He'd better hope so because if his "secured" funds buy out everyone at $420, he's no longer going to be the majority share holder. He doesn't have the cash to do this. Word is the 'Saudis' may be his backer, whatever that means.In a series of follow-up tweets, Musk confirmed that one reason to go private would be to save "a lot of headaches." He also added that his "hope" was that all current investors could remain as investors even if Tesla were to go private, potentially by creating a "special purpose fund" similar to SpaceX's capital structure.
The way I heard it the announcement was done on Twitter and that's some sort of no-no when traditional announcement avenues hadn't been notified. It smacks of Musk's usual thinking out loud before thinking it through and checking the rules.Most likely an SEC violation by posting the per share purchase price when the actual prices was significantly lower than the announce price.
Not for long. GM and Chevy are selling Bolt EVs in the UAE! http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/08/first-chevy-bolt-ev-sold-in-united-arab-emirates/Could this be the Saudi’s attemp to assist Tesla in failing thereby slowing down the EV movement and keeping their oil flowing longer
Check out MarketWatch. He's really stepped in it this time!I think that there are at least two SEC violations here already!
There's the real meat of the issue. I'm hearing words and prases like "problematic" and "could be in violation". Whether he did violate rules is yet to be proven. Therese Poletti hit the nail on the head with this remark:Therese Poletti said:Short sellers, one of the reasons Musk cited in the employee email as inspiring him to want to go private, could certainly claim that Musk was trying to manipulate the stock, especially if he cannot or will not prove his claim that the money for a buyout has already been pledged.
“If this is not a serious bid, the short sellers can sue on the grounds that this is an artificial and fraudulent manipulation of the stock, which violates Rule 10b-5,” John Coffee Jr., a law professor and director of the Center on Corporate Governance at Columbia Law School, said in an email. “Remember too that he made an objective statement and not just a statement of possible intent — namely, he said ‘financing secured.’ If that is not true, he is in deep trouble.”
Therese Poletti said:As seems to be typical for Musk and Tesla, the end result appears to be a justifiable move, but the means to get there are inexcusably dumb.
What's alarming is that this sounds just like another irresponsible individual with lots of twitter followers.“My tweets are literally what I’m thinking at the moment, not carefully crafted corporate bs, which is really just banal propaganda,” Musk said in June.