Thread by @Polixenes13

1/ A short thread on the news that Musk & SEC have resolved their differences. $TSLAQ

2/ Lots of disappointment among the faculty of $TSLAQ. Criticisms of the Court. Shade cast at the SEC. I get that.

3/ Quite honestly, I had hoped Judge Nathan would have readily seen how she was being played by Elon Musk. Alas, she didn't. A few more years on the bench and the story might have been different.

4/ But, remember, her jurisdiction was to enforce the agreement. Thanks to an unfortunate series of events, including a few botched chances by the SEC at oral argument, she found the deal to be a bit squishy.

5/ It's much less squishy now. No way, no how, Musk will be off the hook if he fails to get pre-approval on something material to $TSLA, with the long list of particulars spelled out.

6/ He lost his main argument: that he is the judge of whether a communication is material in the first instance. Comparison of the original Final Judgment with the revised language makes this clear.

7/ Originally, Musk had to "comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by Tesla regarding ... preapproval of any written communications that ... reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or its shareholders."

8/ This gave rise to Musk's argument that he was empowered to determine, in the first instance, whether a communication reasonably could be thought to contain such material information.

9/ That loophole is closed. The new language requires the pre-approval of an experienced securities lawyer of any written communication containing information about any one of a broad list of topics about $TSLA.

10/ Good-bye, loophole. No more reasonable test. It's now black & white. If Elon Musk finds himself back in Judge Nathan's court for a violation of this revised language, it will be a sorry day for him.

11/ I can assure you Musk resisted this revision. The share price pressure of the past few days forced him to give in. He hates it. He relies on his ability to pump the stock recklessly with his fraudy statements...

12/ Your own robo-taxi earning revenue for you as early as next year. Volume production at Shanghai this year. Safest car being built. All the hardware you need for FSD. All these fantasies become harder to sail out on twitter.

13/ Sure, it's $TSLA. The "experienced securities counsel" might get run over by Musk and pre-approve reckless statements. But the SEC cannot reasonably hope to guard against that danger.

14/ In the end, it's the market that must discipline Musk and $TSLA. There are no Tesla watchers who are both intelligent & informed who believe anything coming out of Musk's mouth any longer.

15/ Take comfort in the story of @gerberkawaski. A shameless publicity hound who endlessly appeared on television to pump $TSLA stock, despite not having even a rudimentary understanding of financial markets...

16/ And what do we learn about this clown today? He's had to liquidate a big chunk of his $TSLA holdings. No doubt to the terrible detriment of many of his retail clients who trusted him.

17/ For the record, Gerber deserves to be sued for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. And for being a big-mouthed, no-nothing blowhard. I hope he gets swamped with lawsuits & put out of business.

18/ Cathie Wood deserves the same. Her day is coming. $TSLAQ

19/ Back to the main theme. The contempt motion is a sideshow. The important story is the catastrophic collapse of $TSLA demand, just at the time formidable competition is arriving, cutting the guts out of Tesla margins. Keep your eye on the ball. <fin>