Yes. The bankers will take it and then lateral/retire ASAP. YBGIBG.

$185 pre-market.

almost looks like a lead underwriter talking about bankruptcy is somehow bearish for the stock?

Apparently real email. Thoughts?

Good opp to short if moves stock

smile face yesterday on twitter then sends an email he knows will get leaked?

What a ****show. $40 billion company trading like a fraud penny stock.

Let's pretend for a minute this is remotely true. How do they get there? I'm befuddled.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

This stock is hilarious

How do they get where? 90k deliveries or 50k orders?

It sounds like a big number but remember that in April Tesla opened up SR+ in Europe/China and Model 3 to UK/ROW. Leasing also created a one time burst.

Order rate likely already returned to its normal rate. Elon wants you to extrapolate the 50k over the remaining 5 weeks of the quarter just like he wanted you to extrapolate the 50% delivered in last 10 days of March.

the fact that this is a supposed leak of an internal email already tells you everything there is to know.

if everything was great, they could just respond to the morgan stanley call with an official statement and 8k.

A "leaked" email is one way to get around the Twitter restrictions.

Its a written communication that contains new information regarding sales. It requires pre-approval. Especially considering the past pattern of these emails being leaked immediately.

If this was a Dem nominated SEC (or really any SEC under any previous president and legislature) Elon might actually be controlled.

But Clayton, Pierce, and Roisman were nominated and confirmed with a specific mandate to allow capital to flow freely.

It's an internal email. I don't believe it is covered by the agreement, regardless on the history of these being "leaked". Unless Musk is the leaker. That's a new can of worms.

Blaming Trump for this is a bit rich and a classic example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Under Clinton/Bush/Obama SECs:

- Decades-long Madoff ponzi for $50 billion, which the SEC even received tipoffs about and failed to find it despite impossible returns.
- MBS in the trillions, fraudulently sold (for which the banks escaped with no meaningful penalties and were in fact bailed out with taxpayer funds)
- Fraudcoins and ICOs in the billions allowed to run rampant
- Musk prior frauds/lies before 2017 (fraudulent and self enriching SolarCity purchase was approved under Obama)
- The 1999 Internet bubble and its fraudulent claims and companies

That not to say that Clayton isn't a joke. But the notion that previous SECs would have done a better job is a tad silly.

I'm just going by what Trump specifically stated he would do to the regulatory regime and by the resumes and public statements of the commissioners he ended up appointing. Look at Hester Peirce's recent speech at Rutgers for a great summary of her perspective on how she can help investors by facilitating capital formation and not putting in place unnecessary barriers.

You can't be in favor of less regulation and then say oh, thats not Trump's responsibility when that hands-off approach results in a bad process and outcome on a matter that personally affects you.

The rest of your post is just whataboutism. Obviously there are strong pressures in any administration not to come down too hard on white collar crime especially if doing so might hurt the economy. But you can look at Robert Jackson's public statements as a blueprint for how a typical Dem nominated SEC commissioner might have dealt with the Elon situation.

I think you would agree that Elon is a trailblazer in terms of his blatant disregard for security regulations. We can't know for sure that a different SEC would have dealt with him appropriately but we can at least say that this SEC has failed miserably. And that this hands-off approach was entirely predictable based on their goals and philosophies.

You can conjecture all you like but the history of how the SEC has dealt with far bigger and more egregious frauds than Tesla nullifies everything you say. Take this, under Obama's SEC:
Seems about in line with what Musk got (20 million fine, director bar) got, for a company that was part of a group that destroyed the US economy, required government bailouts and defrauded investors by lying to them about hundreds of billions in products.

Enron didn't go under serious sanctions until the end when their balance sheet unravalled. Nor did Madoff - it took a confession from a son. And the banks that caused the GFC walked away with lighter wrist slaps than Musk.

History completely nullifies your claim that the SEC under a Democrat president/legislature would have done anything different.

There is no analagous situation to funding secured. Elon Musk is one of a kind. It isn't just about dollar amounts or egregiousness but also about the proof in plain daylight about what is happening, while it is happening, not after the fact.

Again, we can't know for sure how a different SEC would act but trying to compare this **** up to other situations where the SEC maybe should have come down harder is just whataboutism.

These commissioners were nominated with a mandate not to put in place unnecessary barriers and to let capital flow. They are doing exactly that when it comes to Elon Musk. A different president and a different approach to regulation would obviously create a different process and likely lead to a different result.

Elon "leaks" an email with the most plausible, best possible, news investors have seen in a year(s) and the stock is up < 1%, after recently falling off a cliff. Puts are up more than the stock price since the email.

It seems perhaps people are starting to doubt his credibility.

Not quite; it was at $181 in the premarket, so basically almost a 10% move because of the screenshot e-mail.

The market is down 1.5% and the email hasn't been properly verified through normal channels that I can see. It is up >6% off morning lows. It takes time for a ship to turn. If this was a strong market and the email was officially confirmed then it'd be > $220 right now.

I was using the market open price vs. where it was when I posted.

Newton allegedly nearly wenr bankrupt in the South Sea bubble.

Re: ARK invest, the analyst (not the CEO, the analyst) hired to analyze TSLA is basically just some rando... has nowhere near the right qualifications to make any kind of sane judgment about TSLA's ability to do FSD in the future

That is funny because Cathie was getting pretty defensive about her team's qualifications yesterday: https://twitter.com/CathieDWood/stat...98694089924608

Of course their research basically just consists of plugging large sales and margin numbers into 5 and 10 year forecasts because Wright's Law, duh!

I can make a better valuation model than that in like an hour