Elon Musk Should Be Held In Contempt For Tweet, SEC Tells Judge (fastcompany.com) 274
The Securities and Exchange Commission has asked a federal judge to hold CEO Elon Musk in contempt for breaking terms of a settlement agreement with a tweet. The SEC cited an "inaccurate" February 19 tweet about production. Musk tweeted alongside a photo: "4000 Tesla cars loading in SF for Europe." He replied to the tweet adding: "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019." Fast Company reports: It's that "will make around 500K in 2019" part that angered the SEC, which had this to say in legal papers filed with a Manhattan federal court: "He once again published inaccurate and material information about Tesla to his over 24 million Twitter followers, including members of the press, and made this inaccurate information available to anyone with Internet access." The SEC says the tweet violated an agreement that was part of a settlement Tesla made with the regulator last year. Musk promised to consult with Tesla's board before he made any statements on social media that could affect the stock price of the company. Tesla also agreed to pay $40 million in penalties and Musk agreed to step down as chairman of the board.
Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
As Elon pointed out, he gave that figure in the last earnings report [twitter.com] way before that tweet....
Like Musk said - how embarrassing for the FCC! It sure does seem like someone there has it in for Tesla, very likely someone at the FCC is compromised by some large short holder that is sweating bullets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a short be sweating bullets? The stock is down 15% over the last 12 months.
Shorties may still be sweating if their strike price is lower than 15%. Many shorties were betting on a collapse into bankruptcy.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing options with delta 1 instruments. If someone was betting that the stock price would collapse, the easiest way to make a profit on it (i.e. requiring least initial outlay, margin and maintenance) is to buy a put option. You do that, and if the price falls below the strike price you make some money. If it doesn't fall below the strike price, you just lose the premium you paid for the option. No need to sweat bullets - you've already paid, you're not up for any other losses.
Now if you want to post a bit more margin, you can write a call option. In this case, you're paid the premium, and if the stock ends above the strike price, you pay the difference. In this case you want to hope that the premium you got when you wrote the option is going to be bigger than the difference between the stock price and the strike price at expiry. But if you're writing options without delta hedging, you're basically gambling, so if you lose you got what was coming to you.
If you want a short delta 1 instrument, the lowest initial outlay is a contract for differences (CFD). With this you get a delta 1 position, but you pay maintenance each month. The stock price needs to fall at rate faster than the maintenance you're paying on your CFD position. You're not going to be shitting bricks in this case either. You've been paying the whole time you've had your position open, and if the stock price isn't falling fast enough you just swallow the loss so far and close the position.
Actual short stock positions require an arrangement with a security lender if you want to hold them for more than a day. The lender is going to charge you maintenance on the position and require you to post margin. So as with the CFD, you'd cut your losses at some point if the stock price isn't falling as fast as you'd like.
I'm not going to try and give an overview of futures here, but as with the other delta 1 strategies there's no strike price involved. The only people who'd be shitting bricks would be people who wrote deep in-the-money calls and didn't hedge their positions. But they should've known what they were getting into.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any online firms that make it easy with good tools for an individual investor to hedge option risk, etc.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Steve Jobs was an asshole, but I also consider him a hero and more importantly a genius.
And I think Elon Musk is an idiot, but he's also a genius...and a hero. Okay, maybe not a hero, but I'm jealous of his success and I really do wish I had a Tesla and also a rocket that could launch me to Mars.
I'll get a Tesla sooner or later. As soon as the transmission falls out of my 20 year old Detroit garbage which the "Check Engine" light tells me is due to happen any mile now.
I do keep hearing horror stories about Teslas, but most of them sound overblown and I've been hearing horror stories about cars all my life. Did you ever hear the one about the Pinto?
I only say Musk is an idiot because he sometimes blurts out stupid stuff that he probably wouldn't say if he weren't so stoned (kind of like me). All the problems with Tesla...quality control, production numbers, whatever...those are all expected from a relatively new car manufacturer and when was the last time a new car manufacturer ramped up to the level of Ford or GM?
Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... [fortune.com] I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles. Holy shit! Can you imagine the bad press that would ensue if Tesla had to do that? But with Ford, hardly anyone blinks an eye.
Re:Fake News (Score:4, Funny)
DAMMIT!
I wanted to make some snarky comments and I accidentally hit submit before I was done!
From the link in my previous post:
a transmission flaw that could cause the vehicles to downshift to first gear with no warning.
Fortunately I drive a Chrysler so it's like I'm always in first gear anyway.
Also impacted— by separate issues—were select Lincoln Continentals made between 2017 and
Did Fortune REALLY say "impacted" when referring to certain car models?
This is how words like "phrasing" come into common speech. At least my car hasn't been impacted.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh
Re:Fake News (Score:4, Insightful)
What boggles the mind is that Musk just can't resist tweeting about Tesla production numbers even after he was told by a court not to and fined $40 million.
How hard is it to just avoid tweeting about that stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know why they are saying it's "contempt of court" now? It's because the court signed off on the agreement, on the basis that Musk would stick to it, and if he didn't he would be held in contempt by the court for not obeying its instructions.
See, the SEC isn't dumb. They made sure that the agreement had legal force by having the court agree it, creating this consequence if Musk ignored it.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
In fairness, they're claiming he broke the agreement, and he disagrees.
His counterpoint is that the number he tweeted was already available in the earnings report and thus could not move the stock price. This is reasonable - the SEC cannot expect him to not publicize Tesla's successes, and given this was public information for investors already it seems unlikely to move the stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
the SEC cannot expect him to not publicize Tesla's successes
Sure they can, when that's what he agreed to do. He doesn't seem to have held up the agreement to have his tweets vetted either.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the joint statement that he and the SEC submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
Note how it requires him to submit his Tesla related tweets to the agreed review process before publication. Note how he didn't.
Tesla appointed someone to review his tweets, and they quit after one day. So none of his Tesla related tweets have been reviewed. Musk shouldn't even have been tweeting about anything Tesla related according to that settlement, until Tesla put the review process in place.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
Note how it requires him to submit his Tesla related tweets to the agreed review process before publication.
No, it doesn't. You are lying again. The exact wording is "written communications that reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or it's shareholders". That's nowhere near the same as all Tesla related tweets. Moreover you first suggested that he was completely prohibited from tweeting about Tesla, and now you've changed that to "well he has to have it reviewed first". If you keep changing your claim you will eventually be in the realm of factual commentary, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that that's what you're doing.
Tesla appointed someone to review his tweets, and they quit after one day.
And now you're just repeating bullshit you read from other idiots on here. Who was this mysterious person who quit after one day? There seems to be no record of him. If you're referring to Dane Butswinkas, he left after two months, so you've only underestimated his actual length of employment by a factor of 60 or so.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
From your own link:
implementation of mandatory procedures to oversee and pre-
approve Mr. Musk’s Tesla-related written communications that reasonably
could contain information material to the company or its shareholders,
He didn't violate the agreement, because what he tweeted on 19 February was already public information released on 30 January during the investor call.
The tweet contained no "information material to the company or its shareholders" because they already had access to the information. As it turns out, "material information" has a defined meaning. [thelawdictionary.org] Note the bit about "when it is revealed to the public" - if it's already public, then it's no longer material information.
You are wrong. You are not a lawyer. You are definitely not a securities lawyer, and neither am I. Don't act like one.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he tweeted information made available to investors two weeks prior, and you think that somehow constitutes a violation of a court order to not tweet material information without prior board approval.
You completely whiff on the idea that it wasn't material information, which has a defined legal meaning that includes the information not being public.
You are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the settlement letter he signed along with the SEC and submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
Note how it says he won't tweet anything about Tesla without having it put through the review process first.
Since Tesla failed to implement the review process, he shouldn't be tweeting abut Tesla at all, even if it is 100% true and accurate.
Doesn't matter if it influenced anyone, or if it was public information or not. He agreed not to do it and settled for only $40 million. He broke the te
Re: (Score:2)
Well for what it's worth I love my Tesla. For the money, they could have done a bit more I think in terms of interior design (is it a sports car? Or a sedan? Make up your mind. If sedan, think of families), and post-ownership the sales interaction I get is almost non-existent compared to other cars.
But it is fun to drive, and does exactly what it should do. It is far more fuel efficient than the gas car, and my transportation costs have decreased considerably. I've watched the gas station sign change 30% in
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, minivans are notorious for being under-engined. But I don't understand people whose transportation costs are lowered by getting a Tesla. My transport costs are lower than just the purchase price of a Tesla (amortized over expected lifetime, etc).
But a regular gas car (not minivan) tends to work pretty well. And, givien that the constraint for my dirivng isn't the car, but the cars around me, it's hard to imagine wanting to upgrade the vehicle for speed. Hell, it would just make me more frustrat
Details (Score:2)
Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
You are aware that Chrysler is generally at or near the bottom [usatoday.com] of the quality rankings and that they have numerous huge recalls [cnbc.com] of their own... right?
So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles.
Umm... You might want to check your figures [wikipedia.org]. Ford sells more than that in the US alone each year with global production around 6 million per year.
Re: (Score:2)
So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles. Holy shit! Can you imagine the bad press that would ensue if Tesla had to do that? But with Ford, hardly anyone blinks an eye.
That is an expected result for Ford. FORD = Found On Road Dead
Tesla is held to a higher standard, rightfully or not. *shrug*
I doubt I will ever buy a Tesla (I don't want information transmitters outside of my control and inside of my car), but I will NEVER willingly buy a Ford.
wrong metaphors (Score:2)
i think you lost your train of thoughts somewhere midway through your metaphor:
why would one need "decontamination" after sitting in microwace combined with UV bed ?
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because he's an idiot and doesn't understand the differences between RF radiation, UV radiation, and particle radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
If people, who know the risk, chose to go then what's the problem? They WANT to go.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize the soil is radioactive on Mars right?
You realize the soil is radioactive on Earth, right?
And that with the lack of atmosphere there it's also flooded with UV radiation from the sun?
Yes, that - not the 610 Pa average pressure - is what will prevent you from sunbathing on the beach on Mars.
Seriously, the other reasons for having something between your skin and the Martian environment make the UV thingy kind of irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
ou realize the soil is radioactive on Mars right?
This didn't stop people from settling Colorado or coastal Brazil.
Re: (Score:2)
The soil and seawater here on earth are radioactive too. It's all a matter of degree, and what type of radiation is being emitted. And damn, guess I can't go running around naked on Mars? There is exactly nobody that thought they would be.
You're kind of a moron.
Here's a hint: UV radiation, RF radiation, and particle radiation are not equal. And forms of particle radiation are not equal either.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally false. 100% FUD.
Do you know anything about cars, at all? What is magical about a Tesla that would cause 100% of any recalled vehicle to have to go back to the Fremont factory, but any other car manufacturer could do it at a dealership service center? You know that Tesla has service centers, right? Moreover, they have on-site service vans that can take care of lots of service appointments at your convenience wherever the car is, so you don't have to go to a service center. If the recall is on a
Re: (Score:2)
hy would a short be sweating bullets? The stock is down 15% over the last 12 months.
I've been long Tesla stock from time to time. My buddy goes short from time to time. We both make money.
Tesla's been going violently sideways for almost two years now, and it went sideways for three and a half years before that. It's much ado about nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the figure he tweeted had previously been disclosed is irrelevant. The SEC's argument isn't that he published new undisclosed information outside of the regular financial statements. They're saying that he broke the terms of his settlement, where he agreed not to publish anything written (including tweets) without first getting them approved (though I'm unclear on who exactly is supposed to do the
Re: (Score:2)
You can stop dick suck Musk now.
Re: (Score:2)
"In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018. In this range, we are expecting to have posit ive GAAP net income and to generate positive free cash flow (operating cash flow less capex) in every quarter beyond Q1 2019. We believe these results will be substantially driven by our restructuring action and the ongoing financial discipl ine with whi
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
You should read some history books sometime. The older the better. History is just chock full of conspiracies.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be clear on what all of the numbers actually are.
Q4 letter: 360-400k vehicle deliveries
Q4 call: 350-500k Model 3s produced
Tweet: around 500k vehicles produced
These are not the same thing. Deliveries are not production (there's also inventory, both in-transit and accumulated - both of which are to be much higher this year vs. last, due to the international launch of the Model 3 and Tesla's new policy to locally stock common configs for faster delivery), and Tesla makes more than just the Model 3 (e.g., ~80k S+X this year).
Yes, there is a lack of clarity between the Q4 letter and call (I wouldn't expect up to 100k M3 inventory, although it's possible) - but resolving that ambiguity is an issue entirely unrelated to the case. What matters is that Musk's tweet clearly falls within the range of publicly disclosed information. Because the earnings call is an official source of public information disclosure.
There seems to be a common mistaken view (even repeated by some journalists) that the SEC settlement requires anything Musk posts to be pre-read and pre-approved. This is not correct. The social media policy [dropbox.com], imposed on Tesla by the settlement, requires Musk to seek approval for communications which contain material information - nothing more.
So the question is: is reiterating already public numbers from official channels (aka, the Q4 earnings call) "material information"? Yeah, good luck making that argument. That doesn't mean that the numbers from the call will be proven correct - but they were previously publicly disclosed information, and thus not material information. And regardless of whether one thinks that Musk should have every tweet pre-approved, that is not his obligation - he is only required to have tweets containing material information approved.
Now, let's put yourself in the shoes of a Tesla attorney. And let's say that Musk's statement in the earnings call was not guidance that you wanted repeated (e.g. overly optimistic or whatnot). What do you do? The company has an obligation to make sure that it's putting out are as accurate as possible. So if you only want the 400k figure repeated, then what's the solution? You jointly draft a followup "correction" tweet, of course. This does not in any way change the fact that what was stated previously was already public information.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Q4 call: 350-500k Model 3s produced
That's the problem right there. Between 350k and 500k. Musk tweeted that they will produce 500k. He forgot the range.
Omitting the range suggests that Tesla is on target to produce 500k. Musk is not supposed to make statements like that any more, or at least not without prior review and approval.
Re: (Score:2)
"@elonmusk [Feb 19] Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019"
Isn't "around" effectively a range?
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
350-500k Model 3s vs 500k vehicles
Re: (Score:2)
You should be Musk's lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
So he's saying that they aren't going to be making 500k Model 3 vehicles with his Tweet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC they produced about 100k cars Model S and X range in both 2017 and 2018.
Assuming that stays the same, then that would be 450-600k total vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he could have avoided this by submitting his tweet to the review process. He didn't. If he ran a red light, he could get a ticket even if the road was empty.
None of your statements seem equivalent to me. (380k +/- 20k) vs. Model 3 made (425k +/- 75k) vs. Total Made (500k +/- 0) Then you added in the S/X numbers without citing them.
It would be reasonable to read this tweet as clarification they expect to hit the high point of an expansive range.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what was said during the call. What was said was:
Re: (Score:3)
And the market disagrees with the SEC. Don't look now, but Tesla is actually up. In what world does the market think that the SEC has a plausible case against a company and actually go up after the SEC takes the CEO to court? And this is against negative macros!
Shouldn't we wait (Score:2)
To see if he was right before saying this tweet was wrong? He did correct himself and say it was closer to 400k but would end with a run rate of 500k (10k / week).
Re:Shouldn't we wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shouldn't we wait (Score:5, Informative)
Forward projections of material facts issued by corporation directors are required to be issued to all shareholders simultaneously, and to be accompanied by specific legal disclaimers.
The proper way to release material information is in quarterly reports, or in pre-announced earnings calls.
Issuing these projections by tweet is never ok. It is especially bad for Elon because he has already been spanked once for this behavior, and had signed a consent decree to not do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Forward projections of material facts issued by corporation directors are required to be issued to all shareholders simultaneously, and to be accompanied by specific legal disclaimers.
The proper way to release material information is in quarterly reports, or in pre-announced earnings calls.
Issuing these projections by tweet is never ok. It is especially bad for Elon because he has already been spanked once for this behavior, and had signed a consent decree to not do it again.
You mean this earnings report released in Q4 last year which quotes the annualized 500k figure? http://ir.tesla.com/static-fil... [tesla.com]
Re: (Score:3)
From the report:
"we are targeting annualized Model 3 output in excess of 500,000 units sometime between Q4 of 2019 and Q2 of 2020"
His tweet talks about 2019 which is different. The report says 500k rate over a 9 month period while Elon said they would actually build around 500k cars in 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
But they could easily reach 500k cars in 2019 with those numbers, since there are two other models they make besides the 3.
They make about 100k of the Model S and X yearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're finally tossing Musk under the bus.
He paid Tesla's part of the previous fine himself. If you think they're throwing him under the bus, you're not understanding the situation correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public companies = misery (Score:2)
The only way to win is not to play. It's not worth it.
It was inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
It was obvious to me from the outset that the conditions of the settlement effectively place a gag order on Musk that forbids him from mentioning virtually anything about Tesla, since almost anything he might publicly say could affect stock prices.
If I were him, I'd quit. Sell off his shares of the company to the highest bidder and get as far the hell away as possible from such a blatantly oppressive work environment that only seems to want to ruin the guy. He made his fortune once.... he's a smart guy, he can do it again somewhere else.
Re:It was inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were him, I'd be more careful what I post on Twitter. In fact, I wouldn't post to Twitter at all. There, problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said... a gag order that effectively prohibits him from talking about anything on social media.
I'd sell off 100% my shares to the highest bidder and be done with Tesla forever if I were him. It is obvious from this that his ongoing affiliation with them is going to continue to cause harm to the company, and is unreasonably oppressive to his right to express any his own thoughts publicly, since any of them could adversely impact the price of Tesla stock, even if they are entirely true. The simple
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is not my hero, but sincerely I think Hanlon's razor [wikipedia.org] applies here. I don't think there should be no consequences, but I do not see this as being a willful violation of a court order, but simply a guy who was happy and excited for what his company was doing.
Thoughtlessness should rightfully have its consequences though... I believe he should be forced to resign entirely and sell 100% of his shares in the company at current market value. An NDA would still reasonably apply to anything he happened
Re: (Score:2)
If I were him, I'd be more careful what I post on Twitter. In fact, I wouldn't post to Twitter at all. There, problem solved.
Hush you. He posts a lot of really interesting stuff about Spacex. Way more interesting than anything to do with Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think getting fired isn't a consequence? Because that's what I think should happen here.
Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice what can be explained through ignorance.
Can you be held in contempt of court for simply being excited about what you do for a living? That is all that has happened here, and telling someone what they are and are not allowed to even FEEL is something I would most definitely call oppressive.
Consequences certainly, but to treat it as if it's deliberate when it
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to condone breaking investment law, but the guy is a positive force in society, if only because of what he did for cost to near Earth orbit. He'd have to do a lot more bad stuff before becoming a net negative.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, mot engineers working on projects I know aren't allowed to tweet about their work. It's not unreasonable from the companies point of view. He should just stop tweeting about Tesla/at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Understood... but what they are not allowed to talk about is a closed set of things, not being allowed to say anything on social media that might affect stock prices is an unbounded set.
For chrissake, this post wasn't Musk trying to manipulate stocks or trying to disregard a court order, it comes across entirely as a guy being happy and excited about the direction he saw the company going.
If the guy can't even publicly talk about *that* without being called out for supposedly affecting stock prices, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, company can lawfully require that you not disclose confidential information, effectively limiting what you are permitted to talk about.
However, it gets kind of fuzzy when you say that a person isn't allowed to talk about *anything* on social media that *might* impact stock prices without clearing it through Tesla's board first. This is arguably overbroad, since there is no clearly defined objective metric.
This tweet illustrates this perfectly. It comes across to me as a guy who is excite
Id make a second twit accopunt, (Score:2)
This is bullshit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
1) Taxpayers fund an organization whose only apparent purpose is to enable billionaires to moderately inconvenience one another.
2) I should be happy they're doing this very important work.
3) A braggart on Twitter is who I should really be upset about.
Re: (Score:2)
from their own site.
It is the responsibility
What you should get out of this article: (Score:5, Insightful)
We should all be far more concerned that people are basing financial decisions on something posted on Twitter of all places.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the whole point. Some people WILL base their decisions on any available information. This can give them a significant advantage over people who only trust 'official' sources of information. Hence, the rule that all material information must only come from official sources.
Re: (Score:2)
This can give them a significant advantage over people who only trust 'official' sources of information.
Or a significant disadvantage, if their 'unofficial' sources are wrong. Deciding which sources to trust is part of an investor's job. The SEC is essentially "leveling the playing field" by neutralizing an advantage more skilled investors have over less skilled ones, and by doing so, eliminating an important feedback mechanism which would select for more accurate information about the market.
Re: (Score:2)
We should all be far more concerned that people are basing financial decisions on something posted on Twitter of all places.
Hm. It is Mr. Musk using Twitter, so it is a valid source, which is what gives the government leeway to go after him. What I find absurd is that the language is casual. Absolutely NOBODY should be expecting firm results based on casual language. Words like "almost" and "around" are not words that say anything definite. If it is not definite, why is it a problem?
A Wired article about him and his past... (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/story/el... [wired.com] was a pretty good long read.
poor media management (Score:2)
Kind of reminds me of the Roger Stone situation. This is a VERY media-savvy guy. For some reason, he thought that he could get away with posting ph
Re: (Score:3)
This is true of everyone, there is no one that will harm you more than yourself. Humans excel at self sabotage and contradictory behavior. You tell someone it's not a good idea to walk off a cliff... wham... lined up like lemmings. You tell them tats are a bad idea... they get covered head to toe, you tell them that you don't agree with their religion they hate you, you tell them that you don't agree with their conclusions about science they hate you, you tell them you don't agree with their politics th
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
And yes, freedom to speak about specific things in a specific setting can be signed away by a person. That is what NDAs are for example.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
It isn't even necessarily about the agreement. If you are an officer of a company, *all* of your public statements are considered to be communications to shareholders. Unless you disclaim something first, saying you are going to produce 500,000 cars this year is basically a promise to shareholders that you are going to build 500,000 cars this year. In the annual report, the range was 350,000 - 500,000. So now he's committed Tesla to the higher number. If they don't hit that number, the stockholders have gro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not responsible for laws that have existed for decades, or is he responsible for Musk quite obviously violating the terms of his settlement.
He broke the law, he agreed to a settlement to keep him out of jail and reduce the fine, and then he broke the settlement. This is black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is *the duly-elected President of the United States*, he can say exactly what he wants to say at any time. He has also abided by every court decision that applied - even though he doesn't have to - the executive is *co-equal* to the judicial branch.
Elon Musk is a nouveau-riche huskster trying to manipulate stock prices, and has already been sanctioned for it - and is now ignoring the sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately explained by ignorance".
I saw the tweet, and it is not at all evident to me that he was *trying* to manipulate stock prices, it just comes across as someone who is excited and happy about the direction his company is going.
Now granted, you could argue that such ignorance is tantamount to incompetent negligence, but I don't think anyone can make a fair case that it was deliberate or intentional. Can you be held in contempt of cou
Re: (Score:2)
It's not accidental. The court said "you have to have a lawyer review your tweets (or whatever system Tesla cam up with.) " He didn't. Intention no longer matters. It did before with the earlier SEC investigation, but this extra rule is a limit he agreed to as part of a settlement.
Yes. All that needs to happen is someone (usually the SEC) show that he violated a court order, in this case the settlement with the SEC.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fucking wrongness. Co-equal doesn't mean "can ignore each other". It means "has power over each other" You know, checks and balances. Ignoring a court ruling isn't a thing. If he doesn't like it, he has things he can do, but none of them are ignore the court.
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that the President is above the law. Just because the Executive Branch is co-equal doesn't mean what one does can't affect the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? There's no evidence that this was done with any thought or deliberate intent to violate the court order... it's simply a guy who was happy and excited about the direction the company was going.
Yes, he should have cleared this before saying it, but I don't think he intended to violate the court order, so I don't think this should be treated the same as contempt.
Reasonably, I think that the consequences for this should be that he not be involved with Tesla in *any* capacity, ever again. His shares
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, you don't understand the problem. Suppose Musk tweets out something about production problems. Some people will read that and decide that they should sell their stock - not necessarily a bad decision. Others though, will ignore the tweet (because they are so smart). Because of the selling, the stock price plummets. Who is potentially hurt? The people who ignored the tweet.
Since there is no way to stop anyone from acting on a tweet, the proper thing to do is make sure that all materi
Re: (Score:2)
your idol Musk is just as much a manboy.
You probably think he's an inventor, when he's invented nothing. Sure, he's an engineer but that's it.
Now he smokes dope and makes all kind of ridiculous statements that if true would inflate stock prices....but of course they are lies.