Or he was trying to divest at artificially inflated prices caused by the hype. Both of these hypotheses are illegal under US stock law.
I'm out of the loop - can you point me to some proof of this?
Damn if you do, damn if you don't.
What it does do is establish a plausible motive for stock manipulation, which is a problem for a jury trial.
I agree completely. Elon Musk is a remarkable person, but he's still human. He's ignoring the science around performance, mental health, and the need for rest at his own peril.
Edit: It's also an alarming sign that Elon Musk has not been able to solve this problem by finding people whose judgement he trusts to take on some of his responsibilities. Even Steve Jobs, someone who had a reportedly huge ego, was able to build a team he could entrust his legacy to.
The route for going private was to stop trading the shares, meaning I would never make good on that profit. Because ceasing trading is what going private means: I no longer hold stock at $420/share, I hold stock in Tesla which I might be able to sell to someone some day for some as yet unspecified amount.
Also someone that bought stock in that period would have lost something like 355->320 which is only 10%.
If someone leveraged up to take advantage of a short-term pricing condition then they get vastly reduced sympathy no matter which direction their position was.
The platonic long purchase is based on holding, and the question is structured as if it's following that same dichotomy, but it describes a bet that is in fact long while also based on near-term betting.
That's why in-context I think it is both technically correct and misleading, and the question should have been phrased differently.
But whether I should have said "dichotomy" instead of "misleading" still has nothing to do with the actual substance of the discussion...