Hacker News Reader

> This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his behalf.

Are you arguing that when he signs his name and certifies that the (short) form is "true, complete and correct" that he is not responsible because the form was prepared by an attorney of his?

> being seized upon by the media

How did "the media" seize on this? When I last checked, there were zero articles. And even if they had, why wouldn't discussion be merited?

Does it matter? Was there any consequence of filling out a form then doing something different?

I have heard it several times already today, but so what a form was filled out wrong, is there any consequence to that that anybody would care about? (I doubt anybody complaining about it actually knows anything about how important it is, it’s just being latched on to because it’s a way to match events with preexisting opinions)

Yes. He is currently in court claiming SEC is picking on him on another matter and this (and the fact that the filing was late) is likely going to hurt his case with the judge. And while I don't like speculating, since you're asking me to do so I'll add that it's entirely possible that any misrepresentations here get pursued on its own merits, as well.

It’s worth pointing out that the SEC is extremely image conscious. They count on their reputation as the hammer of god himself to keep traders in line. Elon repeatedly snubbing them is going to tempt them to pull out all the stops.

SEC's actual power is extremely limited. -- This is why e.g. with ICO scams you see them taking no action at all or imposing a fine that is just a cost-of-doing-business percentage of what they took in from the general public, at least against ICOs that are wealthy enough to keep the SEC tied up in litigation.

"He broke the rules!" ok, sure.

But why is that form there and what is the consequence of filing one way or the other? I mean besides being punished for doing it wrong, why does that rule exist and what are the effects of filling it out one way or the other?

Why is this anything more than an administrative mistake? Did he get some benefit from filing the form that way?

... or, what it seems, is this just a "gotcha!" for people to complain about on the Internet.

"Schedule 13D is intended to provide transparency to the public regarding who these shareholders are and why they have taken a significant stake in the company. The form signifies to the public that a change of control, such as a hostile takeover or proxy fight, might be about to take place so that current shareholders in the company can make informed investing and voting decisions."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp

I think there is a perception that he regularly engages in bad faith, and this is not a simple one-off administrative mistake.

It's really isn't a lot to ask to fill a form out correctly for transparencies sake. Especially with something as important as this.

I'd almost say it was on purpose for whatever reason. You don't get rich like Elon by hiring incompetent lawyers.

13Ds and Gs have different filing thresholds and requirements

> When I last checked, there were zero articles.

Can I introduce you to Matt Levine? A very popular opinion columnist - you can get his column by email even without a subscription to Bloomberg, but he’s one of the reasons I subscribe.

His take on this was emailed out midday yesterday and I enjoyed every minute: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-04/elon-m...

You can find an archive of columns here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe... and the email sign up is at http://www.bloomberg.com/newsletters (it used to be a bit easier to find… but pick “Money Stuff” from the list)

I personally find this style of writing pretentious, obnoxious and egotistical.

Yes, it can be. It can also be funny and informative, though. Check out the archives, a lot of topics build on past articles and not everything is a joke, sometimes there are clear and simple explanations of financial terms: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...

He keep making jokes about how boring and unimportant he is compared to the people he writes about. How do you get pretentious or egotistical?

He's a harvard/yale educated lawyer who worked at goldman and Wachtell, Lipton. Of course he's pretentious and egotistical. He's also funny and informative.

Well, the recommend may have bounced off the intended target but I appreciated it.

> How did "the media" seize on this?

Let me ask you this: how is it that you are aware of the form and how Musk (or, more likely, a lawyer) filled it out?

It is being reported [1]. Every word in an article for a major news outlet is meaningful in some way. Journalists are not provided limitless word count, so decisions have to be made about what is and is not included.

Now, one could definitely argue that journalists merely reported on it as they were trying to divine Musk's intentions. But to then interpret this, as the GP has done, as a sign of Musk's dishonesty and lack of integrity is too great a leap (in my opinion).

[1] https://news.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+twitter+passive

Edit: Also, I love your handle. "Wildcat. Wiiiiiild cat."

Those articles are mostly about announcing as a passive investor -- not whether he misled the public in his filings. This collection of articles only further makes the case that the media has mostly reported uncritically his misleading claim.

RE: handle, thanks!

Also, I have since-posting found one article kinda about this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-thumbs-his-nose-at...

However, even that article is just about the lateness of the filing. It doesn't mention the debate over whether the filing itself was misleading. And this is the best example I could find!

> This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the worst possible light.

Elon openly attacks and disregards SEC. He doesn’t have any benefit of the doubt left, when it comes to activities that SEC is suppose to be regulating.

This is the USA. You are allowed to insult the government.

You’re allowed to insult the government. You’re not allowed to lie to the government when filing substantive documents.

What is the substantive effect on the public (aka "investors") if this value in this field on this form was incorrect?

This is a tempest in a teapot. People who don't like Musk are pointing to it and saying, "See? SEE!? He is a liar. He is bad."

But the reality is, this doesn't actually hurt anyone and its not really a big deal at all.

But let's take the least charitable interpretation and play it out: Musk filled out the form himself. He intentionally with malice aforethought lied. The day after the SEC form becomes public, he takes a board seat. What is the material damage done to the public?

Twitter shareholders got a huge 2-day pop. That would have happened regardless of Elon's intent.

>You are allowed to insult the government.

That's entirely irrelevant. The point is that his past behavior shows a pattern of disregarding financial laws.

It's ironic you call it out as a technicality because whether a lawyer or Musk filled out the form is itself a technicality

Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney".

> Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney".

Yes, you do. Many crimes, like tax evasion, require “willful” violation, so blaming your tax attorney is a valid defense.

This is not tax evasion.

What? Of course it does. There are many cases that if you can prove you didn't know you get away scot-free.

If the difference is not material, then why are there two different forms? Genuine question as this is not my area of expertise

> This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his behalf.

That makes it worse, not less bad. It makes the good-faith-mistake defense untenable.

> This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his behalf.

This is like saying that you can’t be responsible for tax dodging because your accountant filed on your behalf.

> This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the worst possible light.

Almost all of securities law is “technicalities”, it still has the force of law.