> His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition ...
He is the CEO. He's not allowed to have a different definition. Words mean things. That's how we communicate.
Are you putting words in my mouth on purpose? I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be investigated. I'm arguing that "trying to screw over short sellers" is not the only and "obvious" reason why he could have made the tweet.
Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.
Source? I legitimately haven't seen this.
> Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.
I'm not saying it does. Where did I say it does? I don't understand why I keep getting this response.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-ma...
Yes, but words are often nuanced and ambiguous. It's why we have an entire legal system to interpret exactly what "words" mean.
It doesn't seem obvious to me. It seems like one of a few interpretations, not limited to:
- Elon was overly stressed (as has been documented recently) and didn't think before posting such an impactful statement
- He considers twitter to be an official outlet for Tesla and just continued with his tendency to publicise his decisions and thought process constantly.
- His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition and if the funding had been SEC-secured, the tweet would be a compliant form of public disclosure.
[edit]
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the tweet shouldn't be investigated. I'm saying that "he intentionally lied to screw over short sellers" is presumptive and that may not have been his intent.