Superb. Nice job tying it all together. There are other stocks that have been pumped to ludicrous levels for long periods of time. But TSLA is the largest. The “expiration date” has seemed to be around the corner for years now. It’s a humbling experience to see this ruse perpetuated year after year. As to Tornetta, on the other hand, Elon is out of his element. The legal world is not like the stock pumping world. He seems to think he can hoodwink the courts like he has hoodwinked the stock market. He’s got another think coming.
Why his pumps might still work, the effective timeframes are rapidly shrinking. Aggressive options trading only works when a tail can wag the dog, once the dog of the market starts to move, options pranksters will be in ruin. Today was the Exhibit 1 for that.
It has been said before: If the rising stock price was the aim, Musk didn't need the incentives. He already owned many shares and would handsomely profit anyway.
Thank you - most especially for the details on the new (IMO unfortunate) law. That was, to me, the open question.
I do appreciate the article and I have tried to comment several times, but the nature of the arguments in several of the pro-award briefs are so bizarre that it just about shorts my brain out. I can't see them succeeding. I'm sure you're right in saying that the purpose here is to appeal to the US SC after the DE SC upholds Her Highness. It's just that the structure of the argument is so circular that it is hard to discuss. In one form or another, Musk's legal arguments have been that since the shareholders voted for it again, DE's reversal of the 2018 Executive Award is no benefit to the shareholders because they will now vote for a substantially similar award but it will cost the shareholders more due to changes in US law. But this presumes something not in evidence. The shareholders would need a proxy and would see that the effect of the deal has changed, and could modify their vote as a result.
I don't think Musk expects the US SC bid to succeed, but it will delay the recognition of the loss of the award until, presumably, next year. What the strategy is after I couldn't say. Perhaps Musk's real strategy is to get the new TX vote in before Tesla ever has to back out the old one, so that the shareholders will be confused?
Anyway, the Tesla grift is wending its way slowly out the door. It will be a long decline, but that decline is now certain.
Thanks for the comments, thoughtful & insightful as always.
I should have emphasized the argument about how shareholders will vote for a substantially similar award but with more cost to shareholders. At this moment, though, I am doubting shareholders would vote that way. Since last June, Musk has engaged in some astonishing brand destruction, including the close alignment with Trump when his market base leaned the other way. He's certainly sounding far more sane than Navarro on tariffs, but without Musk, we might not have Trump. This market meltdown will add to his legacy.
I can't help but notice that corporations, one after another, are fleeing the corrupt Delaware court's jurisdiction for greener pastures - Walmart is the latest. Predictable result, I suppose, considering no competently run business can flourish when you have activist judges deciding they know better than shareholders.
What am I lying about? What Cult? Why must you call people names instead of refuting their arguments? .... as for corruption, well, that's easy. The fleeing of corporations tells the tale. They know they can not get a fair court hearing when we live in a world where robed activists can tell the owners of a company how to run that business. That is the stuff of banana republics, and it reeks of corruption.
Superb. Nice job tying it all together. There are other stocks that have been pumped to ludicrous levels for long periods of time. But TSLA is the largest. The “expiration date” has seemed to be around the corner for years now. It’s a humbling experience to see this ruse perpetuated year after year. As to Tornetta, on the other hand, Elon is out of his element. The legal world is not like the stock pumping world. He seems to think he can hoodwink the courts like he has hoodwinked the stock market. He’s got another think coming.
Huge thank you for taking the time to keep us informed on the Tornetta case.
Why his pumps might still work, the effective timeframes are rapidly shrinking. Aggressive options trading only works when a tail can wag the dog, once the dog of the market starts to move, options pranksters will be in ruin. Today was the Exhibit 1 for that.
It has been said before: If the rising stock price was the aim, Musk didn't need the incentives. He already owned many shares and would handsomely profit anyway.
Thank you for the clear and in-depth explanation of the legal proceedings.
Thank you - most especially for the details on the new (IMO unfortunate) law. That was, to me, the open question.
I do appreciate the article and I have tried to comment several times, but the nature of the arguments in several of the pro-award briefs are so bizarre that it just about shorts my brain out. I can't see them succeeding. I'm sure you're right in saying that the purpose here is to appeal to the US SC after the DE SC upholds Her Highness. It's just that the structure of the argument is so circular that it is hard to discuss. In one form or another, Musk's legal arguments have been that since the shareholders voted for it again, DE's reversal of the 2018 Executive Award is no benefit to the shareholders because they will now vote for a substantially similar award but it will cost the shareholders more due to changes in US law. But this presumes something not in evidence. The shareholders would need a proxy and would see that the effect of the deal has changed, and could modify their vote as a result.
I don't think Musk expects the US SC bid to succeed, but it will delay the recognition of the loss of the award until, presumably, next year. What the strategy is after I couldn't say. Perhaps Musk's real strategy is to get the new TX vote in before Tesla ever has to back out the old one, so that the shareholders will be confused?
Anyway, the Tesla grift is wending its way slowly out the door. It will be a long decline, but that decline is now certain.
Thanks for the comments, thoughtful & insightful as always.
I should have emphasized the argument about how shareholders will vote for a substantially similar award but with more cost to shareholders. At this moment, though, I am doubting shareholders would vote that way. Since last June, Musk has engaged in some astonishing brand destruction, including the close alignment with Trump when his market base leaned the other way. He's certainly sounding far more sane than Navarro on tariffs, but without Musk, we might not have Trump. This market meltdown will add to his legacy.
I can't help but notice that corporations, one after another, are fleeing the corrupt Delaware court's jurisdiction for greener pastures - Walmart is the latest. Predictable result, I suppose, considering no competently run business can flourish when you have activist judges deciding they know better than shareholders.
Explain exactly what is corrupt. What Chancellor or Vice Chancellor was corrupted, by whom, with what payment or other consideration.
Of course, we all know you can't do that because there is no corruption and you are a lying cultist moron.
What am I lying about? What Cult? Why must you call people names instead of refuting their arguments? .... as for corruption, well, that's easy. The fleeing of corporations tells the tale. They know they can not get a fair court hearing when we live in a world where robed activists can tell the owners of a company how to run that business. That is the stuff of banana republics, and it reeks of corruption.
A very few corporations have left, which is easily explainable by their managers wanting fewer restraints on screwing shareholders.
You said "corruption." I say, show the receipts or please don't come back here again. The comments are for serious discussion, not lies and innuendo.
Can you please post the appellate briefs?
I just added links in Part II of the article. Let me know if they work for you. First time I’ve tried this.
Yes. Much appreciated.