News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by cmurf on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @05:43PM (#17762178)
>I bet one of his motivations for posting that tweet was to move the stock and hurt the shorts

Sounds like a violation of SEC rule 10b-5 and possibly illegal.

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by dragonwriter on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @05:59PM (#17762297)
> Sounds like a violation of SEC rule 10b-5 and possibly illegal.

Well, yeah, and there are already lawsuits charging that.

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by snowwrestler on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @06:26PM (#17762461)
Only if you prove intent. Which is why Musk would never admit it.
Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by gamblor956 on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @06:46PM (#17762565)
Intent is not required for regulatory violations. Moreover, the text of 10b-5 does not require any specific intent, only that the false statement or omission be made in connection with the transaction of a regulated security.
Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by snowwrestler on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @10:35PM (#17763392)
> John Reed Stark, a former longtime lawyer at the S.E.C. who specialized in investigating internet fraud cases, said that commenting online about the prospects of taking the company private was inadvisable at best. But he said that a case of market manipulation would come down to Mr. Musk’s intent.

> “These are very difficult cases to prove,” said Mr. Stark, who runs a cybersecurity consulting business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-e...

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by slededit on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @03:53AM (#17764367)
That is a seperate crime which he may also be guilty of.
Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by snowwrestler on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @11:09AM (#17766593)
Thanks.
Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by confiscate on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @05:52PM (#17762252)
it's funny how 3 months ago, all the news articles were saying Tesla has a 99% chance of going bankrupt

because, based on rational math, if you add this expense and minus that, the result is 0 in 3 months. QED

now that bankruptcy sounds unlikely, all the news articles are focusing on how a tweet could be illegal

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by gamblor956 on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @06:05PM (#17762332)
Don't recall any articles from earlier this year saying that Tesla had a 99% chance of going bankrupt within 3 months, and I read almost all of them. You got any links?

(The money was on Tesla either blowing it out of the park, or going broke in 2019/2020.)

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by gamblor956 on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @07:03PM (#17762662)
Just reread all 3 articles. The first and third don't have a timeline, but posit that it will occur after the Model 3 has begun sales, so 2019. Seeking Alpha says Tesla is on track for bankruptcy, and posits that it might be by the end of the year (i.e., 12 months from the date of the article) but is otherwise anticipated for 2019 based on the numerous cash flow models in the article (assuming no stock offering or new debt issuance).

In other words: 3 months ago no one was saying Tesla would be bankrupt by August/September.

And here's the thing: if Musk was truly honest about Tesla not seeking financing or offering new stock in 2018, they are on track for bankruptcy by the end of the year based on currently available investor documents re expense, cash flow, assets, etc.. If those documents are wrong, it's incumbent on Tesla to update them, not on the rest of us to assume voodoo financial magic will save the day.

Re:Elon Musk’s Funding for Tesla Wasn’t So Secure by confiscate on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @12:01AM (#17763673)
Fine, all the it's bankrupt "in 2019/2020" vs "by September".

The point is, all the articles raising alarm bells saying Tesla is going bankrupt SOON, it will run out of funds, it will collapse. Because math.

Now, all the articles are focused on SEC rules for a tweet.