let's go to tom giles in san francisco. does this change anything with this s.e.c. investigation of mr. musk? >> well, it certainly gives us more clarity on why he was so optimistic when he sent that tweet about $420 a share. they'd had these meetings. his optimism was based on what he said was a clear indication from the saudi sovereign wealth fund that it wanted to take tesla private. so it helps explain why he was so optimistic. does it actually alleviate the concern about the certainty of saying funding is secure? lawyers are saying the s.e.c. is still going to have a lot of questions around that. it's one thing to have a big, wealthy investor say we want to take you private. it's another thing entirely to go and say that the funding is secured. so this is all going to boil down to what is meant by the term "funding secure." what should the market take away from that and what are the expectations around that and did he break some kind of a rule about what you can say about your publicly traded company when you make a statement like that? lawyers are telling us t

let's go to bloomberg executive editor for technology, tom giles. milar to the funding, not funding. goldman sachs, silver lake? what is the deal? tom: we are picking up on a pattern here, where it on musk sends out tweets that give an indication of things that are may be further along in the process than they actually are. he tweeted out late yesterday that he had a couple financial advisors on board. it turns out, in reality, they were not quite as engaged as he gave an indication. lakean sachs and silver are both indeed working with elon musk. neither of them is formally signed on, in the sense of having been retained, signature on the bottom line, about them being his designated financial advisors. it turns out goldman sachs had not been working with tesla at the time he sent out his controversial tweet, about taking the company private at $420 a share. silver lake, it is a little less clear exactly when they got into the process, but even now it does sound like their advisory role is much more on an informal basis. certainly that can change, but

this go to bloomberg news executive editor for technology, tom giles, in san francisco. hange anything with the fcc investigation of mr. mosque? tom: it just keeps the questions alive. this recently indicates that yes, he did have in fact a very wealthy organization that saudi arabia, sovereign wealth fund came to him very interested in a take private deal. they certainly have the capital that you would need for a transaction of that size. it explains why he had so much confidence, but it does not answer the question of why you would say funding is secured. was there a deal signed? go andre a bid ready to a proposal you could present to shareholders to give them the needed -- they confidence they needed to drive up the share price on the heels of that tweet? those are questions lawyers tell us have not been answered by his statement earlier today on the saudi fund. ramy: it was revealed that the wealth fund had 5% of a stake in tesla. why are they so interested in the company? tom: there's a few things going on. we do know the saudi's are looking to a post-oil future at s