That seems very possible.
I think the reality of scaling up Tesla to live up to its valuation might be too daunting for Elon to handle. It might even be impossible. EV sales as a % of total vehicle sales is surprisingly low. If EV's do take off, it's likely to be the established car manufacturers who are good at making cars at scale who eventually capitalize on the opportunity. And the most likely to drive the S-curve adoption.
Being taken out by the SEC would be a way to keep confidence in Elon Musk Inc going which would obviously be beneficial to his other companies. He could even team up with Mark Cuban to rail against them on Twitter.
This is what I used to think, but every year the "Tesla killers" fail to kill, or even wound. I never even hear about the other EV's by themselves, only as the competition to Tesla. Anybody who watches the news would have known that the Model 3 was a colossal failure. But it wasn't. It was just 6 months late, which is not bad given the scale of the project. The narrative is just not reality here. Tesla has a head start on the industry. That doesn't guarantee anything, but I think that it's a bigger advantage to Tesla than it would be to any other car company because one of Elon Musk's strengths (Spacex too) is iteration speed.
Last I heard they got the price down to $45K, so they are in striking distance of the $35K target and won't stop there. EV's are mechanically simpler than gas powered cars. Once the technology and economies of scale are there, they will be cheaper. And I don't see any other company in a better position to get there first.
Predicting that the established players being the ones to take the lead in a new technology sounds like common sense, but it isn't:
> It's likely to be the established electronics companies who are good at making electronics that take the lead in semi-conductor manufacturing.
> It's likely to be the established mail order companies who are good at delivery logistics that take the lead in online retail.
> It's likely to be the established taxi companies who are good at running taxi fleets (and have a legal monopoly) that take the lead in ride sharing apps.
If the pattern holds (which is not by any means guaranteed), Tesla has more to fear from a yet to be founded startup than it does from the legacy car manufacturers.
That's true, but I think it's because of bad marketing rather than bad technology. The Chevy Bolt has the specs to beat the Model 3, but it is being positioned as a low-end car, a competitor to the Honda Civic rather than the Model 3. Power seats, for example, are not even offered as an option. That is not a car a rich person is going to buy to impress their friends. But GM could easily turn it into such a car. They obviously know how to make power seats. All the heavy lifting has been done. I have no idea why they aren't doing it, but GM has a long history of shooting itself in the foot when it comes to electric vehicles.
Crazy genius CEO who is always in the news, builds rockets in his spare time, launches his car into space, smokes weed with Joe Rogan, and constantly thumbs his nose at the authorities. Customers like this company so much that the CEO can ask for volunteers and actually get a response. $0 advertising budget. All marketing by word of mouth. Direct to consumer sales with transparent pricing.
Standard car company. Nobody even knows the CEO's name, and he only speaks publicly in boring prepared statements run through a huge PR team. Massive advertising budget producing totally boring car ads that are indistinguishable from other companies. Sold through dealerships and sketchy salesmen who negotiate a different price for each customer.
I can see the big companies beating Tesla on tech a lot more than I can see them becoming like Tesla as a brand.
uh, what's elons PR budget?
Toyota. Don't know the CEOs name. Instead I "know" that they produce vehicles with extremely high quality that will last me a good long time. I "know" that my F-150 will get the job done. My BMW is a status symbol.
Really? What specifications? The Model 3 is better in pretty much every way in every comparison I've ever seen, including specs directly from the manufacturer websites.
Could be that this is the same large company problem that is often seen elsewhere. In most established firms it impossible to bring up a new line of products that cannibalize the existing products. In order for any large car manufacturer to make it big on EV, they have to allow their EV offering to beat their existing products, that's impossible in most companies.
Besides merely the car isn't what Tesla is about. The fact that you can bypass dealerships, online ordering, supercharger network etc kind of add to a new paradigm of doing things. For existing manufacturers, they will have to kill a lot of their existing business to get that to work.
Almost any car company could, which is interesting. The entire powertrain and infotainment system are manufactured by LG Chem and sold as an integrated package.
GM made it into a minimum viable product, and since they're GM, it's pretty meh. It would be interesting to see what Hyundai or Kia would do with the same tech.
I'd like to blame terrible marketing, but I should've paid closer attention.
I can't imagine Apple releasing the yPhone alongside the iPhone.
> "why would you spent so much money for a device you'll throw away in less then 24 month anyway?"
The "Tesla killers" have been sleeping, but they are about to wake up. No doubt Tesla jump started the market, but the other manufacturers have decades of experience. On top of that, no other car maker has the problems that Tesla does due to its CEO and his inability to stop tweeting. Whilst Tesla had a start start, it fell behind in many other areas like production, delivery and customer service. Other car companies have been doing this successfully for decades. There are hundreds of horror stories on the Tesla forums and on reddit of people having nightmarish customer service experiences with Tesla, and delivery problems. Elon Musk himself has enlisted volunteers to help deliver the cars. Do you think an established car manufacturer like Toyota or Ford will have any problem in getting their vehicles anywhere on the face of the Earth?
When the giants have fully woken up, I suspect they'll utterly trample on Tesla.
- how will they sell them? Dealerships are 100% hostile to EVs, they won't bring in the maintenance business
- Oh, you think the giants are good at customer service? The only difference in complaints in your example is that dealer networks distribute the dissatisfaction, but Tesla forums get all of them
With supply chains setup years in advance because they know how to do logistics.
> - how will they sell them? Dealerships are 100% hostile to EVs, they won't bring in the maintenance business
Fair, but not insurmountable.
> Oh, you think the giants are good at customer service? The only difference in complaints in your example is that dealer networks distribute the dissatisfaction, but Tesla forums get all of them
Every company is at shitty at customer service as they can be while not destroying their business.
Good on them for changing their ingrained oil economy mindsets though. I'm sure it was entirely a moral choice by the hundreds of big auto execs worldwide.
Besides: The Germans are struggling just as much delivering their highly announced flagship EVs.
A $25k Model 3 isn't happening in 3 years, considering the Model 3 has been out for over a year now and the $35k model is nowhere in sight.
What Tesla killers have failed?
> Last I heard they got the price down to $45K, so they are in striking distance of the $35K target and won't stop there
Are they? That's a 20% price drop still to go.
All of them. Tesla is still eating everybody's lunch in the EV space, right?
Tesla is the first company to mass manufacture EV's. At this stage of tech / economy of scale a 20% price drop is trivial.
If BMW comes out with a luxury sedan electric car that would be a tesla killer.
Instead they produced the i3 which is ugly as sin, has only 180 mile range even WITH the gas-powered range extender, and underwhelming performance, and the i8 which is an overpriced plug-in hybrid with only 15 miles of electric range.
Fisker, Aptera, Lucid, Faraday Future
Edit: Forgot supposed Apple car :)
Though if it's all too much and he'd rather focus on rockets, I don't see why he wouldn't just step down as Tesla CEO. If things go south he could just blame the new CEO.
Why donate? He can just slowly sell shares just like Bezos does with Amazon. And Starlink is something Musk can't fun alone.
and the propulsion department
Whether it's for personality reasons or for the sake of keeping his other companies well respected, is he unwilling to let the public lose confidence in him and/or his projects?
My guess is he doesn't care that much about our opinions of him, personally and professionally.
He might be picking a fight with the SEC simply because he can.
There's something to be said for having "FU money" and using it, in the near-literal sense.
Musk is playing with fire.
Either he's very bad at this and getting worse, or he knows something we don't.
Seems like a nice idea to encourage him to start a car company some where in Germany. Also the fact that over zealous prosecutors go after industrialists won't exactly motivate(more like scare away) people wanting to start companies.
Sometimes you must opt not to fight a few contests. The fact that you can win, means a net negative in the larger scheme of things.
Strange how the invisible hand of the market gets paralyzed when it comes to "job creators". If every industrialist relocates to the Bahamas or Panama but the opportunity for new companies is still there - new people you've never heard of will crop up to start them!
Hahahaha. Everything about his twitter account says the exact opposite.
EV's have already taken off. It's only a matter of time before the fossil fuelled car business is just a niche product.
But Elon Musk has said that that's what he wants. He doesn't want Tesla to win, he wants EVs to win. That's one of the things I admire about him.
But be acting flaky and irresponsible, and picking stupid fights, he's undermining people's confidence in Elon Musk, which reflects on his companies, and possibly on his product: EVs. I think it would be much better for his companies and for EVs in general if he ran his companies in a responsible and reliable manner, and he didn't pick stupid fights.
Or Musk just doesn’t give a damn about the SEC considering they take his tweets more seriously than the deliberate market manipulation practised daily by various publications in concert with big investors.
Maybe Musk feels that spaceflight to Mars is so close that he can afford to thumb his nose at US regulators because he will just move to Mars where they have no reach.
What’s surprising about it?
Only some Chinese electric car companies grow faster than Tesla.
So far it looks like in 10 years electric cars will get cheaper than gas cars, which makes the case for the future earnings potential.
Elon Musk just redefined the expression full self driving to having all the features for self driving in the last conference call, like detecting signs and changing lanes automatically.
Of course we know that it's very far from it (even though I believe Tesla is doing the data gathering part extremely well)
He doesn't want to admit he fucked up and failed because it would cast doubt on all his other half-baked ideas.
Tesla will definitely feel the pressure from other car manufacturers, but so far it has nothing much to worry about as the only really viable game changer as of now is the Hyundai Kona Electric. The new Audi e-tron was promising but ruined it with using electric mirrors which require your eyes to focus on far objects and near objects unlike a normal mirror, and heavy steel frame, which pretty much negates any excellent regen (due to heavy weight).
The Jaguar i-Pace is also a good alternative, but I feel like Hyundai's Kona E is an unbeatable value. Forget Chevy Bolt & Nissan Leaf....garbage.
The model 3 is seriously bad....did you see the interior? it's empty....its completely void apart from the giant tablet thing....the price is it's killing point.....now that there are are viable alternatives.
I want a Tesla Roadster for my next car, but that $200k price tag is hard to swallow. If they could produce a $120k model with a 300 mile range and 0-60 in around 3 seconds rather than a 620 mile range with 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, I'd buy it.
But really if anybody else came up with a small, sporty, EV coupe, I'd consider it. The Model S P100D is a quick car, but way too big. Even the smaller Model 3 is bigger than what I'd like.
The Zoe is 4m long and about 1.70m wide. That's the same dimensions as the rest of the cars in its segment. This "Ford Fiesta" size is great for European cities, and the cars don't feel compromised on the higher speed roads, as their size and weight makes them more agile than bigger cars, whose only real advantage is space and stability at higher, illegal speeds.
The Model 3 is a reasonable 30k car. maybe 35. If they can actually get the price down to that point it might be worth it.
He's been CEO of a public Tesla for 9 years now. Respecting the SEC and securities laws is just part of the CEO job. He's got great lawyers that remind him of this daily. And you'd think the $20 million fine and loss of the Chairman role would be enough of a wake up call.
It's so frustrating to see, because I really want Tesla to succeed and I think he's one of the great executives of our time, and he wastes his time and attention on short-term inanities like short sellers and daily stock price movements. If he just buckled down and built cars, he'd blow all of those short sellers out of the water.
He should respect the law, as in abide the law. But should he really show respect, as in deep admiration to the law or the commission? I know America is not the land of the free it used to be, but it is not a totalitarian state yet.
And although I love Elon Musk, the SEC is right; he shouldn't be twittering stupid things to temporarily boost his stock price. There's no gain for him in it, it's misleading, and it undermines long term trust in him and his company.
>due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
Which seems like a perfectly reasonable proposition.
He also just can't stand the hit to his ego to have so many people shorting his company.
You don't start two or rather three industries with those qualities
The closest I can think of is his early e-banking-ish stuff.
- Commercial space launches (admittedly there's competition, but with different goals/ none have come this far) with LANDING ROCKETS
- Consumer electric vehicles (How would you disagree with this? There was nothing serious before Tesla. )
He hasn't invented much technology. But often enough he saw that we're not using our tech to its full potential and worked on doing exactly that. Pretty successfully, I would say.
I would disagree with this by saying he wasn't with Tesla at the start. He saw the potential of the industry early - but he didn't start it.
Elon is a human just like all of us. Look at his antics with twitter, Joe Rogan, and PewDiePie. It's not 4-D chess, it's just a normal person acting like a normal person, ie: stupid at times.
He did that in three months.
I had a friend once who had a (natural) manic episode and wanted to get rid of a non-running car in his garage. He cut the car into small chunks with a large Dremel-type tool and threw it away in the dumpster. I mean the entire car. This took about 48 hours. The dumpster was so heavy they had to bring a special truck, and someone had to ask who threw away a car. I think the apartment complex forwarded him a bill for special industrial trash removal.
HN-worthy nerd tangent:
Remember all the discussion a while back about the threat posed to humanity by runaway self-improving AI super-intelligences?
I've always thought that you don't need a super-intelligence in the IQ sense. You just need something with the intelligence of a moderately smart human with super-focus and super-motivation. Imagine something that ran by default in the state you describe above but with no cognitive impairment side effects. That would be super-human. A "race" of these would find conquering humanity trivial even if their IQ-type intelligence were merely comparable to ours.
Most humans exist in a state of low-grade depression most of the time. I have for years thought that the dopamine pathway is the rate limiter for human achievement, not IQ or memory or anything else. It's one of the many reasons I'm a moderate IQ skeptic. Our reward/motivation system is calibrated for a very slow hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The problem is that we have not found a good way to artificially boost this without side effects that impair cognition in ways that result in things like dumb comments on Twitter that get you in trouble with the SEC.
Amphetamine|coke|mania is a helluvadrug.
Take care of yourself.
Yeah they may pump out a few more Model X's, S's, 3's with some minor mods, keep milking the cow (if it even is a cow, maybe a potential cow, and also if they can even get to a point where they can scale) and eventually... who knows? The scale problem hasn't even been solved yet. You're not going to find another leader with that much raw energy, intellect, drive, and passion who's going to have a chance at bringing us to that reality even close to as quick as Musk can.
My only concern with the whole show is, can anyone (particularly seasoned auto veterans) stand to work with him long enough for the scale and production problems be addressed. As well as iron out all the wrinkles with the designs (some notoriously faulty parts which take quite a long time to fix sometimes..)
What confuses me is that TSLA's price hasn't suffered. I have a hunch this isn't as serious of a matter as is being reported, but I'm not sure why.
He's not yet used to the idea he has to be hyper specific with some data.
He's a showman, a salesperson, he's always going to err on the positive.
Constantly pitching, selling.
It's the SEC etc. that care about very specific details that could affect the company.
So while you're right - as a CEO has has 'no excuse' - the fact he would do it makes perfect sense.
I don't think he's trolling anyone, he's the same as he ever was, probably under a lot of stress, a little manic, and avoiding what he probably thinks is the narrow confines of corporate culture and language.
If I'm to speculate, it's because last time Tesla tangoed with the SEC, it got a slap on the wrist. Perhaps the market is expecting more of the same.
Tangentally - I don't know how common this belief is, but Matt Levine in his newsletter argued that the best way the SEC could protect Tesla's shareholders is to not get rid of Elon Musk regardless of his behaviour. I'm not saying that is Levine's belief - it might have been a thought experiment - and I disagree wholeheartedly with it because it doesn't consider 2nd order effects on CEO behaviour against a powerless SEC and how this would impact other non-Tesla shareholders.
It seems he is changing his mind again about that settlement. Apparently nothing is settled with Musk. He changes his mind daily. How can someone run a company like this? Employees must be afraid to do anything without his say-so, and even then it may not hold true for long.
He flagrantly violated that condition of his settlement. That's what makes it a big deal.
On Feb 19 Elon Musk tweets 500K cars.
On Feb 20 Tesla General Counsel, after 2 months on the job, says "fuck this, I'm too old to put up with this shit, I'm outta here".
Actually the GC was a little more diplomatic. As CNBC put it: A person familiar with the matter said he was not a good cultural fit with Tesla and wanted to return to his family and law practice in Washington, D.C.
The legacy manufacturers have all caught the bug, batteries are achieving mass scale in China, and electric vehicles have irreversible momentum.
In his mind, he was treated 'super unfairly' by bullies while the guardians stood by and did nothing. He really dislikes them for that.
Is his open disrespect a mature response? No. It's idealistic if not naive and he could be about to find out that the SEC does have teeth.
 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/25/inside_the_ms_trial... (sorry, couldn't find a better source)
"The SEC similarly should be leading the charge against purveyors of short-and-distort schemes. Unfortunately, the commission inexplicably has been reluctant to do so.Just like a pump-and-dump, a short-and-distort scheme violates the Securities Exchange Act antifraud provisions, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. In fact, it has brought hardly any enforcement actions targeting this conduct."
Maybe this is the link you wanted to post (contains the quote you posted):
He lied to investors to pump the stock. It was blatant.
Thank you. Our next question is from Colin Rusch with Oppenheimer.
Thanks so much. Can you talk a little bit about the geographic dispersion for the guidance for 2019, where you're expecting the Model 3s to sell through as well as the other models?
Well, I think we did, actually. Yes, it's clear in our letter.
We indicated in Q1, we will start delivering Model 3s in Europe and China. And we also shared a chart showing the potential market size for midsized premium sedans in North America, Europe and Asia, suggesting those markets could be even bigger. So I think that gives a good sense of where we'll be. And we'll launch the right-hand drive version at some point to go to the other markets.
Yes. Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year.
Also, since the 500,000 number was already public and referring only to Model 3s, it's entirely plausible that 500,000 total cars for the year is not material. The SEC conveniently leaves out this exculpatory evidence.
I don't know that the contract is publicly released, but https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17983032/elon-musk-sec-s... says:
> The company also has to employ a lawyer who will oversee all of Musk’s communications, including his tweets. This person will have to pre-approve any message coming from Musk that could have a material impact on the company’s stock price.
It doesn’t matter what he tweeted. It matters that he tweeted something related to Tesla and that something wasn’t pre-approved by Tesla’s legal department before he tweeted it.
> In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018.
The only sane interpretation is that Musk was referring to the potential market size to build on Deepak's statement.
If Musk was referring to anticipated 2019 Model 3 production/sales, then their 8-K guided for 360-400k total vehicles, and Musk on the call a few hours later guided for 450-600k vehicles (assuming historical S/X sales). Which would be nuts.
> probably what will happen is that Musk will go to court and the judge will yell at him and he will say he’s sorry and then six minutes later he’ll tweet “my fingers were crossed and I am NOT sorry” and he’ll go on TV that night and be like “you know what I have contempt for? Court,” and everyone will just be like “ehhhhhhhhhh good enough.”
( https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/elon-m... )
A very small move of the SEC can destroy those investors chances of ever being paid back.
It's the same reason for making the company take on too much debt. When you're big the government won't let you fail. That's the belief anyway.
I would not trust Matt Levine on this.
Compare the prior incident -- I'll use a summary from Matt Levine again:
> Remember when Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk committed securities fraud by falsely claiming on Twitter that he had secured financing to take Tesla private? Remember how Musk and Tesla settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission by agreeing to pay fines and have Tesla lawyers review Musk’s tweets before he sent them out? Remember how Tesla hired a high-powered Washington litigator as its general counsel and Musk’s Twitter babysitter? Remember how Musk then said in a 60 Minutes interview that he and Tesla were absolutely not ever going to comply with the terms of the settlement that they had signed, that he does not respect the SEC, and that no lawyer would ever pre-clear his tweets?
But heck, let's see what CBS said about it. Most of this is just quotes from the interview:
> His warzone tweeting drew fire when out of the blue in August he tweeted, quote: "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." The SEC disputed that claim and charged him with securities fraud. The case was settled with Musk agreeing that his "communications relating to the company… including… Twitter" would be overseen by his board.
> Lesley Stahl: Have you had any of your tweets censored since the settlement?
> Elon Musk: No.
> Lesley Stahl: None? Does someone have to read them before they go out?
> Lesley Stahl: So your tweets are not supervised?
> Elon Musk: The only tweets that would have to be say reviewed would be if a tweet had a probability of causing a movement in the stock.
> Lesley Stahl: But how do they know if it's going to move the market if they're not reading all of them before you send them?
> Elon Musk: Well, I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows?
> Lesley Stahl: Are you serious?
> Elon Musk: Nobody's perfect.
> Lesley Stahl: Look at you.
> Elon Musk: I want to be clear. I do not respect the SEC. I do not respect them.
( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-the-2018-60... )
So, he signed a binding legal agreement committing to have his tweets reviewed pre-publication, and immediately did a television interview in which the main messages were (1) that he wasn't complying with the settlement, (2) that he planned never to comply with the settlement, and (3) that he did not respect the SEC.
Truly, a man of his word.
CNBC didn't air the full interview, and the cut at that point of the interview as very misleading. Here is what Elon said in response, "This is a very misleading edit. Please post the full transcript where I complete the sentence." Source:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1072373731039870979
He also said "60 Mins actually had several hours of interview time, which they distilled to 14 mins. Many stories could been told with that time. This was accurate as viewed from an Upper East Side Manhattan dinner party." Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1072351502654672897
To be totally clear, the sentence being referred to is no part of what I mentioned above, and would not appear to be relevant.
> You are cherry picking a few minutes from an interview that was several hours long.
Was there another part of the interview where he said he would comply? That seems unlikely, given that he still hasn't complied. This isn't "cherry picking" so much as "taking the part that we're talking about, and ignoring the parts that have nothing to do with it".
Is he going to stick to the settlement? Who knows. Did he break the law by tweeting the figures? No. Why not? Because the information was already public. He said it in recent Tesla earning. Please google for more information.
No, he isn't. The thread you link is discussing this sentence:
> I mean that's not realistic, because I am the largest shareholder in the company and a very high percentage of the shareholders support me and the company. So essentially I could just pull for a shareholder vote and get anything I want [provided I could get support for at least a third of the other shareholders].
(The material within  was apparently not quoted by CBS. This is a fair complaint for Elon Musk to make, but it's not part of anything I quoted, and it doesn't address the settlement, compliance efforts, or the relationship between Musk and the SEC.)
Later Elon called SEC out on their lack of due diligence. "SEC forgot to read Tesla earnings transcript, which clearly states 350k to 500k. How embarrassing … " Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1100215984713957376
The battery pack alone costs more than $20k.
Tesla can’t produce that car for $15k and make a profit.
Gigafactory Battery production is expected to continue ramping up, with higher throughput lines, but operating costs are still exorbitant, and battery production is barely breaking even at current production. In fact, from what I know they’re in the red.
I don’t see a $35k Model 3 until battery production costs cut in half, which I won’t expect for another 3-5 years.
I know Tesla is beginning to manufacture it’s own batteries, but to be honest, I don’t see them succeeding.
I also hope that SEC would maintains an objective view of the issue and not get offended at the lack of respect from Musk.
Finally, I would love for Tesla to continue to thrive under Musk's leadership, unless he continues to shoot himself in his foot.
It was fun for this investor when I sold calls not too long ago after Musk's last meltdown. Probably not fun for the buyer of that contract who exercised and is now $30/share in the hole.
That and they have about a billion dollars in debt coming due in a few days. Gotta keep that distraction going.
He's done all of this to himself, and he can't seem to stop.
I would've made the same comments if he were not making them. If it's green, sure you can be skeptical, but that does not prevent people from reading the comment for its merit. If someone wants to call someone a short just for being pessimistic about Musk's behavior then just add that to the pile.
Musk blames all his problems on shorts. Tesla's failures are not his responsibility. He's only responsible for its successes, including those of interns who make the media. Musk is the only one who can get things done quickly at Tesla because only what he says goes, and even his word does not mean much lately. Had a settlement with the SEC, backed out. Settled again with a worse deal a day later, and soon after violates the agreement and states on TV he never had any intention of following it.
Musk himself has $55.8B in compensation tied to market cap at stake, which gives him equally self-interested reasons to balance things out. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-e...
But they certainly can engineer a fake rumor of an SEC requesting contempt of court by manipulating journalists and forging documents, if sufficiently motivated. Consider the SuperMicro story submitted to mainstream publications last year that was obviously fake and caused a massive decline in their stock. I don't think it's above a sophisticated actor to socially engineer a journalist in service of a "short and distort" campaign. Even Jim Cramer laid out the typical tactics of a short attack: get a short position open and then spread false rumors to a "bozo reporter" 
I'm no big Elon Musk fan, but the funny thing is -- correct me if I'm missing something -- I can't seem to find any evidence that the SEC ever published the complaint documents supplied by a USA today journalist on the sec.gov website. Searching for "Case 1:18-cv-08865-AJN" only brings up the original settlement from October 2018. That alone gives me pause.
This is waayayayayayaaaayyyyy off the deep end. Please check your priors, they are busted.
Furthermore, why haven't we heard anything from the SEC? They are an increasingly transparent organization. Why haven't they issued a press release or published their court filings on their website? Are we supposed to just trust a journalist's word and ability to verify that an anonymous "source familiar with the matter" isn't just bamboozling them?
of course it's common.
There's one excellent example of illegal market manipulation.
Something of the scope you're suggesting has literally never happened, as far as I am aware. Certainly not recently (i.e. last forty years) in the US. Bet ya fifty dollars the SEC did in fact send this show-cause order.
Sorry, but this story originally came from Bloomberg and I lost all faith in Bloomberg after they refused to retract the SuperMicro story. I will believe it when I see it on the sec.gov website. Until then it's as good as bullshit in my eyes.
He and his legal team will absolutely receive copies of any court filings in this case.
Individual filings won't be on sec.gov. You can check PACER, though.
This filing also indicates Musk's legal team chimed in about the tweet in response to the SEC's inquiry (page five). If that weren't the case, Musk would certainly contest that statement. This bit too:
> "According to counsel, immediately upon seeing Musk's 7:15 tweet for the first time after Musk had published it, Tesla's "Designated Securites Counsel" arranged to meet with Musk, and they drafted Musk's corrective 11:41 tweet together."
For an application to a court seeking that someone be held in contempt of court? Yes, this absolutely would be on sec.gov as a 'litigation release' and there are 2500 such examples listed there. If it were true and the SEC is just waiting to issue a press release, I think it's prudent to actually wait for that rather than believe some apocryphal document.
As for contesting the statement, who knows? He is not exactly the most stable individual these days (which is what makes him and his companies a natural target for shortsellers)
The only difference between Tesla and any other company is that Tesla has a lot more reasons why people want to be short.
You know. Them.
He's got the military industrial complex against him with SpaceX, and the oil and car industries against him with Tesla. It doesn't get more imposing than that.
I’d guess their unaided awareness within target market must be over 50% and aided over 95%.
Brand awareness requires upkeep.
I can think about just one possibility linked with age, but found it unlikely: if average age of owners of S, 3 and X models was between 43 and 53 years, it would be unlikely to drop significally. Didn't Musk promised for next models to be cheaper (and more affordable for younger generations) than previous?
Though idea of Musk running campain targeting younger and rebellous generations seems implausible for me regardless of price.
Electric cars are associated with environmentalists. This makes your brand hard to market to conservatives, despite the fact that they are big part of the luxury car market. I wonder if sticking it to the SEC could be used to rebrand Tesla...
> Crazy Days And Nights Is A Gossip Site. The Site Publishes Rumors, Conjecture, And Fiction.
Not what I would use for gathering real information.
Who the fuck this people are?!?! Besides, no one got the 420 stock price joke???!?!!
There is definitely a cabal gunning for him, what I don't understand is why. There are funds short TSLA who are talking their books as well, but he seems to have provoked a deeper coalition of interests that is hard to pinpoint. All I can tell is much of the criticism seems contrived.
Maybe he's truly checked out because this is all just a simulation, and he wants to test what is symbolic and artificial, and what is real because philosophically and existentially it's the only meaningful problem to address, but from an investor and mental health perspective, that's dissociation and if that's really the case, I hope he likes painting in watercolors.
They want him to follow the other terms of the settlement, presumably. The fine's only a part of the punishment.
That the SEC settlement required Musk to hire a lawyer and institute a review process indicates that at least one publicly-trated company wasn't having tweets reviewed, and the SEC complaint this time around alleges this tweet wasn't reviewed either.
Having the sense to review tweets is different than having an SEC settlement enforcing such action.