What can legitimate Tesla shareholders do to stop the manipulations of the stock?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by 101101, Sep 22, 2019.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    The argument in favor of shorts supposes that they have skin in the game. But in the case of Tesla the intent is malevolent, it is a hostile takeover motion that is working to cancel innovation and consumer benefit in an obvious way and to the detriment of the legitimate shareholders and it working in a way that works against funding and actualizing innovation any marrying smart risk to funding is a primary reason for the existence of the stock exchange. The stock exchange has a watch dog which appears to be intentionally not doing its job and worse yet appears to be complicit. One could hope the next President uses the DOJ and the FBI (after cleaning up both those agencies) to go after the present head and members of the SEC after he purges those members and works reverse their decisions on Tesla.

    But it seems like the current legitimate members of the company could go after the shorts and especially ISS. Imagine a group wanting install the Block Rock head on the board!!! What a massive obvious conflict of interest. These are clearly blatant attempts to sabotage the company. And it clear that Musk's compensation package is not about greed it is about blocking this type of sabotage because Musk would acquire more control just as with the serious effort to take private and it is incredibly clear because of his absolute commitment to the mission that it will all go to furthering the mission. For instance Tesla will surely get to solid state plus super capacitor before anyone else- evidence points to that already. Remember Musk studied physics in school and apparently seriously contemplated getting a Ph.D focused on the development of supercaps. Seems like the legitimate members could divest ISS and some of these other groups for some of the same reasons (but hopefully with dissuasive penalties like dissolution of ISS if possible) shareholders rebuff hostile take overs but in this case because the intent appears to be to stop innovation (which is anti competitive) and possible to bankrupt the company at substantial cost to the legitimate shareholders.

    All of this brings up recent events. Notice that John Bolton who was apparently involved in the events of 911 was brought back and then fired one day before 911 and shortly after just as SA was divesting its oil reserves it was supposedly hit taking off line half of its oil producing capacity. Rewind a little bit further back, and SA had announced its plan to divest all of its oil even impacting its stipend to its citizens further to go green and then in line with that it as a foreign state through its sovereign wealth fund was apparently trying to buy into Green with Tesla. There were hints of this months prior from Tesla so it was clearly being explored and apparently in line with taking the firm private to protect the firm and protect current shareholders which would have a way (assuming they were legitimate) to say on board- all again to push out the saboteurs etc. When Musk thought he had it he announced it (while under extreme stress with 50 million unavoidable irons in the fire- Tesla is moving the industry and the world against extreme resistance and that takes massive effort) even after hinting strongly that it was coming a while prior (so fair notice!- although another huge short burn has to be coming) he then let on what everyone knew- massive much deserved short burn- certainly not something that would have been done if it could have been expected to be derailed by the USG and then sealed- hoping that stuff gets unsealed in the next admin. And then the deal gets cancelled apparently by the USG and then the death of the Journalist is blamed on SA and then SA's refinery gets hit just as it tries to sell off the first section of its oil assets with the intent of selling it all off. Surely some don't like the foreign country most associated with fossil fuels (even down to the embargo) is abandoning fossil fuels because it sees the obvious writing on the wall and wants a future beyond fossil fuels. Surely the same people don't like the Daimler parent of Mercedes Benz which developed the ICE automobile abandoning ICE.

    All of this makes about as much sense as trying to punish companies that appear to be working together for the public interest (all of them with a guilty history on ICE and stuff like Diesel Gate) on emission standards for climate change with anti-trust. It makes as much sense as saying lower emissions will lead to safer cars? Why because they would somehow be cheaper or more desirable from a performance standard (relative to other ICE low standards against Tesla) and therefore there would be more new cars vice old cars on the road? That is twisted.

    For shareholders to go after the SEC in court they would need permission from some entity, possibly a court? Could they go after the director of the SEC in court with permission? Maybe there are lawyers that are willing to weigh in? Maybe the answer would be that the current DOJ would dismiss but that would just seem to show the admin's mal intent and could that strengthen follow up suits? After all the shareholders would just be trying to get a forum to exercise their rights and get some due process which seems to be sorely lacking.

    What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? We hear all the time from the admin that the country can't afford the transition from fossil fuels? Who is it that can't afford it? Yes it would be losing a lever over depreciation but that is a rent seeking lever that impoverishes people at the both even when redistributive taxes are applied at retail to try to recoup some of that. Certainly average American and Americans would be radically better off and more secure with the end of fossil fuel rent seeking?
    That seems to be the conclusion of the world. It seems these oligarchs that oppose this need to be reduced to a one share one vote level of influence, to the extent they they've been allowed an expanded it only seems justifiable on the theory that they've been a steward of societies pent up resources. On the evidence of just this case clearly that is a bad theory and reducing their influence
    hopefully completely is a huge part of what makes ditching fossil fuels as fast as possible regardless of the losses to ill-gotten gains the only affordable path.

    MSNCB fossil fuel shill that it is was on the news just yesterday trying to say just over 50% of new capacity in the US was from NG while also stating that new battery backed solar is going in at 1 cents a kwh. Those 1 cents a kwh plants will surely be profitable. Fossil fuel on the other hand have never actually been profitable without a huge chunk of the 1/3 traditional tax haul that has always gone to corporate welfare and in recent decades year after and year increasingly more than that without limit.
    All that would have to happen to end that would be pulling the subsidies- no idiotic secret energy policy (because its all secret rent seeking on the public) ending the laws that makes derivatives opaque or blind debt (have to be able to audit that junk) and transparency on what financial funds and banks invest in with regard to carbon exposure. No fossil fuel company could ever lie again and say it was profitable, it would have to recognize that it was 6x-12x more expensive and could be accelerating the removal of fossil fuel infrastructure.

    One more thing, the apparent utter nonsense attempt to go after the Tesla board for the attempt to consolidate control looks almost like it was timed as retaliation for Musk congratulating the ICE vehicle inventor for abandoning ICE and it brings up issues with captured courts, but that is nothing new. We have to find a better way to select judgeships it seems going all the way up the the SC.

Share This Page