Is Tesla Motors (TSLA +0.4%) next in line to get a slap from the SEC over social network...

Is Tesla Motors (TSLA +0.4%) next in line to get a slap from the SEC over social network commentary from execs? Only days ago, founder Elon Musk tweeted the automaker was "narrowly cash flow positive" last week.
From other sites
Comments (12)
  • schererd
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
    I was contacted last night by Tesla and can get my Model S yet this year. My build number is between 3250 and 3300.
    7 Dec 2012, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • winston123
    , contributor
    Comments (80) | Send Message
    What's the big deal with social commentary? It's part of a free market!
    7 Dec 2012, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • NeoDoc1
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
    I'm getting my Model S (#P242) tomorrow - right when I was told back in August that I would get it!
    7 Dec 2012, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • George McDermand
    , contributor
    Comments (53) | Send Message
    Had a chance to drive both a roadster (2.5) and an S in Carson City Nevada yesterday. Amazing vehicles both. The roadster is the fastest car I have ever been in period. The S is imposing and cool. I honestly believe Tesla will either make it or be bought out at a profit. I do not see a fail here.
    7 Dec 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • weekendmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (138) | Send Message
    The fact that they were approaching positive cash flow was well known and had been announced officially before.
    Mentioning that the cash flow had turned positive was just repeating a known fact. The tweet was no big deal.
    7 Dec 2012, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • gethigh
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
    Dear SEC,


    Could you forget about Musk's tweets and look at Andrew Left's Citron.


    US Taxpayer
    7 Dec 2012, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • I.R.
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
    Another non-issue created on a good day for Tesla. Getting a bit tired of the pattern.
    7 Dec 2012, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • briansal
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
    I expect a marketing alliance to be announced between Tesla and a major US manufacturer within the next twelve months, whereby Tesla's vehicles will be distributed through existing car dealerships. GMC is one possibility.
    7 Dec 2012, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Nicu Mihalache
    , contributor
    Comments (1073) | Send Message
    wanna bet?
    7 Dec 2012, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • Jrod1184
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
    How do you guys feel about the facts that are showing Tesla's to be more hurtful to the environment when they're produced?
    7 Dec 2012, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1917) | Send Message
    What exact study are your referring to?
    If you are comparing apples (EV using all virgin materials that have to be mined in some remote jungle) to oranges (ICE car using 100% recycled materials), naturally an EV is going to be more harmful. you must, and must compare an apples to apples comparison and follow ISO 14040 standard.


    Most studies show that the battery manufacture contributes 10-50% more towards the total vehicle manufacture (this manufacturing environmental harm gets overtaken in year 1-5 by oil environmental harm dependent on source of electricity) . There are some one-off studies that use odd data and odd assumptions that show drastically different results, but those should not be the standard bearers. The 10-50% studies actually have more science behind them and have more input with regards to weights, the one-offs typically use database modeling.
    Some studies that many people refer to use as more environmentally damaging do not use the same battery chemistry, cut off the end use prematurely, exclude recycling, exclude other end uses, use comparator vehicles, compare low end high fuel efficient cars to cars in different classes or use substantially older data.


    As a prime example, one person decided to say the LiAlCoNiO battery has the average eutrophication potential as a LiFePO4 and LiNiMnCo. Now for those who are environmentally inclined know eutrophication is associated with phosphates, so averaging FePO4 and NMC and calling it AlCoNi is completely and totally wrong. You have one chemical that has a very high euthrophication potential, FePO4, and the other not high, If anything use NiMnCo as the comparator, that's still wrong, BUT less wrong than averaging something that knowingly throws off the results into the mix. If I was grading a paper I would give partial credit for using NiMnCo and no credit and probably flunk them for an average using FePO4 for calculating euthrophication potential.


    Either the person doesn't understand environmental chemical concepts, or does and manipulated the results to suit their needs. Either way, that's a red flag not to take it seriously
    8 Dec 2012, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • juicejack
    , contributor
    Comments (88) | Send Message
    Environmental damage can be finessed. Running out of oil, or worse burning it up when it can be used for thousands of other more useful purposes, cannot.
    7 Dec 2012, 08:10 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs