Short-Sellers Sue Tesla After Musk's 'Going Private' Tweets (bbc.co.uk) 383
An anonymous reader quotes the BBC:
Elon Musk's bombshell announcement that he is thinking of taking the electric car company Tesla private has landed him a lawsuit from unhappy investors.... His comments caused the share price to shoot up 11% to nearly $380, though it has since fallen back. Short-sellers, who bet on share price falls, allege he misled the market....
Short-sellers, who make a profit by borrowing shares, selling them and then buying them back at an expected lower price, claim to have lost millions thanks to Mr Musk's comments. Plaintiff Kalman Isaacs alleges the announcement was aimed at "completely decimating" short-sellers. His lawsuit, and another filed by William Chamberlain, accuse Mr Musk and Tesla of violating federal securities laws and artificially inflating Tesla's share price. Neither Mr Musk nor Tesla have commented on the lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in San Francisco.
Tesla "is holding early discussions with banks about the feasibility and structure of a possible deal," Bloomberg reported yesterday -- and Ars Technica points out that if Mr. Isaacs had simply kept his short positions open through Friday, "he would be at least $60,000 richer."
But Isaacs' hopes to be the lead plaintiff for a class-action lawsuit "representing all Tesla shareholders who traded after Musk's tweet on Tuesday or at any time on Wednesday."
Short-sellers, who make a profit by borrowing shares, selling them and then buying them back at an expected lower price, claim to have lost millions thanks to Mr Musk's comments. Plaintiff Kalman Isaacs alleges the announcement was aimed at "completely decimating" short-sellers. His lawsuit, and another filed by William Chamberlain, accuse Mr Musk and Tesla of violating federal securities laws and artificially inflating Tesla's share price. Neither Mr Musk nor Tesla have commented on the lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in San Francisco.
Tesla "is holding early discussions with banks about the feasibility and structure of a possible deal," Bloomberg reported yesterday -- and Ars Technica points out that if Mr. Isaacs had simply kept his short positions open through Friday, "he would be at least $60,000 richer."
But Isaacs' hopes to be the lead plaintiff for a class-action lawsuit "representing all Tesla shareholders who traded after Musk's tweet on Tuesday or at any time on Wednesday."
aww poor baby (Score:2, Interesting)
i made a investment and it didn't pan out. guess i'd better sue
Re:aww poor baby (Score:4, Insightful)
But, Musk should have warned them that there was major news upcoming that could have a serious negative impact on short sellers. You know, like he's been doing pretty much every bloody week recently.
The short argument to the SEC is basically, "Yeah, he warned us, but we didn't believe him! Also, he didn't tell us the exact date and time he would be announcing the news that would have a negative impact on us, or the exact details of what he was going to announce that was going to hurt short sellers. Also: we don't believe him now either!"
Re:aww poor baby (Score:5, Funny)
Time for some entertainment: Link to Hitler Spoof [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:3)
Time for some entertainment: Link to Hitler Spoof [youtu.be].
That's an old one. Here's a newer and better one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but unlike you the SEC is taking this very seriously, and many who understand the applicable laws are wondering why Musk made such a blunder. He publicly announce that funding was secured at a certain price point. If that turns out to be false then he could be prosecuted and also these lawsuits could be shown to have merit.
I know you are a super Musk lover, but at some point you have to agree he likely screwed up royally this time. Do you really think such a CEO should do such a thing when his own bo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"GM's CEO announced that the company produced 13000 cars this week" "Interesting news, Sandra, although if he's lying he'll go to jail." -- said nobody ever.
Here's your logic train:
1) Musk announced news
2) You don't believe the news
3) Giant preemptive scandal without taking any time to substantiate your disbelief.
Meanwhile, preview of the future: here's how it's actually going to play out:
SEC: "Can we see your funding list?"
Musk: "Here you go."
SEC: "Huh, never would have thought that X would be in for that
Re: (Score:2)
*** She
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This entire discussion is centred around Musk's "funding secured" tweet. Hence a list of the people funding the buyout would be needed. Do try to keep up.
Duh. And how long do you think some phone calls will take?
The board was made aware of it a week before Musk's announcement. Again, try to keep up.
There's a di
Re: (Score:2)
The board was made aware of it a week before Musk's announcement. Again, try to keep up.
Apparently you need to keep up, the board was only told that it was an idea and was not given any of the details either [arstechnica.com].
The bottom line is that any credible law firm that handles transitions like this would have done it after trading hours, once the board had been fully briefed and all of the funding sources named and proven. Musk could have quite possibly broken the law with his tweet, which will put the short sellers on much firmer footing unless he becomes a hell of a lot more vocal about his plans and
Re:aww poor baby (Score:4, Informative)
From the statement of the board:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing how you can read whatever you want into an article. Right in the first paragraph: to avoid concentrating ownership among a few new large holders, according to people familiar with the matter.
That in no way, shape or form says that there are no "new large holders". Rather, it strongly suggests precisely the opposite.
Control was the key thing that caused the previous buyout negotiations with Softbank to break down previously. Funds from Softbank were there, but Musk didn't want Softbank ending up w
Re: (Score:2)
420 is an auspicious number in Asia, and they needed a round number above the current price. I'm betting SoftBank is involved, and they found additional Asian investors; probably from Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. And I'd expect the Saudis to be a huge but totally silent partner.
Probably part of the solution is that by having a large silent partner that allows Musk to keep the control he needs, while allowing SoftBank to get the control they feel entitled to from the size of their investment. SoftBank
If you're wrong, can I have a dollar? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've given up trying to keep track of how many times I've seen the Musk haters say "Musk has screwed the pooch this time", "Musk has yet again promised and not delivered" or "Musk doesn't know what he's talking about" only to be proven wrong. If you're so sure that Musk does not have have a plan with investors lined up and has made the announcement without talking to tax attorneys and has placed himself in legal jeopardy could you put your money where your mouth is?
Re:If you're wrong, can I have a dollar? (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the link above you from some AC. Basically, banks knew nothing about it until AFTER musk claimed he secured money. [bloomberg.com] If he secured from Saudi Arabia and is just now trying to get a better deal, then he is fine. BUT, if he claimed he had financing when he had nothing, he will likely be in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up trying to keep track of how many times I've seen the Musk haters say "Musk has screwed the pooch this time",
Maybe Tesla is the new Apple. At one point the joke was: "Apple: Going out of business since 1976." because of all the prophecies of doom. Seems t obe pretty similar with Tesla too.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that. We forget how long things can take.
In relation to Apple, Tesla is right around 1990 or so now. There is a long ways to go. The same slogan could easily be in place in another decade. But, watch out 28 years from now. Perhaps the first $10 trillion company?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As such, the SEC can not touch him.
And I suspect that the board knew EVERYTHING about this.
Re: aww poor baby (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, about Saudi Arabia
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-musk-saudi-exclusive/exclusive-saudi-arabias-pif-has-shown-no-interest-in-bankrolling-tesla-buyout-idUSKBN1KW0FA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the analysts have been saying all year that Apple should buy Tesla - they're flush with cash and looking for new investment opportunities. Softbank has been raised - they tried to buy Tesla last year, but it broke down over control issues. I don't think it's them because they invested in GM Cruise after negotiations with Tesla broke down. My two biggest bets however would be on either Chinese capital, or Alphabet. One, Tesla's already been negotiating with Chinese investors over capital for the
Re: (Score:2)
I have said for a long time that the Google boys would back him if needed, but still. 82B is a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
That is concerning.
sorry but short sellers can go die (Score:2)
All short sellers should go and take a hike
and piss off. They only serve themselves.
In China they would be executed.
There's a ton of laws to protect big investors (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think privately informing investors (though short-selling is more of a negative investment in a company) before releasing public information that impacts the stock price would amount to investment fraud.
This is pretty much the definition of "butt-hurt".
Re: (Score:2)
Shorting isn't an investment at all, it is just a "position" on an investment. The only person in that situation who is protected by securities law is the person going long; that's the actual investor that is involved. And they're considered to be harmed by the stock price going down, if it goes up that doesn't hurt them at all.
It is like worrying if gamblers can sue a sports team. No, they can't. Assuming that "case dismissed" counts as "can't," anyways. Sponsors and team creditors have a much higher likel
Re: (Score:3)
Short sellers are not stockholders, they're position-holders. No, they're not due any information.
This lawsuit was designed to trick people like you. On the internet. To try to push the stock price down.
Securities law protects shareholders, not position-holders. It also only protects them from harm. That's a one-way protection; you're protected more from lies that cause the price to go down than lies that cause the price to go up.
The cases where people got in trouble when they lied and the price went up ten
Re: (Score:2)
uuhhhh, I'm pretty sure he did warn them - in June.
Musk: They have about three weeks before their short position explodes
As usual, a little off in the timing, but his record for making things happen is actually very good if you simply disregard the fact that he always uses the stretch goal time he is pushing for instead of something realistic - a characteristic I believe is the key to success.
In addition, this could be considered a very nice warning that they wouldn't get from other companies. They should be very thankful for this early, unclear disclosure. If he warned of ma
Re: It's been a few days. (Score:2)
One, why did you post anon? You could have kept your history of being right if you are so sure about your opinion on Tesla.
And as a guy who does understand accounting and finance, Musk isn't anything special. He isn't as bad as the Enron & Worldcom guys. He is about where the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Delta were at various times over the last 4 decades. All were worse just before bankruptcy. All of them BS. That's part of their job. The problem is all the "analysts" who just believe their words without ac
Re: (Score:2)
Your investment doesnt even help Musk.
Your a looser investor.
You just like to profit of others work.
Do something useful for humanity, work.
Any bot/retard can buy shares.
You dont deserve to be rewarded for investing, go buy some T bills and enjoy. Your too rich, go back to the strip clubs.
Re: (Score:2)
Short selling is betting against the company. It's pretty much an anti-investment.
When you short sell, you're selling shares you don't even own and then delivering those shares after it fails. You are never really an owner of the s
Re: (Score:2)
i made a investment and it didn't pan out. guess i'd better sue
Short selling by itself is not an investment, it is just a gamble. Short selling as a hedging mechanism is investing and no one doing that with Tesla stock was hurt in any way.
Maybe they can short sell a tiny violin (Score:5, Insightful)
Short sellers pissed off that the share price went up? let me see if I an find something small enough to hold the sympathy I feel for them.
Re:Maybe they can short sell a tiny violin (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I have some fine land in Florida to sell you. It's just a bit wet.
Of course short sellers are pissed the price went up. Short sellers haven't cared about Musk's earlier tweets that depressed the stock price. Short sellers also engage in market manipulation. All the short sellers care about is profit -- they don't care how or why.
What's different is that Musk gave them an opening to
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but I suspect it's considered a little bit more serious when it's an insider - like the CEO - doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Short sellers aren't priced that the price went up - they're...
... priced that they lost so much money gambling, that they're going to be pricing lots of stuff that they used to just buy without pricing. And they've lost so much money that many of the things they're not even used to pricing now seem priceless. They're priced that they're priced out of their pricey prices.
Re:Maybe they can short sell a tiny violin (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If Musk cannot prove in a timely manner (typically 5 to 10 days) that the price AND the offer to take private was valid
I would wager that information was already available prior to the tweet. It has likely already been provided to the SEC along with a box of chocolates. Do you think he is that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
First off, he never made an offer. He said that he was thinking about taking it private and that he had secured money for $420/share.
He would have to fully tender the offer and then the board and us stockholders have to decide.
Finally, the only ones he has to prove to, is the SEC. And they will investigate on their own time. More importantly, I think that the ONLY issue that they will have is did he secure the financing, or least make the attempt to do so. If no attempt, well, he just manipulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, he damn will needs to have proof that he had, at least, talked to others and they gave at least a verbal yeah. But I would think for 82B, he would want that in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Musk has not been a liar. His timelines suck, but a liar? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Market manipulation to what, exactly? Did Musk sell any shares? No? Really solid market manipulation case you've got there.
Uh what? Stock price manipulation to get a CEO bonus, to secure some line of credit, hold off some a vote by the board to replace you, help your golf buddy to sell off his stock... there's all sorts of reasons why manipulating the stock price by itself is illegal. Musk better have backing for what he said or else he may have taken his extremely optimistic and premature announcements one step too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Your words claim that manipulating stock is illegal in the abstract, but your examples are all cases of somebody getting personal gain out of the action.
Your argument is not supporting the distinction you're trying to make. You merely found additional specific behaviors that when combined with manipulation of a stock price, add up to something illegal. You have to do it for some sort of gain, though; it isn't illegal in the abstract.
If their isn't any sort of improper gain, then it is lawful stock manipulat
Re: (Score:3)
And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
People who never even heard of an 8-K before are filling up the comments with fretting over it not being filed, but they only ever heard people blathering about it, they didn't even look up what it is and when you need to file it.
It is certainly true that an 8-K filing would be required within 4 days of a board action attempting to take the company private. Also if they consummated an investment deal of some sort, they would have 4 days to file it. But there is nothing about filing it within 4 days of think
Re: (Score:3)
Cite the code please. I'm looking at the Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 right now. The closest I can see is section 9a.5, but that's for people "selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security". I see nothing affecting people who are neither buying nor selling.
Also, to reiterate:
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, while the "shorts" aren't protected, the "longs" are! If you lie and the shorts lose money, that's not even regulated. If you lie and the shorts earn money, that is regulated because you harmed the longs, who are shareholders!
They're not just wrong, they're running the wrong direction from the starting line.
Re: (Score:3)
You're looking in the wrong place. 15 USC 78(u)(a).1 authorizes investigations and assignment of civil penalties associated with security *REGULATIONS* established under the securities acts, along with blue sky laws and other mechanisms. Criminal liability can in turn attach from violation of the regulations, per 78ff. So you need to leap from USC to the extensive CFR to know the established regulations (though such regulations are void to the extent that they exceed the SEC's statutory rulemaking author
Re: (Score:2)
Short sellers pissed off that the share price went up? let me see if I an find something small enough to hold the sympathy I feel for them.
Some of the longs might get pissed as well. By tweeting such a thing, future investors may not be willing to pay as much knowing Musk may limit their upside with a buyout. Tweeting something that causes an SEC investigation isn't good for the company as whole.
Re: Maybe they can short sell a tiny violin (Score:2)
That was my first thought as an investor. My hope is for a short squeeze, which could result in a $20B injection, which can send the price far higher than $420. I'm not upset though because I'm not a fucking litigious snowflake like the idiot shorts.
If I cried to a casino they gave me a losing hand. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be laughed out of town.
Unless you saw proof that they deliberately stacked the deck against you personally, and not Joe Schmoe sitting next to you.
(Which is the stance of the sort sellers - Not that I know if they have a valid point or not .. that's up to the relevant authorities)
Lemme help you out (Score:2)
I'm not experienced in the stock market so I may need an aid. Pull out that guarantee from your pocket and let's go over the language together...
Lone Skum (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a trick that Elon Musk can only pull once. If he doesn't take the company private, his move will be seen for what it was, a desperate attempt to shore up stock price by putting out the rumor that he was "thinking about" doing something.
If the company doesn't go private, those short-sellers will have their revenge. Consider: If you were thinking about taking a company private (which means buying up stock), would you make an announcement that will raise the price of the stock so you have to pay more?
Musk is trying to buy time for Tesla. That's cool, but he's skirting a fine line. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but I assure you there are people at the SEC looking into it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is when you have ppl like Chanos, or his good buddy, David Tamberrino [tipranks.com], manipulating the stock with loads of lies, well, they are likely the ones that will be getting into trouble with the SEC.
What is really bot
Re: Lone Skum (Score:2)
A lot of the most strident Tesla supporters, especially here on Slashdot, are ideological investors. They think Musk is an environmental savior doing good for the planet. As such, they view any attackers as evil. Not just wrong or misguided. Evil.
It's a nice little army for Musk to have marching for him. It badly distorts the discussion. Many investors have no ideological motivation, wether they are short or long, the ideologues could turn on them at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the stock IS overvalued, however, we are in it for the long haul.
I am a supporter of Musk, but that does not mean that I will invest wildly into a losing operation. However, with the massive manipulation that is going on by the shorters, I expect that this will run all over the place. So, far better to sit tight and let Musk do what he is good at: build up a winning company.
Ha! Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Tesla short sellers have been doing everything they can including fake announcements, generating rumours and harassing employees, suppliers and investors in order to hurt the share price of Tesla are now upset that Mr. Musk has said enough is enough?
Stock Market, How do they work? (Score:3, Informative)
Before everyone starts attacking short sellers, they actually provide checks and balances against bubbles and fraud.
https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com]
https://money.usnews.com/inves... [usnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not when you have ppl like Chanos who is manipulating the market.
Wash your mouth out with soap, you liberal democrat hippy regulatory evangelist! GREED IS GOOD short sellers are doing GODS WORK!!! The crash of 2008 was good for America, it put more money in the hands of the righteous, as did Saint Donald when he went bankrupt buying casinos. The number of individuals who got rich off his casino buying spree is rivaled only by the buying spree of the first sainted American organized crime sock puppet, Howard Hughes. Learn how the financial system actually works before yo
Ya gotta love it! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you gamble even with the best hand you may just end up splitting the pot...
No. If you have the best hand, you have the best hand. There is no splitting.
At that point the gambling is mostly gone, too. You'd best focus on maximizing investment.
Denied a giant target. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's this big obvious income source coming for the company, an expensive factory being made that will make the next technology that everyone wants.
Without a disinformation campaign, folks would see that income source, and trade to match expected values, tempered for obvious risks, like failure rates and competition.
So, how do you turn this big, obvious market event in your favor?
You spread as much garbage about the company as you can. Headlines - headlines everywhere about everything you can get anyone to believe, that the company is fated for a giant fall. Get those stocks to as low a value as you can - then buy them, just before the actual numbers come back about a factory doing what a factory does.
So... the guy in charge of said factory decides to make the thing private, to prevent your strategy from working! Aw! All that work trashing the company, and you can't benefit from it! Such a loss of potential!
That's the market, as it is currently allowed to function. Folks using every piece of information as pivots to fool other investors.
The same thing is happening with Square Enix - about to release like 5 major games after working several years on each, and just releasing another major game now. What do the stories say about this, just before?
https://wccftech.com/square-en... [wccftech.com]
That's right - they emphasize the losses from making those games. They want those values low, low, low.
It's kind of a stupid way to value things, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Denied a giant target. (Score:2)
I think you need to learn about capital expenditures.
You can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Real reason Musk was forced to goose stock price (Score:4, Interesting)
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4196101-elon-musk-desperately-needs-tesla-stock-stay-360 [seekingalpha.com]
Re:Real reason Musk was forced to goose stock pric (Score:5, Informative)
The timing and reporting issues are listed in 9.01(b), for the listed major company changes (like liquidation) Tesla has to give notification at least 30 trading days in advance.
Frankly, that article set off by BS alarms causing me to look at the supporting material, since it sounded like this conversion was structured as a bonus to lenders if the stock price went really high, not as a way to dodge unforeseen financing trouble years ahead of time. The note holder captures upside to stock prices above $360 from the conversion. Presumably they structured it this way to improve how much money Tesla got up front for selling the notes in the 2013 or 2014 timeframe, and they were willing to trade away some of the upside if the price per share went above $360.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure you didnt mean to say something different? If not, why didnt you say what you meant?
Either very sloppy or very dishonest. Does it matter which you are?
What next? Sue a casino? (Score:2)
Doing Exactly What Musk Wanted Them To Do (Score:2)
In Musk's position, I would want to depose the short-sellers. Especially the ones behind a lot of the artificial bad publicity, and their business partners, etc. And now Musk gets to do that, without actually having to bring any suit against the shorts. At least, not yet. Once he has their depositions, maybe. Watch them attempt to avoid getting on the stand.
Agreed. (Score:2)
Nothing like getting Bre'r Bear to throw you in the Briar Patch, lol.
"No! Please don't take me to court and make me prove you're lying publicly!
"Please No!" :)
Lol.
I'm sure this won't go to court, as this is the short sellers trying to make it go back down before the contracts expire, if they can.
Wah wah... (Score:2)
Short sellers need to man up and own their bad financial decisions. When I make a bad investment, I don't start looking for people to sue.
If you can't handle the stress of losing a short sale, stay the fuck away.
LMFAO!!! (Score:2)
Short selllers think they know more than anyone (Score:2)
and when it turns out they don't, they sue. Gamblers deserve their fate. They already gambled when they bought stock, then they gambled again by short selling. No sympathy.
Not investors (Score:2)
Not in Tesla. They entered into no contractual or ownership position with Tesla/Musk and therefore have no recourse. They did enter into contracts with third parties willing to loan their Tesla shares. But unless these third parties had any influence on or inside knowledge of Musk's buy-back plans, they did nothing wrong either.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
short sellers are one of Elon's biggest backers (Score:2)
If TSLA goes private, short sellers are going to be providing $20B of funding to help TSLA go private. All their positions will be closed and they won't be able to play the borrower's game anymore. It's odd that none of the stories trying to figure out where the money will come from seems to note this.
Unhappy Investors? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unhappy investors"? I'm not at all sure that short-sellers qualify as "investors".
"Pump and dump" tactics - buying a cheap stock, talking it up with false positive news stories and then selling it at a profit - are illegal. The reverse - selling a stock short and then making up lies about the company - should be equally illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
"Pump and dump": all the money is upfront, you lose nothing more than what you invested. You might gain 10x what you invested.
Short-selling: you can lose 2-3 times what you invested.
One carries more risk than the other, which is why they're not equally illegal.
In other news, prostitutes sue (Score:3)
Prostitutes sue wealthy customers for the loss of virginity.
Shorts aren't investors (Score:4, Interesting)
The shorts have borrowed shares and sold them. Their problem is they have to buy them back to return them and they were hoping the price would go down so they could pocket the difference. This isn't investment, it is parasitism. They gambled and the share price hasn't gone down, that's life.
Share prices rise and fall on all sorts of information and I don't think Musk would have said what he did without having the finance secured and his tweet was to alert all of his actual investors of what he was planning. Shorts aren't in on this, they don't have any shares.
good riddance (Score:4, Informative)
Short sellers, though in principle the practice is legitimate, are typically a crowd of get-rich-fast schemers. The primary reason they are short sellers is not that they honestly believe a company will go down or is overvalued, but that prices almost always go down faster than up. If you want to make money quickly, you go short. If you want to invest and make money in the long run, you go long. Wait, it's even called like that, what a surprise!
Lots and lots of them are in it for short-term profit which is why they have stop-loss orders in place to bail them out if the market goes the other way. And they are often in with leverage, so that they make 10 bucks on every point that the price moves. Which, of course, is also true if the price moves the other way. So their stop-loss orders are often much closer to the current price than it would be for investors who are quite ok with having some up and down movement, because they are looking at the company behind the price and don't care about today or tomorrow, they care about next quarter or next year.
So short sellers are a) make-money-fast guys and b) volatile to price changes going against them. With that, yes they lost millions, I easily believe that, because they probably bought at $350, set a stop-loss order at $360 and were leveraged 10:1 so that the $10 upwards swing lost them $100 per stock.
I so much hope the case finds a judge who understands the stock market and flat out tells them to not play in the kitchen if they can't stand the heat.
They would have been absolutely fine if they would not play with so much leverage that they need tight stop-losses.
So the price shot up, then came back down... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
he said he had secured financing for going private
he hasn't
What makes you think he has not? There are a lot of powerful people who want to help and hurt Tesla. Its a lot of money, but I have no doubt that there are people eager to get in on a potential bonanza of a privately held successful Tesla.
He was already facing SEC action, but I'm confident he'll be exonerated.
Re: (Score:2)
what proof do you have that he did not secure funding? The fact that you are posting as an AC indicates that you have the veracity of Chanos or many others here.
What proof do you have he did? As of now, of course none of us know. There are serious doubts because evidently his board wasn't even aware and nobody seems to have a clue who the investors are, and Musk isn't saying who they are. This is a huge amount of funding for nobody to know about so there are legitimate questions. Proof isn't required of course to file a lawsuit, but it will be required one way or the other to resolve it.
The SEC will review and we'll find out. It may all turn out to be noise, but
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we do not know. However, there are 2 interesting links. First 16 banks said that Musk never approached them. The second one has Saudi Arabia saying that they were not interested.
Considering all of Musk Silicon valley billionaire friends, it still remains possible. But even I have to say, that this does NOT look good right now.
Re: Musk should be facing SEC action without a dou (Score:2)
Yes, because in the land of Oligarchia, only a dozen or so institutions are allowed to control the world through capitalization. No one else has any say, so it's sufficient to simply ask the oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are just ignorant.
It is no more "high stakes gambling" than going long.
Not "antics" any more than buy stocks is.
Short selling benefits overpriced items in market, brings price down to where investors can buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, if I hack amazon and hold an unofficial but binding 90% off sale on everything, they will thank me?
Re: (Score:2)
No you will go to prison for theft.
Short sellers don't cause the mismanagement and underperformance that lead to price drop of shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do they fix anything but their own bank balance, much as in my scenario, I did not cause the security holes in the web platform, nor did I patch them.
Re: Short selling is difficult to regulate gamblin (Score:2)
Without short sellers, speculators pump the prices and then dump at profit. Short sellers - when competent - help fight pump and dumps by leveling the price movements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Short selling is difficult to regulate gambli (Score:2)
What is the wrong for the short sellers? The pumpers push prices away from fair value. Short sellers correct it.
Saying two wrongs don't make a right is like saying police shouldn't use guns when going after violent criminals.
Re: Parasites (Score:2)
You're an idiot. In a free market, you buy what you want, including short positions.
And short sellers (who don't try to manipulate the market) play an important role in providing market stability.