The Financial Times has issued an apology after suggesting that @Tesla had shady accounting with $1.4 billion “missing.”
In reality, the Financial Times just didn’t understand the accounting, and an expert reached out to them to explain it to them.
The Financial Times has issued an apology after suggesting that @Tesla had shady accounting with $1.4 billion “missing.”
In reality, the Financial Times just didn’t understand the accounting, and an expert reached out to them to explain it to them.
Oh Good.
Yet another media, “Expert”.
The correction and apology was wise. Musk can be unpleasant with nonsense like this and being the richest man in the world I would imagine he has access to more than a few flesh eating lawyers.
As always, the damage was already done, and the apology was an afterthought on page 6.
and the liberal sheep will accept the bogus report as gospel
“As always, the damage was already done, and the apology was an afterthought on page 6.”
That’s what lawsuits are for.
Makes a guy like me wonder if Musk lawyers and FT lawyers became pen pals.
The Financial Times is subject to UK libel laws, which are a lot different than US ones.
The FT didn’t understand the accounting?
Huh.
Probably ran into the same problem that dogs The Economist‘s writings: anonymous staff (oftentimes twenty-something recent grads from places like the LSE [or worse, interns not yet finished their degrees]) writing articles or opinion pieces based on little else but their theoretical understandings of how things “should” work, combined with a healthy dose of woke.
Lesson reinforced, everyone: the financial press may not even understand things as well as your own gut does.
I stopped reading ’em several decades ago.
Imagine that. The Financial Times doesn’t understand financial accounting. Will anyone cancel their FT subscriptions knowing this?
Doubtful. I know people still watching CNN and CBC, CTV etc. Personal habits are hard to change without conscious, concerted effort.
agreed people who watch that diatribe are like dope addicts or alcoholics
Funny how these ‘errors’ always seem to be in the same political direction.
l was drawn to the quirky writing style of Economist and liked their broad view of things. but, then the contents became suspect and as such the issue of ‘waste of time’ crept in.
my subscription belongs in a museum.
I terminated my subscription in the early 90s after they started giving the viewpoints of the Rio 1992 summit a regular tongue-bath in their articles and editorials. They gave up their self-assigned tasks of being skeptical and penetrating in their analyses after that.
“The question of why… still stands, but may have a benign explanation”
No explanation is required,
and no answer either as to why writers at FT
are mining for dirt in the financials of a private business
for political gotcha points after losing a landslide election,
respectability, influence, and a position in the graft line.
Their future looks bleak.
it’s safe to say the entire media in Canada is corrupt and compromised, thanks to payoffs from the liberal government
“In reality, the Financial Times just didn’t understand the accounting…” Yeah riiiiight, that’s what it was.
Sue them….off the planet. Screw the “correction”….
“Turns out the Financial Times can’t do Finance”.
How can you NOT like the genius of Elon Musk?
“We’re dumb not evil.”
Leftards Last Stand
Sue them, make them print their retraction in half inch block letters above the fold, and require them to print any reply Elon cares to make wrt their defamatory article. Damage to professional reputation suits are easy to win. A very hefty award for damage to Tesla’s stock price should be part of any settlement/judgment.
They couldn’t resist the anti Musk propaganda.. Hit the post button without batting an eye.. Checking into it would have required effort in the wrong direction.. This is what passes for MSM.. Its no wonder they cant keep the lights on..