Elon Musk Pulled Out of Settlement With SEC At Last Minute (cnbc.com) 198
Sources have shared some new details with CNBC relating to the recent SEC charges against Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Yesterday, U.S. securities regulators sued Musk for allegedly making false statements related to his abandoned efforts to take Tesla Motors private. Now, according to CNBC, Tesla and the SEC were close to a no-guilt settlement but Elon Musk pulled out at the last minute. From the report: Under the deal, Musk and Tesla would have had to pay a nominal fine, and the CEO would not have had to admit any guilt, the sources said. However, the settlement would have barred Musk as chairman for two years and would require Tesla to appoint two new independent directors, CNBC's David Faber, citing sources. Musk refused to sign the deal because he felt that by settling he would not be truthful to himself, and he wouldn't have been able to live with the idea that he agreed to accept a settlement and any blemish associated with that, the sources said. Musk called the SEC's allegations "unjustified" and that he acted in the best interests of investors. "Tesla and the board of directors are fully confident in Elon, his integrity, and his leadership of the company, which has resulted in the most successful U.S. auto company in over a century. Our focus remains on the continued ramp of Model 3 production and delivering for our customers, shareholders and employees," said Tesla's board of directors in a statement.
Gutsy move (Score:3, Funny)
Rockets.
Slick Cars. (in space)
Big Drills.
Flamethrowers.
Playing Chicken with the SEC.
Do I see a thrill junkie?
Re:Gutsy move (Score:5, Interesting)
He must have evidence that he discussed the price ($420) with someone who agreed to buy the exiting stock at that price. My guess is he shows a letter of intent, memorandum of understanding, or at least a confirmation email from them to the SEC (and the public), and he gets a slap on the wrist because the SEC will say "funding secured must mean it's in an escrow account", or something like that. If he's got nothing, he should have taken the deal.
I do wonder if they are trying to bar him from taking SpaceX public (since he would be restricted in his seat at public companies).
$ talks (Score:1)
Re: $ talks (Score:2)
What are the odds that the price($420) was a pot joke given his interview?
Re: Gutsy move (Score:1)
Either that or he is a fucking idiot obsessed with trying to hurt short sellers and completely oblivious to his responsibilities as CEO
or maybe the SEC is all pedos
Re: Gutsy move (Score:1)
Short sellers lower the share price which makes it harder for tesla to raise cash for investment.
It's not rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
And they make it harder to borrow money since a negative image results in higher interest rates (less demand for bonds).
Re: Gutsy move (Score:5, Insightful)
The "short sellers" have no impact on the operations of Tesla. Tesla does not depend on its stock price in any way that was created by the "short sellers".
Actually, short sellers do make it harder to raise capital. Both through their actual selling (lower share price means having to issue more stock to raise the same amount of capital) and, more importantly, through incessant made-up rumors affecting both stock and bonds (with a higher interest rate for the latter).
Not all the rumors are false, of course, and some of the criticism is certainly justified, but there's a whole lot of completely made up stories out there, too. "Ooh, a parking lot full of newly produced Teslas, they are obviously having trouble selling them" while in reality there's a waiting list of a few hundred thousand, for example. "Working conditions are unsafe, there are no yellow lines because Elon doesn't like the color yellow", quickly debunked with an actual picture of the factory floor with lots of yellow lines everywhere. Those are just some of the more obvious ones, but there's plenty more. That constant stream of negativity, with every debunked story being quickly succeeded by another one, does take its toll on the company's image which for a publicly traded company directly affects operations.
I don't think Elon minds genuine criticism, or even people selling his stock short based on their honest judgement of his abitity to deliver. But people making millions by spreading false rumors, that's another matter entirely.
Re: Gutsy move (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of short seller rumours... straight from the SEC filing:
The SEC presents short seller talking points as a statement of facts and credits them to "investors". The reality of the situation was that when Musk tweeted, Tesla's stock had just surged from a Q2 report that beat market expectations and increasing market optimism that Tesla actually was going to be profitable in Q3. But instead the SEC fills its filing with quotes that could very well have been straight from the mouth of Jim Chanos. Yeah, F*** you, SEC.
I can just imagine the look on the jury's face when Musk's defense team points out the simple fact that Musk personally had enough assets to take Tesla private under the terms he described (most / 80% of Tesla's current investors staying onboard, of which Musk personally was 1/4 of them), as he owns ~60% of a little company called SpaceX worth $30B+ which controls 80% of the global commercial satellite launch market. And that PIF had just purchased 5% of the company on the open market (indeed, that broke immediately before Musk's tweets, and was the trigger for him making the plans public).
Re: (Score:2)
> I can just imagine the look on the jury's face when Musk's defense team points out the simple fact that Musk personally had enough assets to take Tesla private
Hey, this is an interesting point.
On the other hand, I don't think it's quite enough. If someone has illiquid assets that are conceivably enough and makes an offer to buy something, and other people make a detrimental reliance on that offer... that's still problematic.
> under the terms he described (most / 80% of Tesla's current investors sta
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about this some more: 170M shares outstanding \* .2 * 420 = $14.3B. Plus the fact that there's holders of convertible debt that need to get paid off. I don't think Musk has enough money to do it by himself, especially when you consider that more than 20% of shareholders likely are unwilling or unable to hold significant amounts of equity of a private firm.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you just post a graph that backed up exactly what I said? The Q2 report came out on 1 august.
Musk is a dreamer not a calculating rational actor (Score:1)
A rational actor should have taken the slap on the wrist unless they have overwhelming evidence, evidence that isn't public. People aren't rational actors. Elon Musk sure as heck doesn't make comservative decisions after carefully calculating the benefits and risks - he goes all in on crazy stuff that just might work.
Literal moonshots are Elon's stock in trade. That's not a BAD thing, or a GOOD thing, it's simply Elon's thing.
Re:Musk is a dreamer not a calculating rational ac (Score:4, Interesting)
over a decade ago I got a traffic ticket that was (in my view) bullshit. I didn't take it to court since, as a contractor, the hours lost would have cost me a lot more than the fine. Years later I can still feel pissed about that ticket.
You're probably right that taking the settlement would have been the rational thing to do. But I do understand him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Musk is a dreamer not a calculating rational ac (Score:4, Insightful)
Except when the SEC and Musk/Tesla disagree on if the evidence exonerates him. They probably did provide the evidence and just disagree on what that means to the case.
The fact that the offered settlement is so far from what the SECs demands, suggests to me that the SEC isn't so sure about their case.
What? Missed a word or two? (Score:1)
> The fact that the offered settlement is so far from what the SECs demands, suggests to me that the SEC isn't so sure about their case.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this sentence?
The SEC offered a settlement, which Musk took, then changed his mind. It sounds like you're saying that what the SEC offered "is so far from what the SEC demands", which doesn't make any sense.
If you meant what the demand of people generally, they demad that people follow the law.
Are you trying to say the settlement
Re: (Score:3)
What I meant is the difference between the settlement and what the SEC seeks for in court.
To me the difference between two years vs being barred from being a director/officer for any publicly traded company is quite big. But I guess this is usual in the US. Probably works well to scare people out of trying your luck in court
Yes, it's a typical compromise. vs maximum by law (Score:2)
Yes, to encourage settlements they settle for less than they'd ask for in court. If they didn't, it would bw foolish for anyone to settle.
Also with these kinds of things it's useful to watch out for phrasing like "facing up to five years". In that phrase, five years is rhe maximum penalty allowed under the law. That doesn't mean the prosecution would ask for the max. That's just the max they could ask for.
In this instance, Musk clearly and publicly said finding was secured at $420, and that seems to be a l
Re:Gutsy move (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's got nothing, he should have taken the deal.
If he's got nothing, the deal shouldn't have been offered. "A nominal fine and no admission of guilt" is not appropriate for inexcusable misconduct at this level.
Re:Gutsy move (Score:4, Informative)
Did you miss the bit about the 2 year ban?
Re: (Score:1)
He must have evidence that he discussed the price ($420) with someone who agreed to buy the exiting stock at that price.
Or he's just supremely arrogant.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
He must have evidence that he discussed the price ($420) with someone who agreed to buy the exiting stock at that price.
It seems like news on this is all over the place. A while back I remember there being "proof" of who the investors were (Saudis). Then that turned out to be untrue. Then originally I saw this story represented as Musk never intended on taking a deal. Then it changed to he was working on a deal, and said no. And now I've seen another article pop up saying something about him having proof of a deal ($420) with some Saudis that he backed out of.
Re: Gutsy move (Score:2)
I do wonder if they are trying to bar him from taking SpaceX public (since he would be restricted in his seat at public companies).
Unlikely. There's no reason for them to oppose such a move ... and it's unlikely anyway; there's absolutely no good reason for Elon to take SpaceX public at this point and everything he has said thusfar seems to indicate he has no desire to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
> He must have evidence that he discussed the price ($420) with someone
Or else he's just nuts, and the Tesla Car Company is about to go bankrupt in 2019 due to poor leadership. It wouldn't be the first time that happened (Commodore, Atari, Lehman Brothers bank, Fisker Auto, etc)
Re: (Score:1)
That's what I thought as well. If he had hard evidence, he would have given it by now. What he showed them apparently wasn't good enough.
Trump fingerprints (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump wants charismatic industry leaders to kowtow.
Read Mussolini's own writing. Trump did (really, he kept it in his bedside stand).
At one point in time il Duce was revered by the world for the fascist economic miracle.
Mussolini called it "corporatism". The governing paradigm is the state selects an elite set of corporate power brokers who receive favor, such as continuing to breath air, in return for supporting a benevolent patriacial dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy with a permenantly re-elected supreme leader.
it actually worked well up until Mussolini decided to invade Ethiopia and hitler copped his game plan. Then it went to shit for him.
Musk is the demo to all the other corporate charismatic leaders that you will pay if you don't kow tow to il Cheeto
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a correct description of corporatism nor fascism.
Re:Trump fingerprints (Score:4, Informative)
Then you're wrong. Corporatism, with the corporate leaders as part of the power elite, was always one of the five pillars of fascism, and you saw it in Italy, in Spain, in Nazi Germany, in the various banana republics etc. However, due to ignorance, a lot of people in the 60's and later effectively redefined it to become something generic, basically anything they didn't agree with.
Re: Trump fingerprints (Score:2)
No, he's right, and you're wrong. From wikipedia:
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[4] C
You are quoting the pope to define corporatism (Score:2)
the pope? Why not go back to how the Fascists defined corporativism.
"Under fascist corporatism, sectors of the economy were divided into corporate groups, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to split the difference between socialism and laissez faire capitalism, letting the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production. Mussolini's official title was "commander and chief of the economy" among
Re: (Score:2)
Corporatism is part of fascism however was not invented by fascists. The description is however the main problem, Mussolini and the others wanted to eliminate unions by forcing workers and employers to work together in a state-enforced system.
Also unlike the German regime at the time Italian fascism wasn't a pure dictatorship - there were a council with considerable power. They voted to dispose of Mussolini for example, something unthinkable in the Reich where military and others swore an oath to Adolf Hitl
Re: (Score:1)
You may be seeing the early stages of a post-Spruce Goose Howard Hughes.
So not banned from chairmanship (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no chance that that would happen in this case. The trial judge could do it, I wouldn't put it past anybody at that level, but it would get tossed on appeal. That's just a negotiating tactic, not a real punishment.
Re:So not banned from chairmanship (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From the SEC website, right in the middle of the home page [sec.gov]:
We inform and protect consumers
Meaning, they care about consumers' rights, not the corporations, and they make sure that consumers are aware of their rights.
We facilitate capital formation
Meaning they are involved in the sales of securities - you have to tell them what is happening. That makes sure they can follow up on item number one.
We enforce federal securities laws
Like those that Musk broke. No clause about "unless we think it could hurt other people, in which case we ignore the law"
We regulate securities markets
Yep, you cannot sell or offer to buy securities witho
Re: (Score:1)
You are comparing Elon Musk, who may have or have not exaggerated how "secure" his funding was in that tweet, which might have made a few shorters (i.e. gamblers not interested in health of companies) close their positions, to people who went into serial fraud for personal gains.
At the same time, no-one from those that caused the last recession had any kind of punishment...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you mean Musk didn't attack the shorts for personal gain? Really? The guy who rails against shorts (who wouldn't be an issue if he could actually make a profit) didn't attack them for personal gain, or personal satisfaction?
And you must have missed the 35 who went to jail [cnn.com] for the 2008 meltdown, and the dozens of CEOs forced out from their positions...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shorts only hurt your company's operation is you need to continually sell shares to generate the revenue to continue operations. If you were making profit (which, at 15 years of age and 10 years on the market, Tesla should be able to do) then there's no issue. If the stock price goes up or down, it doesn't impact your operations. Consider Ford, who's seen their stock price nearly halve in the last 4 years. Yet they are profitable, continue to pay a dividend, and have no financial issues with operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda. It would not be a forever thing, but banned from being a C-level guy at any publicly traded company? Very possible.
Note that he could still be a consultant, or a less-then-C-level-guy, but that's not exactly the kind of role he likes, is it?
just going around in circles (Score:4, Funny)
If Elon had actually secured the funding, he could make Tesla a private company.
If Elon had actually secured the funding, he wouldn't be in trouble with the SEC.
If Elon wasn't in trouble with the SEC, he wouldn't need to make Tesla a private company.
lol (Score:2, Interesting)
If hes an idiot then why are you not a self made billionaire?
Re: (Score:2)
Because knowing something, or more precisely: knowing where someone else made a mistake, is 100 times more easy, than doing it yourself.
I know how to fly a fighter jet .... but i never did it. So technically: I can't fly it. Or, I know how to knock one out in boxing. I know all the relevant points: but as I never boxed, I technically can't do it.
Should have taken the deal... (Score:3)
Musk has good ideas. His companies do some cool shit.
He is loosing it.
He should have taken this deal.
-no admission of wrongdoing.
-minor (for a billionaire) fine.
-step down as chairman (can remain as president/CEO) for 2 years.
-appoint 2 independent board members.
That is not a bad deal. It is a very slight slap on the wrist.
Of course, there will be a different deal negotiated... but in the mean time the company is suffering due to the publicity generated by this misstep.
Re:Should have taken the deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Board members can be beyond villainous, well into truly evil territory.
Tesla will be better off in the long term without more hostile board members, even if it means being without Elon. The cult of personality is an intoxicating thing, but there are a lot of good people at Tesla and elsewhere who want it to succeed. Tesla can succeed without Elon if they must, but I wouldn't count him out just yet.
For reference, see the history of the Aptera [wikipedia.org] electric vehicle. It had great potential, but the appointed board members killed it.
Re:Should have taken the deal... (Score:4, Funny)
electric vehicle. It had great potential
You're saying they resisted implementing some good ideas? Maybe they weren't amped up enough for success. They are no longer part of current events though, so it hardly matters.
Re: (Score:2)
You made me choke on my coffee and droplets are condensing all over my monitor.
You really should conduct yourself better.
Re: (Score:2)
He is loosing it.
As in loosing his bowels?
Yeah, he should've taken the deal.
Random Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
First, IANAL. With that said...
This is a civil action, not a criminal one. Thus, even if he loses Musk does not become a felon and (I'm pretty sure) doesn't lose the security clearance that he needs for his SpaceX activities.
The SEC can ban him from serving as CEO or chair of a publicly traded company; they can remove him from top spot at Tesla, but not from SpaceX which is privately held.
Contrary to what many imagine, Tesla would not implode without Elon Musk. He probably thinks it would, because monumental ego, but he's wrong. Tesla is already set up to be a gold mine, a money-printing machine. It's not just the Model 3 that's on track to be profitable, but also the utility-scale battery storage systems. They haven't got a lot of press, haven't generated much drama, but since the facility in Australia proved wildly successful, demand for those is going to explode.
If this investigation causes the stock to tank, I'll call it a great opportunity to buy in.
More Random Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to add...
I believe the SEC will also need to prove that Musk *intended* to manipulate the stock price with his dumb tweet. (There's no law against just being dumb.) I don't think Musk actually was trying to manipulate the stock, and how they're going to make they're argument I'm not sure. This may not be the slam-dunk that some people expect.
Furthermore, the SEC action may cause far more upheaval in Tesla's stock price and more harm to investors than the incident they are suing over. Is that really sensible? But you know, they want to make an example... They've said as much. This is about regulatory muscle-flexing and generating headlines.
Re: (Score:3)
I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the SEC would only need to prove malicious intent to pursue a *criminal* action. For a civil action, simple negligence is sufficient - was the information false, and did the information alter the market? Both of those seem pretty clearly true - although Musk's rejection of the settlement makes a lot of sense if he has proof that funding was, in fact, secured.
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect that funding was "secured". I think the Saudis were willing to give him everything necessary. But, he didn't want to end up with the Saudis essentially owning the company. He wanted a setup that minimized the Saudi ownership by transitioning enough of the other shareholders to some form of ownership and was not able to find a way to include all of those shareholders who wanted to remain because of other regulations limiting the number of investors in a private company.
When he couldn't put together
Re: (Score:1)
When Musk said he had the financing lined up and a price of $420/share he was definitely lying. He knew the market would respond by bidding up the share price close to that level.
Re: (Score:3)
Forgot to add...
I believe the SEC will also need to prove that Musk *intended* to manipulate the stock price with his dumb tweet. (There's no law against just being dumb.) I don't think Musk actually was trying to manipulate the stock, and how they're going to make they're argument I'm not sure.
He's been waging a war against the shorts for ages, I think it's a pretty easy leap to make. As for proving it, I don't think there's quite enough public evidence, but with legal proceedings come a lot of ways of extracting the truth. Even something as simple asking a question can be enough since trying to lie your way out can cause way more trouble [wikipedia.org].
This may not be the slam-dunk that some people expect.
Furthermore, the SEC action may cause far more upheaval in Tesla's stock price and more harm to investors than the incident they are suing over. Is that really sensible? But you know, they want to make an example... They've said as much. This is about regulatory muscle-flexing and generating headlines.
Part of the SEC's job is to make sure CEOs behave responsibly wrt their companies, making an example of someone publicly screwing with the stock price is kind o
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read this.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that it's Elon's job to know what he's doing. "Intent" can be hard to judge, but if somebody who knew what he was doing would have known that his actions (ie: the $420 a share tweet, plus claiming that the deal was so done that he only needed a shareholder vote), then the Judge is not gonna be kind to the multi-Billion$ CEO who claims he didn't intend to do that.
Dude should have taken the settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the SEC will also need to prove that Musk *intended* to manipulate the stock price with his dumb tweet. (There's no law against just being dumb.) I don't think Musk actually was trying to manipulate the stock, and how they're going to make they're argument I'm not sure. This may not be the slam-dunk that some people expect.
We never know people's true motives, they're simply inferred from their words and deeds. If you're caught with a smoking gun and your dead ex maybe you just wanted to threaten, not shoot. Maybe you wanted to shoot, but not hit. Maybe you wanted to hurt, but not kill. But when the only evidence is a dead body you'll be convicted for murder regardless. Musk made the tweet and the stock soared, that's means and opportunity. It's well known he hated shorts which is motive. The only viable defense he has is that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if he needs a clearance for SpaceX, but he could lose his clearance for making fraudulent statements. It's not just for committing crimes. If he was cheating on his wife (not that he's married) he could lose his clearance for that too
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, even if he loses Musk does not become a felon and (I'm pretty sure) doesn't lose the security clearance that he needs for his SpaceX activities.
Regarding his clearance, for his sake he better have answered the drug related questions on the SF86 truthfully. I like Musk, but he really knows how to shoot himself in the foot.
What happens if... (Score:5, Funny)
What happens if this SEC civil lawsuit brings down the Tesla stock price to the point where Musk and others are able to more easily take the company private? Will the SEC investigate itself for stock manipulation? A truly entertaining possibility.
I think I know why (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it was back in December we stockholders got asked to approve a whopping great compensation package for Musk. To collect it I think he had to stay on as CEO for a certain amount of time and hit certain financial milestones. I think it was 10 years.
So if he takes this SEC "deal" and has to step down as CEO would he lose all that? I think so.
And I think it is bullshit. Imagine what would happen if Musk left. Nobody but the shorts (who are desperate for this to happen) would win because the stock would dive 40% minimum.
And I don't see what Musk did wrong. He said he had a deal. He never said he was taking it which would have been a board (and possibly stockholder) action anyway. The SEC is being totally arbitrary. Let them take it to court if they want to be embarrassed.
Re:I think I know why (Score:4, Informative)
SEC deal was to step down as chairman, not CEO. It wouldn't have affected his comp.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what would happen if Musk left. [...] stock would dive 40% minimum.
Why would anyone want to invest in a company in which one perishable asset accounts for 40% of the value?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone want to invest in a company in which one perishable asset accounts for 40% of the value?
The track record of the market has been that any slight bit of negative news about Tesla can and will impact the stock price by a significant amount. 10%? 20%?
I didn't get Tesla stock as early as I wanted because I wasn't paying attention. My next big chance was during all the hysteria about "Tesla fires." The stock went down 20% and I bought then. The fires disaster/problem was obviously as insignificant as hindsight has show it to be. But the fear-ridden-panic-prone backbrain of the market was
Re: (Score:2)
Your post would have been funnier without the insulting jab, buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see that saying he had a deal when he didn't have a deal as something wrong? The SEC disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, when a publicly listed company makes announcements, they must be 100% correct as regards to any material claims. This is a measure taken because some companies in the past have been known to manipulate their stock price by disclosing information that is not correct.
Let us forget about electric cars and look at big oil where abuses have happened in the past. A company may announce that it is looking for oil in place A. That is fine. They can announce that they have
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't see what Musk did wrong.
Shoots from the hip and acts like a rockstar. Geeks love him for it, and it works for private companies, but it's completely irresponsible for public companies to be run that way. Public companies are supposed to be run with the public interest in mind.
The SEC is being totally arbitrary.
The SEC is set up to deal with greedy animals that will cause mass panic in the market and stampede if they see a way to make an extra penny. Hence, all those pesky regulations that exist for good reasons, whether you feel they're fair or not.
Watch now everyone! (Score:1)
Elon's going to crash a bunch of his own companies!
Why?
For shits and giggles! WHY ELSE?
Lets See if Government (Score:2)
Can tromp their jackboots through these companies and remove the idea guy and cause them to implode. They don't seem to realize that he's really Tony Stark. Well, Tesla, SpaceX, Boring, etc. were all nice-to-haves, but will expect them to all go TU after the gov't figures out a way to whip him into a super-max for a few not-well-thought-out words in a tweet. Maybe they think he's some kind of D'nish D'Souza or somesuch. Persecution at the hands of big gov't I think to be becoming the norm rather tha
Re: Lets See if Government (Score:1)
They don't seem to realize that he's really Tony Stark.
How I miss the Golden age of slashdot, when the libertarian nutjobs were well-read and would have said "Musk is really John Galt"...
Fucked in the heads millennials only watch Disney crap.
Re: (Score:2)
JG is a bit dated, and besides, TS is just plain cool. So's EM. But as for the gov't... we have to keep it from being our biggest enemy, like a fire we're thinking we're using to keep warm, but goes on a rampage and consumes us. Smokey Bear says put that campfire out... dead out...
Circle squared (Score:1)
Coming up after the break: how they squared the circle followed by a peek at the fully functional perpetual motion machine. It's not a hoax, say boffins.
But now back to our main story - reports are coming in that Rei has actually shut the fuck up.
Elon Musk is burning out (Score:1)
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum (Score:1)
Elon, don't let the bastards grind you down.
Re: He may have violated SEC rules, but with cause (Score:1, Insightful)
get out of the way or die
funny thing is, thatâ(TM)s what those of us who shorted Tesla were betting on. :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He committed fraud, black-letter regulation, that everybody and their dog knows about. I am not a business executive, I know all about it.
What you are saying is that since you think he's a cool guy, the law just doesn't apply,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He committed fraud, black-letter regulation, that everybody and their dog knows about. I am not a business executive, I know all about it.
Really? You know all about it? Then by all means, tell us precisely who he was talking about when he said he had secured funding, and why you personally know (not believe, but know, the two are different) that it was a lie? Or really, go write an article on the subject and submit it to various news outlets, I'm sure someone will be happy to carry it.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that this is a regulation. I have no idea whatever manipulation he was attempting.
Re: (Score:2)
I know all about it.
Really? You know all about it?
I have no idea whatever manipulation he was attempting.
Oh, so you know all about it, but you have no idea? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
blow it out your non-existant tailpipe (Score:1)
You can side with anyone you want.
But it looks Muskeg will have much more time to micromanage Spacex and Boring Co.
Here's a great stock tip for you all: go long on Sanofi-Aventis (the creators of Ambien).
Somehow I think a lot of Ambien-Tweeting is in the cards.
Re: (Score:1)
Never fuck with Big Business and Big Oil, or they will use their White House shill (the SEC) to shit all over you. It was just a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
[massive amount of nutjob rantings snipped]
The precedents and rulings already exist - SEC regulations have the force of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, how about bullshit? A sovereign wealth fund agreed to talk about negotiating a deal that would fund taking Tesla private - but it doesn't appear to have gone any further.
Transparency requires telling the truth - Musk did not tell the truth. He did not have funding secured.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Transparency requires telling the truth - Musk did not tell the truth. He did not have funding secured.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. You have no idea what sort of private conversations and handshakes were made. And by your statements here, you've already tried and convicted him.
Elon Musk said specifically that he was "considering" taking Tesla private, not that he had decided, or that it was a done deal. The SEC lawsuit is baseless and should get tossed.
Elon Musk does not play by the rules. He's taken on big oil. big auto, and big aerospace, and he's taken their business. That's what this lawsuit is
Re: (Score:2)
The YB-35 has a speed of 393 mph and a load of 50,000 lbs but had issues with vibration. The YB-49 had a speed of about 480 mph but a bomb load of only 16,000 lbs (too little for the H-bomb) and half the required range. The B-36 (mixed power plants) had speed of 435 mph and a bomb load of 72,000 lbs. Basically the Northrop designs were unconventional (high risk) and lacked the required performance. The mixed propulsion RB-49A might have had a chance, but a RB-36 was available without having to support an ad
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing the MAXIMUM speed of the B-36 with it's CRUISE speed. At 480 miles per hour, the B-36 wouldn't have been able to match the B-29's combat radius. The B-36 CRUISE speed was 230 miles per hour, which is where it's range figures came from.
As for the YB-49 having flight problems of any kind - including vibration - that has also highly questionable. Some pilots reported pleasant and benign flying qualities, others reported it was an unsafe death trap that was about to fall out of the sky at a
Re: (Score:1)
Forcing two additional members into the Tesla board of directors was the real goal, and goes way beyond a slap on the wrist. I suspect this was the deal breaker for Musk.
If the SEC were punishing Musk, why in the world would they insist on placing their own board members? Was this really about punishing Musk, or was/is it a government takeover attempt?
He will. (Score:2)
I gotta love partying rapist fratboys.
If you have to put liquor in your Anus to get drunk, you do not need to be on the supreme court.