Hacker News Reader

Comment by beaconstudios | Hacker News Reader

> But he lied on twitter in a direct effort to cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock.

Do you have evidence of this, or is it speculation?

The "lied on twitter" part is now clear. He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420 which he has now basically admitted was not true.

The "cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock" is a bit of speculation but it seems basically obvious to all observers.

> but it seems basically obvious to all observers.

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.

So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed? or just Elon?

> 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.

> So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed?

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.

I know whenever I'm stressed I go post falsehoods on my public Twitter account to blow off some steam.

Intent may not necessarily matter.

for the investigation, no it probably doesn't. But that's not what I'm arguing, and I don't see why people think it is.

He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet.

Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.

> He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet.

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.

He sent shorts to David Einhorn

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-ma...

It was a company, Chubbies, that sent short shorts to David Einhorn not Elon. https://insideevs.com/chubbies-sends-short-shorts-tesla-shor...

Heh. That's actually kind of a chuckleworthy story. Thanks for that.

> Words mean things. That's how we communicate.

Yes, but words are often nuanced and ambiguous. It's why we have an entire legal system to interpret exactly what "words" mean.

Just how "nuanced" can the word "secured" mean here?

I've read every tweet he posted in the last year or so. He hates the short sellers passionately. He tried to cause a short squeeze two times before the funding secured tweet. The likelihood that causing harm to short sellers was not part of his motivation is approximately zero.

It's not a fact that he lied. He believed he had funding and explained the rational behind that. He wasn't making it up. Intent matters.

Certainly, it was a reckless thing to say and a bad idea given that it wasn't 100% closed. "Secured" was the wrong word to use, no doubt.

Elon: "I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement."

https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-taking-tesla-private

Intent does not matter. If Musk got up on Twitter and announced "I have secured orders for fifty million cars at $50000 each" because he was drunk at 8am, that would not be excusable either.

Intent matters when determining if someone is lying or not. It doesn't matter when determining if someone committed an act. So in this case he seemingly committed the act of making an untrue statement. But whether he was lying while doing so is not so clear because we don't know if he was being intentionally misleading.

Intent matters enormously in US criminal law.

Intent matters enormously but I think this is a different situation than some layman commenting on financial matters. Musk is the CEO of a ~50B public company with deep experience in fundraising and other matters of finance.

Even if we can't say definitively what was going on inside his head when he posted that tweet we can say that any reasonable person in that role with that level of experience can be expected to understand what "funding secured" means.

It's kind of like if I walk into a store and take something off a shelf without paying for it. I can't claim "it's not stealing because I didn't know this stuff wasn't just free for the taking" because any reasonable person in my situation should understand what a store is and how it works.

> I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement.

Elon is a smart man. He knows this does not mean that funding has been secured. "Could be" is not a "secure" state.

Obvious does not mean provable in a court of law.

He also tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688?lang=...

Was this some elaborate stock exploitation?

I don't mind the investigation but this whole thing, especially all the hate, like he ruined short sellers lives ( the stock is way down since the tweet ), is insane to me.

I actually do think your linked tweet is problematic (though on a much smaller scale than the "secured funding" one). While obviously a joke, it was at the very least an irresponsible one from a public company CEO and definitely could be viewed as an attempt to manipulate algorithmic traders via the dissemination of misinformation.

CEOs have a legal duty to their shareholders and the public to communicate about their companies in a clear an honest manner.

I guess anything 'could be viewed as an attempt to manipulate algorithmic traders' then.

At what point did obvious jokes become illegal?

I don't personally think this tweet is illegal however I do think it's irresponsible.

It's not an obvious joke to people who don't speak English as their primary language.

He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420

420...was is really $420? And then smoking weed on Joe Rogan? LOL, now that's funny ;-)

If you read his rants/tweets around this time it is pretty clear he is has it in for short sellers

That much is not illegal.

But it provides motive.

Are you saying he bought Twitter at $420 and the funding was secured for it? Because that sounded like an outright lie. He also doubled down by making that blog post thereby voicing this in his capacity as Tesla CEO.

It wouldn't be illegal if there was a tender offer for the shares at $420.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com