[prolly_a_moron]

>This was not a capital raise. Read the filing.

I don't need to read a filing to know that when you create shares out of nowhere, and sell them, diluting current shareholders, it's a capital raise. What else would you call it?

[danhak]

Do you understand that's not what happens when shares are acquired on the open market?

[prolly_a_moron]

>Do you understand that's not what happens when shares are acquired on the open market?

Do you understand that Tencent bought shares in a secondary offering? Apparently you do, you said it. Not sure what you're arguing. Do you understand the purpose of selling shares is to raise money for operations?

[danhak]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Your comments suggest to me that you think there was yet another secondary offering associated with this news.

> The 8,167,544 shares of Issuer common stock were acquired by the reporting persons in a registered offering of common stock by the Issuer on March 17, 2017 and through open market purchases, for an aggregate purchase price of $1,777,842,836 (including commission).

That means Tencent acquired its position at an average price of $217 / share. The March 17 secondary was priced at $255 / share. Algebra tells us that > 98% of Tencent's position was acquired on the open market and the rest via the March 17 offering.

[prolly_a_moron]

>Tencent's position was acquired on the open market and the rest via the March 17 offering.

Editing because I think we were talking past each other. Yes, I didn't mean this specific event. I tend to meld all these TSLA threads together in my mind.

[danhak]

Here's a comment you wrote elsewhere in this thread:

> It's my understanding that this was another offering, so, essentially, Tesla sold 5% to Tencent at an average price of $217 and change. Current shareholders get diluted. Prices go up.

This is entirely incorrect. The only shares Tesla told to Tencent were priced at $255 as part of the March 17 offering, and that only represents < 2% of Tencent's position.

[prolly_a_moron]

>This is entirely incorrect.

The comment was 4 hours old, based off a Seeking Alpha news bulletin (I should have known better) and was prefaced with "it's my understanding..." which left it open for you, or anyone else, to correct.

What exactly are you out to prove here?