Slightly later, a further blog from Musk stated that although there had been discussions with an investor, taking the company private was not doable in a way that enabled existing shareholders to remain as investors.
This week the SEC sued Musk on the basis that the claims in in tweets were somewhat exaggerated, and sought to have him barred as a director. Musk has quickly settled, and will pay a $20m fine and give up the chair of Tesla for three years, though he remains as CEO.
This much you can read from the news anyway, but what interests me is the governance settlement - getting Musk to give up the chair. This is significant as there was a shareholder resolution at the company's AGM in June that sought exactly this outcome (amid wider investor concerns about a lack of independent representation on the board). But the resolution failed to get a majority. So the SEC has achieved something that shareholders could not on their own.
Well, some shareholders... because for the resolution to fall short some of them must have voted against the idea of having a separate independent chairman. So let's have a quick look at a few votes from some big institutions...
Baillie Gifford, Tesla's largest external shareholder OPPOSED the independent chair resolution and voted FOR directors up for election.
Fidelity (or at least the US funds whose SEC disclosures I could find) also OPPOSED the resolution and voted FOR the board.
T Rowe prices appears to have split its votes on the independent chair resolution (maybe different funds voting different ways?) and voted FOR the board.
Blackrock voted FOR the independent chair resolution and OPPOSED one of the board directors.
Vanguard OPPOSED the independent chair resolution and FOR the board.
Norges Bank voted FOR the independent chair resolution and OPPOSED one of the board directors.
I'll update this as I dig out more votes.