[michaelt]

There are some crimes that are so blatant, public and obvious that the regulators _have_ to punish you, as any other option would make it look like the regulators were so ineffectual and weak there were effectively no rules.

[AnthonyMouse]

Filing public charges requesting his removal as CEO even though they weren't seeking that in the settlement seems like a calculated move to maximize the impact to the share price and thereby force a quick settlement. It was evidently effective, but it was a hell of an expensive way to win if you're measuring winning in terms of protecting investors. Anyone who got stop loss'd out of their shares has a right to be displeased.

[pyrale]

The SEC doesn't protect inverstors by protecting share prices. They protect them by removing bad actors from the market.

If CEOs are allowed to release false information, it won't be long before every other company behaves like Enron, and investors desert stock markets.

[michaelt]

  it was a hell of an expensive way to win
  if you're measuring winning in terms of
  protecting investors.

Not at all. The SEC is thinking not in terms of this one crime, but in terms of the hundred CEOs who will feel tempted to commit securities fraud in the future, and the hundreds of thousands of investors who will fear such fraud.

Will they think "Remember Elon Musk, he got his ass kicked at high cost to himself and his investors, nobody does it" or will they think "Remember Elon Musk, he did this and got away scot free, everyone does it" ?

That's the choice facing the SEC, and for obvious reasons they chose the former.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Not at all. The SEC is thinking not in terms of this one crime, but in terms of the hundred CEOs who will feel tempted to commit securities fraud in the future, and the hundreds of thousands of investors who will fear such fraud.

The deterrence argument can be used to justify anything. Why don't we behead the entire families of petty thieves? Think of the millions of other thieves who would be deterred.

It's a false dichotomy. The choices aren't "scott free" or "nuclear option" -- if their case was as strong as is being assumed, all they would have had to do is ask for what they got in the settlement and then get that in the proceeding. It wouldn't even remove the incentive to settle because that still allows them to avoid a determination of guilt.

They could also have just given the settlement negotiations more time before making a public charge to begin with. Give the other side's lawyers a chance to explain things to their client for a while first.

[zaroth]

Very ironic that the SEC action itself hurt longs significantly worse than the offending tweet.

Presumably this is short term pain for long term increased stability/control over investor communication.

Moreso is Tesla [investors] paying the price for the SEC to make an example of them for all other public companies.