaper/TV/radio gatekeepers of yesteryear. You could argue whether that itself is good for society, but it is clear from Twitter's usage that people find it valuable.
I am not saying we should ban them. Just disrupt them.
Twitter is a combination of the worst things:
Public shouting
In very short form
Attacks rise to the top
No way to discuss the substance together
No wonder society is overrun by outrage mobs and #hashtag movements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did investors know it was a 'misphrasing' before he issued a correction hours later ?
Does that change whether it counts as "information"? Harm to investors isn't the criteria for whether this breached the agreement. (And is probably low to zero for a couple tweets outside trading hours.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter's value is providing a direct connection from people of note to the masses, bypassing newspaper/TV/radio gatekeepers of yesteryear. You could argue whether that itself is good for society, but it is clear from Twitter's usage that people find it valuable.
I find it valuable in that you can follow reporters directly, both professional and amateur, and curate your feed very precisely, especially because a large amount of commentary comes across as Tweet-sized asides, not full articles. As a micro-publishing platform, it's hard to beat.
My knowledge of how publicly traded companies work is very limited, but: Was what he said really that bad? He said: >Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019 And then later corrected himself with: >Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k. This seems like a pretty simple mistake to have made,…
You must tell the truth about how much money you make and spend, and report it annually to everyone, so they can make informed decisions about whether to buy or sell it the same as anyone else.
As long as you do, then you are allowed to sell stock. If you don't then you are not allowed to sell stock. The reasoning is obvious. It's too easy to commit fraud if you don't follow these rules. Therefore, you must agree to the rules to trade publicly. The SEC's job is to protect the public from fraud.
At this point, the board of directors should just demand deletion of his Twitter account. I admire Elon for his vision, and actually also admire his radical style despite of its unpopular image - I watched the video where he smoked pot on the radio show. It was a really amazing conversation about future of humanity. He just needs to stop tweeting. You may say it’s fixing the symptom, but here if we take Twitter away,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly That is also incorrect. The settlement only mandated that Musk get company approval for Tesla-related tweets. It would have been as simple as him sending an email with the proposed tweet to get signoff before blasting it out there. This is actually extremely common and partially for these sorts of reasons. The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agree…
> The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing. This is the unbelievable part. "We agree to NOT do X, under penalty of law." [Does X] "Did you do X?" "yeah lol"
Firstly, these people work for Tesla. They don't work for Elon Musk.
Hoping it's not just me, but there is no way I'm lying to the cops (corporate cops, criminal cops, federal cops, whatever) to protect my CEO. Especially if I'm directly asked "Did you* do X" (* where "you" means "Tesla CEO"). Double-especially in this case where the "X" is "not Y" and the person doing "Y" actively avoided you making sure they did "not Y".
If it's my job to make sure my Boss doesn't do something illegal, and he actively circumvents my ability to do my job, damn straight I'm rolling over to the Feds.
SEC filing: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h...
Seems to me he was indeed repeating information that was already public.
This is material information, and he misled investors. It's clear cut.