Elon Musk tweet wipes $14bn off Tesla's value
bbc.com
bbc.com
After his SEC agreement expressly requires him to have his tweets vetted first, and he didn't?
What is the man thinking. He's not an idiot. Is he self-destructing? Does he have the impulse control of a 5-year-old?
He's going to lose his position on the board, for real.
And he deserves to at this point.
When you run a publicly traded corporation, there are rigorous rules about what you can and cannot say, and when, to ensure a fair playing field for investors. The same way there are rigorous rules against insider trading.
If he wants to act irresponsibly, then he should have kept Tesla a private company.
Seriously. The guy is simply not exhibiting the mental self-control to run a publicly traded corporation. It's becoming clear he simply can't do the job as is required, no matter how smart he may otherwise be.
He's going to lose his position on the board, for real.
-> You mean, like the man that runs the country he lives in ? :)
Almost as if bots are monitoring this forum, and downvoting anything negative about their overlord.
I dare you to try!
I didn't claim that I find comments on voting boring, I cited the guidelines.
I didn't feel obligated to respond, I felt it was useful and helpful to the community to respond.
Your argument is a non sequitur. If I did find a pattern of behavior boring, I might comment on it to discourage it to improve the overall quality of my experience of the site.
it is just so tiring to see your own tribe, my tribe, have standard so low in term of what constitute a valid criticism.
> What makes you feel he is not deserving of criticism?
The focus on that comment was the nature and quality of the criticism, not the simple fact of some criticism occurring.
For those of us who feel very strongly that there is some very important criticism we should be focused on, it can be frustrating and disheartening to see a media establishment, and millions of uncritical viewers, making the worst types of criticism (criticism based on lies and false reasoning).
The most important (and valid) criticisms get lost in the noise. Further, moderately critical thinkers can become desensitized due to the low quality criticism. When they hear that he has done some new terrible thing, some of them start to tune it out as 'most likely another lie'.
(Appending paragraphs with edits)
One part of the problem is click-bait journalism. Hyperbolic claims get more eyeballs, more clicks.
Incidentally, I agree with the second half of your statement.
The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong", but I disagree. In fact, while the US P frequently dabbles in ad-hominem, most criticisms of him seem valid and well presented. I don't feel he is being unfairly targeted by falsehoods, since much of the critique is a direct result of what comes out of his mouth, rather than hearsay.
I do agree with you on click-bait journalism. I think the current US P has given the media an unbelievable boost, and they must be (secretly!) hoping he stays in office forever. I mean, they have probably never had such a sensational political soap-opera to report on! Yet only part of the sensationalism can be blamed on the media - much of the story is sensational in its own right, thanks to the person involved!
At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occurs, not that all the criticism is methodically wrong?
The total volume of media criticism is huge. It's possible that you, me, and the parent poster are simply looking at different portions of the criticism being made. When you say "much of the critique" I take this to mean "much of the critique that you've seen", and when I say I "see a media establishment...making the worst types of criticism" I'm speaking to what I've seen.
>a direct result of what comes out of his mouth
[Unless full context is given,] this is often not sufficient to ensure that the criticism is fair, and accurate. Consider, for example, the way the media lied about his comments on Charlottesville. They used the actual words out of his mouth, but selectively omitted the most important words necessary to understand what he was actually saying. By omitting those words, they painted a false picture in which he appeared to say the opposite of what he was saying. In my experience at the time, I saw no left leaning outlets reporting accurately on this.
Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory.
I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances.
>the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of.
Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith?
I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations.
Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him.
>Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events.
Edit:
Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
We need to exercise a bit of common sense now, and realise that the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment.
>If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers.
Absolutely true.
>the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
I think you are simply saying that it is well established that Trump is a buffoon. Granting that premise, I still believe we should each investigate the veracity of any subsequent claims about him before accepting them as true. And push back if they prove false.
Personally, I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines; I disagree with you, but that's okay :) Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine.
So far, your point of view comes across as: "yes, he may be a buffoon, but the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit".
I think that's fair enough argument, but you cannot gloss over the "he is a buffoon" bit by defending it using the "the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit" bit.
I guess what I'm saying is that the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
If the topic is "Is Trump a buffoon?" then yes, that's a fair characterization. It is also my opinion that he is much worse than a buffoon, while also not being nearly as bad as he is often portrayed.
>the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
I agree.
>I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines
I wasn't angry when I wrote that. Just like I can be angry and say something that's clearly not flamebait, I can be dispassionate and say something that is taken as flamebait. Many of my opinions about Trump, both positive and negative, add absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation, I mention some of my negative ones here partly to clarify the boundaries of agreement and disagreement between you and I.
>Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine.
I appreciate the respectful exchange, and your open mindedness.
My point was in a completely different direction. My statement is that the tribe I care about has very low standards for what constitute valid criticism. Together with my personal emotional reaction of this being sad and disheartening because I always assume my tribe was better than that.
Matters of majority/minority are inconsequential for this point, (they can be relevant to other points) my point is that those criticism that are fruit of blatant lies are not discarded, as if people did not care that they are false.
I love how white collar crimes which involve stealing money get punished by.....requiring them to pay money.
Someone can probably minmax the right amount to steal to make sure they make a profit at the end of it all.
It's possibly all three.
Whatever the case, it resembles a lot what my ADHD did when it was completely unmanaged and at peak. But I didn't have a few billion dollars to make people have to put up with me. It definitely smells like impulse control/executive function in some way or the other.
I bet he won't.
> there are rigorous rules about what you can and cannot say, and when, to ensure a fair playing field for investors.
Many of such rules when applied would have put half the wall street in jail after 2008. Instead they got bailouts. Many things that Trump has done would have got presidents impeached 50 years ago.
The market deserves this for being so irrational; the people who sold probably all made profit because they bought it far lower, and then it'll bounce back up - where the long-gamers will repurchase it at a discount taking a risk/gamble that they'd expect irrational dump of stock for the opportunity to buy when it's low.
Stock market games aren't as obvious as people make them out to be - and they wouldn't be happening if Elon wasn't convinced by someone to not take Tesla private like he wanted to.
We have tons of laws restricting speech -- against false advertising, against fraud, against libel. Contrary to your opinion, these laws are not against the first amendment.
Similarly, officers of a publicly traded company are prohibited from sharing types of information about the company except at certain times and places. No serious judge or legal scholar considers this to be contrary to the first amendment.
The first amendment isn't a slogan, it's led to an entire jurisprudence around it which you could familiarize yourself with if you so chose.
But Trump already had a public history of crazy tweets (global warming is a Chinese hoax) and statements (grab them by the pussy) and he got elected anyway, so I guess the bar for sanity and impulse control is higher for a CEO in the eyes of the American public than for a President.
Or maybe not, since it doesn't seem like either has actually suffered any material, significant consequences for their actions.
Specifically if a CEO decides to just destroy a company then investor can personally sue him or her.
Overall from what I see the concept of free speech is being misused so much it becomes quite difficult to understand which variant people are referring to.
I'm sorry, whose fault is it that Wall Street react to tweets? I mean really, If I'm long on Tesla (I'm not, I own none of their stock unless it's somehow tied up in my 401K) am I selling all my stock because Elon said he thinks it's too high? No, that would be stupid. Sounds like day traders/HFT's are the ones that choose to react to this stuff and then get burned and I have zero compassion for that. Live by the sword...
It has to do with insiders and public information regarding a publicly-traded company worth many billions of dollars.
Musk has an agreement with said investors and is bound by a bunch of rules he has agreed to.
He's a fool and it could really hurt him someday.
He really needs to stop tweeting about the stock.
Koch Industries, for example, is privately held.
He's not permitted to tweet anything that may materially impact the stock without prior board or general counsel approval, per his contempt agreement.
Obviously Jay Clayton is going to let him get away with it just like his prior violation of the Consent Decree, but for the brief period of time that the market forgets the SEC is toothless when it comes to Musk, this is nominally a big deal.
Isn't the actual SEC agreement a lot more specific than that? This first article [1] I found in a quick search from last year has a specific list, he has to have it cleared for including any of:
• any information about the company’s financial condition or guidance, potential or proposed mergers, acquisitions or joint ventures,
• production numbers or sales or delivery number (actual, forecasted, or projected),
• new or proposed business lines that are unrelated to then-existing business lines (presently includes vehicles, transportation, and sustainable energy products);
• projection, forecast, or estimate numbers regarding Tesla’s business that have not been previously published in official company guidance
• events regarding the company’s securities (including Musk’s acquisition or disposition of shares)
• nonpublic legal or regulatory findings or decisions;
• any event requiring the filing of a Form 8-K such as a change in control or a change in the company’s directors; any principal executive officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, principal operating officer, or any person performing similar functions
Were there other more general terms? If not, does pure opinion of "lol it's up too high" actually violate the letter of any of those? I guess it could be argued that maybe he's saying that due to information he knows that other people don't, but it's not itself disclosing anything at all.
May get an investigation, but if internally there has been nothing of material impact (and he didn't benefit in any way) and it's just Elon Musk going off I'm not sure it's a matter for the SEC vs the board and shareholders. But his genius/drive and crazy/lack of control are pretty well known quantities at this point and tied together. If he's not violating any actual laws and a majority of shareholders are fine taking the bad with the good vs other mixtures of bad and good (safe and conservative but low vision for example) that seems like it'd be up to them?
----
1: https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/26/elon-musk-sec-agree-to-gui...
It's also absolutely "any information about the company’s financial condition or guidance".
I don't see any way this doesn't fall in the list of bullets. Saying the stock price is too high is nothing but a guidance as to the company's financial condition.
That was my first glance interpretation, but I genuinely was curious if people with more legal knowledge would know if it was a correct one. Is the stock price actually part of "Tesla's business" in this context or a reflection of Tesla's business, with the actual numbers about that being the kinds of things that go into company guidance and reports. Additionally, "it should be lower" doesn't seem like it's at all literally a "projection, forecast, or estimate" but a statement of opinion. If said opinion isn't based on undisclosed fact is it a violation? Or is there precedent (seriously) that anything a CEO says inherently is going to be an issue because they can't possibly avoid knowing private info? Normally CEOs at big public corps are more careful by default so I'm kind of curious where it's come up before. That'd tie into the "guidance" aspect too it seems.
Anyway, to be clear this isn't meant to defend him per se it's just that I find law and how the specificity of language in it plays out interesting, so I was curious about other readings.
128 ETFs have Tesla in them and 55 have it as a top 15% position. Those ETFs likely have rules based on the sort of drop we saw today.
It’s easy to speak personally about not being an active trader but a careless tweets like this have consequences and can hurt people. The only argument to be made is that Elon doesn’t understand the effects of a tweet like this but I think we all know he’s a pretty smart guy.
Or maybe he wants to sell the company and thinks it needed to drop X% before a buyer would emerge.
There is nothing absurd about the fact he's an insider, and has access to the vast amounts of information, that people have trusted him with billions of dollars and that the flow of information is governed by rules, and it's an issue if integrity.
It's a lot of money and responsibility, it's not a joke.
Nobody is concerned that he Tweets weird things about his GF, that's fine, but he can't tweet things that need to carefully communicated, it's just irresponsible.
* General counsel quit
* Board no longer has insurance, Musk is "insuring" with . . . Tesla shares
* The Q1 financials are extremely suspicious
* Musk's meltdown during the ER call
* Musk's actions in the NASA conference
* Musk's meltdown on Twitter
* Musk's meltdown basically guaranteeing another SEC investigation
As a professional, you really have to check if it's in your client's best interests to continue to be exposed to this.
Sometimes I wonder if this is just an attention-seeking thing. People feel lonely, and then they say dramatic things to get attention. "Tesla is overvalued" -> stock tanks -> "hey people notice that I exist".
I have a lot of friends that I met playing games and this is a super common tactic. Instead of messaging me with "hey, want to play?" I get "i'm thinking about killing myself". The end result is the same, we play the game. I personally find it more enjoyable to play as a fun way to kill some free time, but they must get better results when their friends think they're distracting them from a suicide attempt. So they use what works.
I have to think that Elon Musk is up to something similar. I wonder if he has a therapist. It could help.
Literally nobody knows more about what's happening at Tesla than Elon Musk does. If he thinks it's too high, that's incredibly material information.
It's entirely rational to think it's equivalent to "I saw the non-public reports of sales projections and turns out they're plummeting" or something similar.
And therefore that Tesla is overvalued and you ought to sell, and buy back again only when it's at a price that takes that into account.
It's Wall Street's job to react to all publicly available information at the moment it becomes available. Statements by a CEO are very much included in that.
What the heck do day traders or swords have to do with it? Stock prices are determined mainly by large funds, like the ones that invest people's pensions.
But if one tweet is worth 1/9th as much as all the other public information you've used to arrive at that estimate, then I don't have a whole lot of faith in your number.
He also said it's too high when the stock was around 200
Did his fortune cookie say "When you can not be free to do things, be free from things instead" or what? ><
His vision for and achievements with both Tesla and SpaceX are amazing but I am afraid that one day one of these shenanigans will be his undoing which would be pretty sad because I really want to see Mars colonization happening.
Most become enamoured with distractions as their means rise. But instead of choosing colours for the kitchen renovation or which BMW defines them as a person, we're talking about how many sprawling villas to build and which private tropical island to buy to build them on.
An ascetic approach will increase the odds of Musk seeing Mars in his lifetime.
I doubt the few millions he would make from selling possessions make a big difference when compared to the billions in Tesla and SpaceX.
"Tesla stock price is too high imo" is one of the tamer tweets.
> I am selling almost all physical possessions. Will own no house.
> Now give people back their FREEDOM
> Rage, rage against the dying of the light of consciousness
(OK, the last one is apparently a quote from a poem, still...)
Sound more like tweets of a Hollywood celebrity who had one too many glasses of martini...
But the Tesla statement is way crazier than the rest because it's a material statement about the potential future earnings of the company.
Musk is a 'deep insider' who knows 'everything' about the company. When he says 'the stock is overvalued' - what does that really mean?
Did Tesla just lose a huge market? Was there a big accident we don't know about? Is there some huge hidden liability? Are sales forecasts way down? Did a deal fall through? Are they getting sued?
He's the CEO so those statements really matter.
I think we can give him a lot of leeway and expect that he say some funny things.
But when people give him billions of dollars ... he can't mess around with that, it's irresponsible. Especially since he's already in trouble with the SEC. It eats away at his credibility.
The tweet does not say anything material about earnings past, present, or future. Your statement is a false one.
Saying something about the 'stock price' is 100% saying something about the financial situation of the company.
That's an amended quote from a poem: https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night
Fun Fact: the poem was featured heavily in the movie Interstellar.
He can tweet as if he has gone mad or something. In one way or another it's all a facade. I would buy more into this possibility than that he is unaware of the consequences of his tweets or is actually in some sort of mentally unstable state right now. All look very theatrical for me.
The "my girlfriend is mad at me" part actually made me snicker a little. I think that is something many people can relate to. Also, there appears to be more americans joining the reopen camp as the whole debate shifts to freedom vs authoritarian.
Or you can also argue that he is being irrational in a rational way.
Go ahead, downvote me
> Asked later if the tweet was vetted or made in jest, the CEO said: “No.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-stock-falls-after-ceo-twe...
It's possible tomorrow that he wakes up, and gets on with it. It being: well, he's pretty much defined what it is over the past 10+ years. It's humbling and exciting. He is the best of us. I hope that happens.
Must make it really hard to count those billions while people can't pay rent next month and actually will have to sell their house or get evicted...
If you critique everyone that way, then you've got at least two very opposed value systems to talk about today.
Clearly, like most absolutist positions (cue "only a sith..." quote), disregarding everything he says would be foolish.