Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

> Musk reportedly refused to sign the deal because he felt that by settling he would not be truthful to himself, and he wouldn't have been able to live with the idea that he agreed to accept a settlement and any blemish associated with that, the sources said.

What is he even thinking here? The evidence seems pretty clear that he did not have funding or investors secured at the time of the $420 tweet — judging by the unprepared and panicked reaction of his investors and executives an hour afterwards. Is Musk claiming that he truly did have funding secured despite all external evidence to the contrary?

I really hope this won’t also be his mentality for fighting the libel suit.

View on HN

>Musk has long raged in private at perceived enemies, especially in the media. His short temper and outbursts have long been legend inside Tesla and SpaceX headquarters, according to multiple current and former employees. “It doesn’t strike me as some drastic change in his personality,” said one former employee. “The people who are saying this is how he's always been are correct,” said another.

>What’s changed is simply that Musk’s profile has risen while his staff’s ability to keep him in check has waned.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/elon-m...

Lots of attributions to 'former Tesla employees' and other unnamed sources in that article. I despise that sort of reporting.

The protection of sources, sometimes also referred to as the confidentiality of sources or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists. As a result, problems such as corruption or crime might go undetected and unchallenged, to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

I'm not talking about protection of sources. I completely agree with that principle. But that's not at all what I'm talking about here. If you get information from a source who wants to remain anonymous then, if it's a leaked document you can publish it. If it's verbal information then you can follow it as a lead to find concrete information to publish. But just publishing supposed testimonials from 'protected sources' is bullshit. We have no way of knowing if those testimonials are true or just made up. So it should be ignored and that journalist should also be scorned. It's nothing but gossip.

So sorry, you don't appear to understand the difference between using protected sources to acquire real information that can be published (documents or other evidence) and just publishing gossip and scuttlebutt.

It's not like Musk's archetypal narcissistic behavior is unobservable beyond the scope of this Buzzfeed report. As someone who reads the tech news, I can't remember the last time I got through a 24 hour news cycle without having to hear about Elon Musk, and the conventionally hagiographic coverage he receives. So I've gotten to know him way better than I than I ever wanted to. As someone who knows someone in his personal life who is at the far end of the NPD spectrum, it's pretty easy to spot the traits in Musk.

If nothing else fighting the suit means guaranteed real estate on every major news source for months to come as it plays out

This seems like it's an essentially universal constant for Musk, whether he settles or not. Being in the news is not difficult for him, so it hardly seems likely that this was an important variable in the decision. Nor does it seem like the decision will affect his ability to get in the news.

My point is more for Tesla being in the news than Musk. If the two are split an uninteresting, board appointed CEO will need a different marketing strategy as Musk will likely take the soap opera effect with him.

He seems pretty unstable recently, and this seems like another instance of that instability. If he was acting thoughtfully, he would not be in this situation in the first place, so his behavior seems consistently irrational, at least.

Oh I don't think he was unstable or anything, he did that (I believe) knowing full well what the results and potential consequences would be.

Results: Stocks jump upwards, hopefully enough to hurt the short sellers and make them back off. The short sellers have / had been paying heavily to portray Tesla negatively in the news, just look at the coverage that one accident with a Tesla on autopilot through a construction zone had, or the coverage Tesla gets when there's a fire (while a thousand gas powered cars go up in flames during the media outburst).

Potential consequences: SEC on his ass. I don't think it'll end well for him. If he's lucky he just gets a big fine and gets to keep helming Tesla and SpaceX. This settlement was probably the best deal for him (financially) and only a fraction of the money gained / lost on the stock market from his tweet. But it would mean he had to step down for two years - possibly the two most critical years in Tesla's history.

IMO he shouldn't have published that, that was a bad call.

Musk's argument is he thought he had a deal with Yasir Al Rumayyan, the managing director of the Saudi Public Investment Fund. From the nyt article:

>Mr. Rumayyan raised the idea of taking Tesla private and increasing the Saudi fund’s stake in it.

>More than a year later, the lawyers said, Mr. Musk and Mr. Rumayyan met at the Tesla factory on July 31. When Mr. Rumayyan spoke again of taking the company private, Mr. Musk asked him whether anyone else at the fund needed to approve of such a significant deal. Mr. Rumayyan said no, according to the person familiar with the letters.

I guess if Rumayyan testifies that he said he offered a deal then Musk may be ok. [Edit] Or maybe not.

I was looking at the TSLA chart over the past year today and noticing the relatively high volatility. I strongly suspect that the volatility is a big part of what attracts the short sellers. In which case any plan to harm short sellers has now utterly backfired, as having this case hanging over the company can only increase uncertainty and volatility, probably for months or even years to come.

I think Musk sees his tweet as "I have a possible buyer". Funding was secured in the sense that the potential buyer had the funds.

> Funding was secured in the sense that the potential buyer had the funds

Refusing the settlement was stupid. Not only is he likely to lose, almost any defense will rely on him showing he didn't understand the words "funding secured" which will then open Tesla up to shareholder lawsuits.

Definitely stupid. I want to know what his lawyers think of this. Surely they would have impressed on him the odds of success if it went to trial. How long will SEC case take?

>Funding was secured in the sense that the potential buyer had the funds.

If you're blind to this whole story, I suppose you could believe that. Who was the "potential buyer"? We heard VW and the Saudi fund, both who said it was nonsense.

Beyond that, according to the complaint, nothing was discussed with the board and there was no possibility that small shareholders could remain (or institutional investors for that matter) if Tesla went private. There was no discussed price. Musk wanted to "burn the shorts"; he was trying to do so for months. Whoops.

And have you considered that this is only just beginning? I mean, it's not impossible that this blows over, but it's also possible -- with a DOJ investigation ongoing-- that this whole thing implodes. The world is tiring of the games Silicon Valley plays.

Musk was talking about the Saudis - they were the ones who showed interest. The saudis had the money for whatever. It was upto to Musk/Tesla to make it happen.

I definitely think he should have taken the deal. The tweet was reckless.

Good luck with that line of defense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com