no point discussing with retards who can't even read or understand SEC securities laws, period. like I said, educate yourself, it's quite obvious you are not getting it and this is above your level of understanding the SEC knows what it's doing, they don't start investigations out of the fucking blue so retards like you can go apeshit god, what is it with clueless idiots who think they got all the securities laws figured out with the logic of a 5yr old LOL
Thank you. You've just proven my entire last post with this deflection. No I'm not a psychic. I just knew you had no idea wtf you were talking about, and you've just proven it to everyone by not providing this mythical law that does not exist. You're not fooling anyone with your deflection and failure to back up your claim. The fact you're stating the bureaucracy and government does not start investigations over nothing shows just how ignorant and clueless you truly are. You're just proving you were a clueless fucking moron the entire time. Not wasting my time arguing with you anymore. It's clear you don't know wtf you're talking about.
I don't believe that latest round of funding (Qatari if I recall), was secured at the time of the tweet. That closed a few days or weeks later after the price had rocketed on these and "let's go private" tweets. You really don't see how manipulating a price and jawboning shorts to continuously keep money coming in is a problem?
Musk had to cut a deal, the SEC did not open an investigation "over nothing". The fact they're neutered from meeting justice to top earners doesn't change that.
I'd find it a bit difficult to believe funding miraculously fell into place conveniently after the tweet, rather than having already been established before. Would you consider it manipulation if Tesla had released a press release stating they had secured funding, or would that be informing your investors on the status of their company? This is done rather frequently through press releases. If the statement is indeed a fact then it is not manipulation, it is a fact. Now if he had stated it and there was never any funding in the picture THAT would be manipulation. I don't see how updating your investors with a factual piece of information on the status of their company could ever be construed as manipulation.
So the SA exec made a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements are legally binding. Elon acted on that verbal agreement. How is that manipulation? You say the SEC gave him a sweetheart deal because of who he is. I say it's because they didn't have a solid case. All the existential evidence going on behind the scenes points to Elon in full belief the agreement was sound. That's not manipulation. Bad judgment perhaps, but not manipulation.