Comment by cykros | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cykros | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I saw it suggested elsewhere that for how stupid this all looks, it was a big scheme to give cover of liquidity for the big capital folks (Blackrock, Vanguard, etc) who are also whales in TSLA to get out of TWTR without losing their shirt in the process as the company spirals. The reports of the sale gave them time to get out, and now that they are, Elon is renegging on the deal, and taking the heat for it, but ultimately, due to the benefits to TSLA's share price indirectly, making out fairly okay (or at the very least, gaining a credit for a favor or two from some folks who it's nice to be owed a favor from), even in light of what may be a few billion dollars worth of penalty for the breakup.

I won't say I'm subscribing to this idea, but I do find it intriguing, and it does offer a rationale for what otherwise looks like it could be a fairly stupid set of decisions made by someone who at least sometimes hasn't appeared quite so dumb. By all means, pick it apart and tell me why you think it doesn't hold water...just throwing it out there as it's an interesting theory.

Yes, this is called "n dimensional chess" (usually 4d chess, but it depends on how silly you feel) theory I believe.

It seems to stem from the same instinct that often leads people down the path to conspiracy theories - that reality can't be this stupid.

If I've learned anything in my approaching 4 decades of time on earth, it's that reality can in fact be that stupid.

This feels like a conspiracy theory to me. It would require a lot of secret coordination and motive to pull off, versus the simpler explanation that a rich guy who likes to be an impulsive troll decided to be an even higher profile impulsive troll for a while.

Why would Elon torch his reputation just to help some fund managers? Doing it for money doesn't make sense, since he could lose a lot of it here.

Also, a huge portion of institutional investments are index funds, which don't make strategic buy/sell decisions.

You're probably right; I was overestimating the amount of funds that are actively managed (ie, would be in a position to act on this in the first place). Had the ratio of active:passive been higher, and a bit of coordination in place, it felt like being fined a billion or two could be a mere cost of doing business, but indeed, that seems unlikely given the layout of the modern asset management industry.

That said, torching his reputation...seems to be one of his hobbies. Between the whole SEC battle, the subsequent pumping up of DOGE, the getting high on Rogan's show, having children with names that can't be pronounced, and however many more anecdotes we can come up with, arguably doing weird inexplicable things that seem otherwise self destructive or at least incomprehensible IS his reputation at this point.

Its just wild to me that this multi-dimensional fraud/collusion with many dynamic aspects not under your control (i.e. Twitter and the courts) is somehow more likely (in some peoples estimations) than the _much_ simpler version of "he just changed his mind and likely plans to ignore legal consequences".

With a few small exceptions Vanguard runs index funds. They can’t just sell a stock because they think it’s overvalued, they must stay true to their chosen indices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com