Elon & Twitter

[Electroman]

Having caught with their pants down and their lies exposed Reuters deletes this tweet.

.. and then comes up with a correction tweet. If not for Twitter's fact check community they would have got away with blatant manipulation. Liers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642655360971358213

 

[ohmman]

Why would a poll by blue checks be a biased one? You can claim it reflects a smaller set of the Twitter population, but why would you think it will be biased?

I explained this, and you decided to deflect:

So the self serving "selection bias" argument goes something like this:

Selection bias is not an "argument," it's a description of a legitimate bias. You asked a question in the first quoted statement and received a factual answer to that question. If you have a selection mechanism in any realm, polling people who have been selected into that group is by definition non-representative.

This isn't an "argument," because it doesn't have an opinion. It's an answer to your question, and ideally you'd receive it as such. There are fantastic resources on inherent bias, one of my favorites is "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.

 

[Norbert]

"Look ma the emperor is naked". Lying dishonest fraud media gets exposed everyday, and in return lashes out on Twitter. And the sheep that is fed by the media laps it up.

This is one of the best quarters, especially best Q1 by A MILE. Just wondering if they lie on something so easily disproved, how much would they gaslight on things that are not so black & white. And think about the days before the internet !! Glad God invented and gave us Twitter.

The situation doesn't appear to be as simple as that. All we had so far are different tweets and articles claiming different numbers.

Not only Reuters.com, but also Investors.com, MarketWatch.com and Wall Street Jourrnal (wsj.com) reported analyst estimates of 432,000, all referring to "FactSet" as the source (apparently trusting it).

Tesla Reports Uptick in Vehicle Deliveries After Price Cuts

The company delivered around 36% more vehicles to customers in the first quarter than it did a year earlier.

www.wsj.com

Tesla Sinks After Deliveries; Analysts See More Price Cuts

Tesla deliveries hit a record in Q1, but fell short of views yet again

www.investors.com

Tesla price cuts are in the spotlight with deliveries update due

Regardless of what Tesla Inc.'s first-quarter deliveries show in the coming days, analysts say the electric-vehicle maker is seeing strong demand.

www.marketwatch.com

Tesla posts record quarterly deliveries after price cuts, up 4% from Q4

Tesla Inc on Sunday posted record quarterly vehicle deliveries, but quarter-on-quarter sales growth was modest despite price cuts as rising competition and a bleak economic outlook weighed.

www.reuters.com

The Reuters article above from today mentions more specifically where the number 432,000 came from:

According to a mean of estimates compiled by FactSet as of Friday, Wall Street was expecting Tesla to report deliveries of around 432,000 vehicles for the quarter, the Wall Street Journal and CNBC reported.

It also mentions that there have been analyst surveys with different results:

Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expected 421,164 vehicles would be shipped.

Tesla said consensus of more than 20 analysts called for 421,500 vehicles delivered, Tesla investor Gary Black said in a tweet. Reuters could not independently confirm that figure.

The consensus is "all over the place," Munster said.

So in terms of what I am seeing so far, I'd think nobody lied, there just have been different compilations (maybe also from different times) that came to a different (average) result.

None of the tweets you quoted give us the information we'd need to determine which source is "better", if any, and even less do I find support for your claim that media was lying in this case. So far.

(By the way, I'm not sure it makes any real difference if analysts estimated 421,000 or 432,000.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

The situation doesn't appear to be as simple as that. All we had so far are different tweets and articles claiming different numbers.

Not only Reuters.com, but also Investors.com, MarketWatch.com and Wall Street Jourrnal (wsj.com) reported analyst estimates of 432,000, all referring to "FactSet" as the source (apparently trusting it).

Tesla Reports Uptick in Vehicle Deliveries After Price Cuts

The company delivered around 36% more vehicles to customers in the first quarter than it did a year earlier.

www.wsj.com

Tesla Sinks After Deliveries; Analysts See More Price Cuts

Tesla deliveries hit a record in Q1, but fell short of views yet again

www.investors.com

Tesla price cuts are in the spotlight with deliveries update due

Regardless of what Tesla Inc.'s first-quarter deliveries show in the coming days, analysts say the electric-vehicle maker is seeing strong demand.

www.marketwatch.com

Tesla posts record quarterly deliveries after price cuts, up 4% from Q4

Tesla Inc on Sunday posted record quarterly vehicle deliveries, but quarter-on-quarter sales growth was modest despite price cuts as rising competition and a bleak economic outlook weighed.

www.reuters.com

The Reuters article above from today mentions more specifically where the number 432,000 came from:


It also mentions that there have been analyst surveys with different results:


So in terms of what I am seeing so far, I'd think nobody lied, there just have been different compilations (maybe also from different times) that came to a different (average) result.

None of the tweets you quoted give us the information we'd need to determine which source is "better", if any, and even less do I find support for your claim that media was lying in this case. So far.

(By the way, I'm not sure it makes any real difference if analysts estimated 421,000 or 432,000.)

The dispute seems to be based on this Barron's article, which cites: "Barclays analyst Dan Levy believes Tesla will beat the consensus call of 420,000 vehicles and deliver roughly 425,000 cars."
Tesla's Delivery Numbers Are Coming Soon. They Could Lift the Stock.

Barron's has cited Factset (the ones that says consensus was 432,000) in the past also, so it's not like that is not a trusted source:
"Wall Street expects Tesla (ticker: TSLA) to deliver about 425,000 units in the fourth quarter, according to FactSet."
Tesla Deliveries Matter. These Figures Matter More.

Seems like a disagreement on what "consensus" was, and probably you can pick and choose what analyst numbers to include to come up with whatever average you want. Personally, what one single analyst says is consensus, sounds less reliable than a company that is focused on aggregating financial estimates in mass:
FactSet Estimates - Consensus

As you point out, Twitter was hardly helpful in trying to figure this out. You still need to do your own research and trust in mainstream financial media (even though some people here say they are liars).

 

[Electroman]

So none of you find this statement from Reuters, “Tesla price cuts fails to lure buyers” dishonest and a lie?

Wow this crowd here is unbelievable.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So none of you find this statement from Reuters, “Tesla price cuts fails to lure buyers” dishonest and a lie?

Wow this crowd here is unbelievable.

I don't find that on a Reuters article. I saw it on a couple of other articles that referenced Reuters.
Did it change the headline?

 

[Norbert]

The dispute seems to be based on this Barron's article, which cites: "Barclays analyst Dan Levy believes Tesla will beat the consensus call of 420,000 vehicles and deliver roughly 425,000 cars."
Tesla's Delivery Numbers Are Coming Soon. They Could Lift the Stock.

Barron's has cited Factset (the ones that says consensus was 432,000) in the past also, so it's not like that is not a trusted source:
"Wall Street expects Tesla (ticker: TSLA) to deliver about 425,000 units in the fourth quarter, according to FactSet."
Tesla Deliveries Matter. These Figures Matter More.

Seems like a disagreement on what "consensus" was, and probably you can pick and choose what analyst numbers to include to come up with whatever average you want. Personally, what one single analyst says is consensus, sounds less reliable than a company that is focused on aggregating financial estimates in mass:
FactSet Estimates - Consensus

As you point out, Twitter was hardly helpful in trying to figure this out. You still need to do your own research and trust in mainstream financial media (even though some people here say they are liars).

At least 3 different numbers for "consensus"/"Wall Street" : 420k, 421k, 432k. Each with different source(s).

 

[Norbert]

So none of you find this statement from Reuters, “Tesla price cuts fails to lure buyers” dishonest and a lie?

Wow this crowd here is unbelievable.

Well it seems you moved goal posts from Phil LeBeau's Tweet to a Reuters tweet about a Reuters article, per your second screenshot.

Phil LeBeau's tweet wasn't a "lie", it just used a different estimate number, from an apparently respected source (FactSet), one that was also used by several other articles including from WSJ. The Twitter community note failed to mention that there are different estimate numbers, and instead plainly claimed that it would be "factually incorrect".

Regarding the Reuters tweet, I can't find your literal quote anywhere, but you are probably referring to the tweet's one-sentence-summary of the article:

"Tesla misses delivery estimates as price cuts fail to lure buyers".

The main part of that sentence refers to the estimates of 432k which were the main estimates the article mentioned (see my post above).
The secondary part (price cuts) refers to other info in the article, including this:

"If they wouldn't have done the price cut, it would have been ugly. I think what it tells you is the economy is getting tough," Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said on Sunday.

"They showed an acceleration, but they didn't accelerate to the level that Elon had suggested it would."

Now I don't know in how far Elon actually "suggested" that, but that was apparently Gene Munster's assessment.

So regarding that second tweet (the one from Reuter), I can understand if a Tesla enthusiast wouldn't quite agree with that one-sentence-summary, but it does a fair job of reflecting a good part of the article even if getting the whole picture requires reading the whole article. I'd say it lives up to Twitter standards.

The increase to the quarter a year ago was apparently 36% (as also mentioned in the article), and personally I am just wondering if I correctly understood that the goal in general was 50% increase per year. Whereas I don't quite see the importance of comparing to analyst estimates, but that seems a common thing to do.

Tesla posts record quarterly deliveries after price cuts, up 4% from Q4

Tesla Inc on Sunday posted record quarterly vehicle deliveries, but quarter-on-quarter sales growth was modest despite price cuts as rising competition and a bleak economic outlook weighed.

www.reuters.com

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The Twitter community note failed to mention that there are different estimate numbers, and instead plainly claimed that it would be "factually incorrect".

I suspect there is a Boolean in the code which immediately makes the community note visible and rated useful when Elon rates it useful.

That seems fair and consistent with the spirit of the Notes.

 

[italian bread]

Whereas I don't quite see the importance of comparing to analyst estimates, but that seems a common thing to do.

Tesla posts record quarterly deliveries after price cuts, up 4% from Q4

Tesla Inc on Sunday posted record quarterly vehicle deliveries, but quarter-on-quarter sales growth was modest despite price cuts as rising competition and a bleak economic outlook weighed.

www.reuters.com

I’d guess that the stock price is based upon analyst estimates (it’s what investors are expecting so that is what they’re willing to pay) so results that beat it causes the stock to rise whereas anything under causes it to dip. And it similarly makes the news when results meet, beat, or are under the analysts’ estimates.

 

[Norbert]

I suspect there is a Boolean in the code which immediately makes the community note visible and rated useful when Elon rates it useful.

That seems fair and consistent with the spirit of the Notes.

Yes, the Freedom Boolean.

 

[Electroman]

The fact the crowd here cannot see this headlines from Reuters:

“Tesla price cuts fails to lure buyers”

on a quarter were Tesla hit it out of the park, as anything but dishonest fraudulent and biased narrative, shows how much the posts here are driven by a visceral hatred to Musk.

If NYT says they won’t pay for orange-check, that is a stand taken out of principle.

If Musk says, fine you lose your verified check, that is out of pettiness.

Ya right. !!

 

[advocate8]

$44,000,000,000 can’t cure pettiness.

Twitter strikes New York Times’ verified badge on Elon Musk’s orders

The move continues Musk’s years-old grudge against U.S. journalists who have reported critically on him, and it will raise the risks of impersonation. It also contradicts an internal plan, first reported by the Times on Thursday, to keep the badges on for its 10,000 most-followed organizations, regardless of whether they paid.
…
By Sunday morning, the Times — Twitter’s 24th most-followed account, with more than 54 million followers — was one of only a few dozen accounts to have actually seen its badge removed, according to data collected by Travis Brown, a software developer who has been tracking the changes.

The move appears to have been personally directed or encouraged by Musk, who had responded late Saturday night to a meme outlining the Times’s decision to not pay for Twitter verification by saying, “Oh ok, we’ll take it off then.”
…
Musk overnight also tweeted several attacks on the Times, saying “their propaganda isn’t even interesting.”
…
Even though Musk said Friday that he wants to make Twitter “the most trusted place on the internet,” the move will probably make it harder for Twitter users to distinguish between legitimate and fake accounts. Pranksters and trolls on the platform have already begun changing their names and photos to mimic celebrities, companies and politicians.

The irony is anything Musk says has become orders of magnitude less reliable than the NYT.

 

[brkaus]

I’d guess that the stock price is based upon analyst estimates (it’s what investors are expecting so that is what they’re willing to pay) so results that beat it causes the stock to rise whereas anything under causes it to dip. And it similarly makes the news when results meet, beat, or are under the analysts’ estimates.

Probably. But there are always a large range of analysts expectations and it’s up to any article to decide which on they believe. If there was a single source of correct analysts life would be very different.

 

[italian bread]

Imagine if a person was ashamed of using an iPhone and deliberately covered up its logo. This is not something that drives customers to your brand.

Elon Musk's Twitter Updates Verified User Descriptions So You Can't Tell Who Paid for a Blue Check-Mark Anymore

On Sunday, Twitter did something different: It updated the language in the description of verified users so that now you can’t tell who is paying Musk for the blue check-mark — and who isn’t. The text for both Twitter Blue subscribers and legacy verified accounts now reads, “This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue or is a legacy verified account.”

Previously, the verification badge for those who paid for Twitter Blue had a description that said, “This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue.” In addition, accounts verified under Twitter’s previous regime — as being considered notable and authentic — had formerly said, “This is a legacy verified account. It may or may not be notable,” which was wording Musk boasted he’d come up with himself.

Following the change, some legacy verified Twitter users wanted to make it clear that they aren’t in fact paying for Twitter Blue.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642621800680165376

 

[advocate8]

Imagine if a person was ashamed of using an iPhone and deliberately covered up its logo. This is not something that drives customers to your brand.

Elon Musk's Twitter Updates Verified User Descriptions So You Can't Tell Who Paid for a Blue Check-Mark Anymore

On Sunday, Twitter did something different: It updated the language in the description of verified users so that now you can’t tell who is paying Musk for the blue check-mark — and who isn’t. The text for both Twitter Blue subscribers and legacy verified accounts now reads, “This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue or is a legacy verified account.”

Previously, the verification badge for those who paid for Twitter Blue had a description that said, “This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue.” In addition, accounts verified under Twitter’s previous regime — as being considered notable and authentic — had formerly said, “This is a legacy verified account. It may or may not be notable,” which was wording Musk boasted he’d come up with himself.

Following the change, some legacy verified Twitter users wanted to make it clear that they aren’t in fact paying for Twitter Blue.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642621800680165376

Where is Community Notes when you need it most? Space Karen is NOT “Apartheid Elmo”!

Lying Superwoke MSM/Soros/TSLAQ conspiracy at work!

 

[JRP3]

"Look ma the emperor is naked". Lying dishonest fraud media gets exposed everyday, and in return lashes out on Twitter. And the sheep that is fed by the media laps it up.

This is one of the best quarters, especially best Q1 by A MILE. Just wondering if they lie on something so easily disproved, how much would they gaslight on things that are not so black & white. And think about the days before the internet !! Glad God invented and gave us Twitter.

Martin Viecha says Factset is a legitimate source, so how is it a "lie" if media uses a number that Tesla's Head of Investor Relations says should be used?

"If in doubt...just use Bloomberg or Factset consensus,"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642599445773832192

 

[Electroman]

"Apartheid Elmo"

Wow. I am sure many had multiple orgasms reading that.

And the irony is this person claims to be "notable'. Maybe it is her attitude and views on Musk made her notable and blue-check worthy by the previous Twitter owners !!

 

[JRP3]

Wow. I am sure many had multiple orgasms reading that.

You have some strange fantasies.

 

[Electroman]

The interesting thing is: Tesla has never given any estimates on a quarter by quarter basis. In fact none of the automakers do. Tesla only gives an estimate for the year (1.8M) and so far they are track.

These WS analysts make their own overly optimistic estimates, making sure it is always higher than what the actual numbers are likely to be. At the end of the quarter if they suspect their estimates might fall below actual deliveries, they generally push it up to make sure it is above the finish line. Always engineering a "miss".

And the media laps it up and pushes its prepackaged propaganda headlines. WS manipulators and shorts make some quick money when the market opens, as it is evident today. After an AMAZING quarter, it is down 4% and sinking.

TSLAQ makes money. Media gets their revenge on Musk. Rinse, repeat next quarter.

And cheers go up in this thread.