CAEATFA's response to a query regarding the missing Excel values in versions 2-4 of $TSLA's most recent application. The values in version 1 contradict its SEC filings and investor guidance. Apparently, Tesla requested that these figures be treated as a confidential trade secret. 
This is problematic as this data should already be public. After all, Elon Musk has provided investor guidance several times in the past, and many of the "trade secrets" here involve historical data. The only reason to insist on secrecy is if the figures differ from the SEC's.
Our response to the response. $TSLA
The response to the response to the response: CAEATFA released the Tesla application figures in error, and in so doing, may have exposed much more than merely a few spreadsheet cells.
CAEATFA does not want to disclose $TSLA's table versions 2-4. At first, the State Treasurer's Office cited an unspecified case to back up its refusal. Then (only because it was asked) it specified which case it was referring to. That case doesn't say what the STO claims it says.
There's a problem here for the STO. If the new versions of the spreadsheet actually work in Tesla's favor, and gradually end up where the SEC disclosures are: great. Those are public. They must be disclosed.
Or, if they're the same as version 1: great. Those are now public, too.
Or, if they're the same as version 1: great. Those are now public, too.
But if the STO maintains that versions 2-4 are *still* exempt from disclosure because they are trade secrets, that means they neither match the SEC-regulated disclosures nor the initial disclosures. And that means $TSLA has, in effect, two sets of books for two audiences.
We all make mistakes. But it sure would be interesting to actually see a company requesting trade secret confidentiality for numbers it's already supposed to have disclosed, wouldn't it?
