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
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.
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...
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.
In fairness, no reasonable person would predict that Musk would follow it. I imagine that played a role in the SEC's decision to request it. (What trap is better than one the victim agrees to enter of their own accord, in public?) Musk, not being a terribly reasonable person in this area, probably assumed it wouldn't be an issue for him. If so, that assumption may bite him.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5775155-Reply-to-Res...
So better that than something else. That will train Musk a bit for later.
CEOs aren’t kings, they have laws to follow. Musk could have avoided all of this by simply not engaging in the behavior that earned him this forced oversight.
Oh, if I had to guess, the money and control are probably nice even if you structured your company in a way where you have to follow securities law.
