Does no one at all at The Guardian have a clue?
Apologies, but this made us snort:
Despite this, Guardian analysis shows that Musk posted 303 times about race and immigration in the period leading up to SpaceX’s listing, almost three-quarters of which were related to UK politics. In comparison, he posted just 114 times about SpaceX (including replies and reposts), which began trading on the Nasdaq on 12 June.
…
Elon Musk posted about race and immigration in the UK on his social media network X twice as often as he did about SpaceX, which he also owns, in the run-up to the aerospace and AI company’s initial public offering.
We’re still not sure whether the snort is in annoyance at the foolishness or in amusement at the ignorance.
Those with a little bit of that memory capability thing will recall that Elon Musk has got into trouble a few times over tweets concerning stocks he is involved with. Buying Twitter, claiming to take Tesla private, a third time saying he thought the Tesla price was a bit toppy. All three have led to court cases, fines have been involved in one or perhaps all three and so on. So, a useful idea would be that Musk has learned the lesson and is now obeing the law about stocks and tweets.
That law also including that in the run up to an IPO insiders are severely restricted in what they may say in public about the stock that’s about to have its IPO. The base idea being that all the documents have been published, people should make up their own minds without being subject to a bit - or more - of cheerleading.
The process is called “purdah” and it’s one of those things that governments and financial regulators are really very keen on indeed.
So, Musk is, in that run up to the SpaceX IPO, significantly, legally, restricted in what he can say about the SpaceX IPO. That Musk doesn’t say all that much about the SpaceX IPO in the run up to the SpaceX IPO is then taken by The Guardian to be evidence of some sort of nefarity.
Does The Guardian have absolutely no one at all who knows about markets and finance? Now that Larry Elliot has retired that could be true we suppose. It’s difficult to find contrary evidence anywhere, isn’t it?
Tim Worstall