[fillskills]

What is really sad about the state of affairs is that SEC is suing Musk out of spite (seemingly) and not bothered by a President whose tweets are changing fortunes of multiple corporations. For reference SEC's mission statement: "The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation."

[cbanek]

Well I think the difference is insider knowledge. If you run a public company, and know everything that is happening, that can give you a significant advantage in trading that stock.

While I agree what the President is saying can move markets, and does, it's usually not because he knows something that everyone else doesn't (non-public information). It's just that his opinion moves markets. You could say the same for short sellers, who make detailed reports and release them publicly on why they believe certain companies stock will go down. This also affects the stock price, but doesn't have any non-public information.

Now if the President was shorting all the pharmaceutical industry, then said something like "we're going to socialize healthcare", I feel like this is a bit different because it's almost like the regulator is using their information for gain. Same for congress, although funny enough, this hasn't been technically illegal for long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

[LiquidSky]

Seemingly out of spite?

Musk openly committed securities fraud, negotiated a sweetheart settlement deal with the SEC, then spent the next few months openly mocking the SEC and, apparently, ignoring the settlement.

The Musk Cult is unbelievable sometimes.

[danso]

The SEC doesn’t have authority over the president. Your complaint makes absolutely no sense.

[dosy]

Right. Does anyone have any idea why the SEC has such a huge justice-hunger for Musk? Musk definitely gets a lot of government contracts and money, and is very connected to defence, and lobbying. Why is someone that useful / influential becoming a target of such intense focus and interest? Is it a personal grudge at the SEC (why?) or from above? Is it a way to laterally apply pressure on Musk regarding SpaceX?

[JauntTrooper]

I don't think the SEC wants to go after Musk at all. It's unpopular and it's not good for the market to go after someone with such a great track record of capital formation.

He keeps forcing their hand and putting them in a position where they have to either take enforcement action or give him special treatment they don't give any other public company executives.

This is the law. A CEO cannot say he's secured funding for a buyout if it's not true. A CEO cannot sign an agreement with the SEC then publicly violate it without repercussions.

Potentially market moving tweets get filed all the time. It's not different because it's a Twitter. Here is Dell Technologies filing a few of their deal-related tweets: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1571996/000119312518...

Carl Icahn literally files single tweets with the SEC. Here are two of his tweets you can find under Apple's SEC filings:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000928464140...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000928464140...

[londons_explore]

My guess is some of the short sellers have friends who work at the SEC.

That and Musk runs his company like a child, which allows it to be nimble, but also means every action doesn't get as much scrutiny as they expect.

[bjl]

Or, rather than postulating some shadowy conspiracy theory, we can guess that the SEC is a law enforcement agency, and Musk has repeatedly (and in plain sight) violated the law.