that you know how to google.
You said "survives on government orders"
Show that. You can't so you have to spin.
All kinds of companies have commercial and government contracts - nothing new there.
$TSLA
- Thread starter Phill Twist
- Start date
You said "survives on government orders"
Show that. You can't so you have to spin.
All kinds of companies have commercial and government contracts - nothing new there.
Who is that directed at? I don't even own a friggen share of either (or any other stock and I only trade futures).
But I also don't like bullshiter. The one above.Short seller sues Tesla, Elon Musk, claiming buyout tweets were fraudulent
Expect more lawsuits if Musk can't prove he has funding lined up.
Timothy B. Lee - Aug 11, 2018 11:50 am UTC
Enlarge / Elon Musk in 2016.
PHILIPPE LOPEZ/AFP/Getty Images
231
Three days after Elon Musk tweeted that he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private, we still don't know who, if anyone, has agreed to provide the billions of dollars needed to buy out the company. But plaintiffs' lawyers aren't waiting any longer for Musk to provide more details.
On Friday, stock trader Kalman Isaacs filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that Musk's Tuesday tweets constituted securities fraud. The lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, appears to be the first one claiming that Musk's Tuesday tweets violated federal securities law.
At the time of Musk's tweet, Isaacs was short at least 3,000 shares of Tesla stock. That means that, at some point prior to Musk's tweet, Isaacs had borrowed Tesla shares and sold them, betting that the price would fall and he would eventually be able to buy them back at a discount, pocketing the difference.
Further Reading
There’s a big problem with Elon Musk’s plan to take Tesla private
The flipside, however, was that Isaacs lost money if Tesla's stock rose—$3,000 for every dollar increase in the stock price. If Musk really did close a $420-a-share buyout deal, Isaacs would have needed to come up with around $420 for each of those 3,000 shares. So on Wednesday, Isaacs panicked and closed out his short position early by buying Tesla shares at the then-current price of $376.
But Isaacs now believes that Musk's tweet was false—that Musk doesn't actually have funding secured. And if that's true, he argues, then Musk violated US securities laws, which prohibit a CEO from spreading false or misleading information about a company in order to manipulate its stock price.
“Short position” explosion?
Isaacs argues that that's exactly what Musk was trying to do with his tweet. He notes that Musk has long taunted short-sellers like himself on Twitter. In mid-June, for example, Musk tweeted that short sellers "have about three weeks before their short position explodes"—presumably referring to the end of the second quarter, when Musk planned to prove doubters wrong by achieving a production rate of 5,000 vehicles per week.
If Musk's buyout tweets prove to be false—and we should emphasize here that we don't know yet—then they likely cost Isaacs tens of thousands of dollars, since they forced him to buy shares at an inflated price. By the close of trading on Friday, Tesla shares had already fallen to $355. If Isaacs kept his short positions open, he would be at least $60,000 richer.
Isaacs isn't just suing on his own behalf; he's seeking approval to become the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit representing all Tesla shareholders who traded after Musk's tweet on Tuesday or at any time on Wednesday.
This is a common tactic in the world of securities legislation, according to William Sjostrom, an expert on securities law at the University of Arizona.
"There's this huge culture of these securities plaintiffs' firms," Sjostrom told Ars on Wednesday—before Isaacs' lawsuit was filed. Sjostrom said that "firms are geared up to file suits immediately," often using "cookie-cutter complaints."
Sometimes, defendant companies will settle these lawsuits for a modest sum, including a few million dollars to the plaintiffs' attorneys. But the stronger a case is, the more likely plaintiffs will take the case to court and seek more significant damages. And the risk to Tesla will be much bigger if Musk cannot prove that he had funding secured when he made his Tuesday tweet.
That's just a small start. More plaintiffs will show up by the thousands or tens of thousands in the coming weeks and months. Anyone who lost money as a result of Elon Musk's reckless tweets (including longs and shorts trading stocks, options, bonds ...) will have a case against Elon Musk and Tesla to recover their losses.
I'm pretty sure the plaintiffs will pursue severe punitive damages and try to find a way to go after Elon Musk's personal assets and even Tesla's board of directors.
Now that Reuters is reporting Saudi PIF not interested in buying Tesla, my prediction of $320 before $420 might come true as early as next week.
The news might even trigger a cascading dumping event.How much do you think each of the following news events is worth (if and when it's released):
1. Saudi PIF not interested in Tesla (already happened)
2. Tencent not interested in holding Tesla stocks if it goes private
3. Large mutual funds not to stay long in Tesla
4. the SEC issues criminal indictment against Elon Musk
Last edited:
"The suit, filed by Kalman Isaacs, includes in its class investors who bought Tesla shares as they went up after Musk's tweet, before falling again later."
So longs are included in the lawsuit.
So longs are included in the lawsuit.
1 - If they intend on buying more shares, they have a vested interest in playing down their participation
2 - What is your source for this information?
4 - The SEC has no criminal powers. They cant arrest or indict anyone even if they wanted to
1. What about those who intend to sell their big positions? In view of Elon Musk's disastrous management track record and childish behavior, who in their right mind would throw tens of Billions to buy out the highly overvalued money-losing Tesla.
2. It's not information. It's my question.
3. same as 2?
4. Yes technically, but the Enforcement Division can accomplish it through the FBI. Same thing. The distinction is nominal. Example: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-135
Last edited:
TSLA has been a great long term tool for screwing shorts, even though it is inevitable this company fails without permanent government funding.
I suspect when or if short interest finally drops on TSLA, it will gap down a hundred plus points and the shorts will jump in to be screwed again!
I suspect when or if short interest finally drops on TSLA, it will gap down a hundred plus points and the shorts will jump in to be screwed again!
I'd say Tesla has been a great tool for screwing taxpayers. And if Tesla will inevitably fail on lack of permanent government subsidies, that makes it a great long term tool for screwing longs, not shorts. Looking at the Tesla chart, the violent price swings have been screwing both longs and shorts if they got shaken out at a loss.
At this moment, Tesla has been a great tool used by Elon Musk for screwing himself and Tesla. He is in deep doo doo, is he not? Of course Twitter might be guilty of being a tool for this as well since it's been Elon Musk's medium of choice for dispensing self-incriminating evidence to the world.
Let's set aside the potential criminal penalties and focus on the potential civil damages at the moment:
Since both longs and shorts who bought or sold shares from August 7th to August 10th have a case against Elon Musk and Tesla for losses due to material fraudulent / misleading statements, a rough estimate for the amount of compensatory damages would be between 1 to 2 times the product of daily range and volume.
volume x range values:
Aug 7: 31 million shares x 47 ~= 1457 million dollars
Aug 8: 24 million shares x 16 ~= 384 million dollars
Aug 9: 17 million shares x 22 ~= 374 million dollars
Aug 10: 11 million shares x 15 ~= 165 million dollars
4-day Total: 2380 million dollars, or 2.38 billion dollars
2x = 4.76 billion dollars
So, ignoring losses by option traders, punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees, plaintiffs compensatory damages will be roughly between 2.38 billion to 4.76 billion.
That's just for 4 trading days. If the jury slaps a 3x punitive damages award against Elon Musk & Tesla, with compensatory damages at $3 billion, the total will be $12 billion dollars.
And the class period may expand later on. Who is going to pay for those damages? Who is going to suffer because of those damages? Not the Shorts.
Now short positions have remained relatively stable or have slightly increased over time. At 35 million shares short, how much could the shorts have lost, considering most of them have not covered yet and intend to cover only when Tesla goes belly up (which is inevitable, as you put it)?
As I have mentioned, there are many superb, experienced attorneys who would be thrilled to take the (strong, if not slam dunk) case against Elon Musk and Tesla.
Last Friday I saw that a very prominent law firm has already signed up -- the firm that won $206 billion against Philip Morris, $27 billion against Visa-Mastercard, 14.7 billion against Volkswagen, and 1.6 billion against Toyota.
Who do you think is feeling lucky? Is Elon Musk feeling lucky? Are the longs feeling lucky?
(I'm not a shortie.)
Last edited:
