Here is an interesting take of the BS nature of the whole idea: " As a publicly traded equity, TSLA has had benefited wildly from its access to equity markets for many years. Now that Musk says he is on the verge of turning a profit, he wants to turn his back on all the investors, pack up his toys, and go private? Because the shorts are mean to him? What was the point of the IPO in the first place?"
quoting SA again, lol. this has always been the problem with the short argument; missing so much data, information. here i took out a paragraph from Musk letter to stakeholders: First, I would like to structure this so that all shareholders have a choice. Either they can stay investors in a private Tesla or they can be bought out at $420 per share, which is a 20% premium over the stock price following our Q2 earnings call (which had already increased by 16%). My hope is for all shareholders to remain, but if they prefer to be bought out, then this would enable that to happen at a nice premium. Second, my intention is for all Tesla employees to remain shareholders of the company, just as is the case at SpaceX. If we were to go private, employees would still be able to periodically sell their shares and exercise their options. This would enable you to still share in the growing value of the company that you have all worked so hard to build over time. unquote thus no one is compelled to tender shares per this layout. they can remain and continue to risk/reward.
My intention with that paragraph of my post was to outline a future scenario / possible reason for going private. I just reread it and see how it sounds like I was speaking of currently. I don't know if TSLA currently has such contracts (they may, I have no idea). To clarify, I am suggesting that TSLA is not worth $70B as is, but that I wouldn't be surprised if private investors who have government connections wish for TSLA and SpaceX to pair up on government contracts and work together. Taking it private would be better for those private investors and potentially justify the $70B valuation.
IB got the shorts back and have shorted a few shy of 380. am comfortable to lose 10% on his 420/shr take-private wish
yes... as an officer of a public traded company you have a Fiduciary responsibility to share holders. Once you are a public traded company you have all kinds of regulations you must adhere to. Look no further than Enron for good examples of what I am talking about.
Because "they" are Elon, a couple large mutual funds, and a sovereign wealth fund. Why in the world would they agree to lend their shares to allow for driving the price down? Most stock lending comes from shares held in margin accounts where the owners (generally unknowingly because they didn't read the fine print) agree that shares they own held by the broker can be lent. Obviously the big holders of Tesla are a bit more sophisticated than that and obviously the rest of those that could be lent have been at least as far as one broker is concerned in the highly inefficient market that is stock lending.
SEC Probes Tesla CEO Musk’s Tweets https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-ha...ing-private-tweet-1533757570?mod=hp_lead_pos1
Call of the day: Tesla shares are headed for $420 regardless https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ource=cx_picks&cx_tag=mw&cx_artPos=7#cxrecs_s