Agreed, it really doesn't make sense. Looks almost like the same time every day, too.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Agreed, it really doesn't make sense. Looks almost like the same time every day, too.
Mario Kadastik
Active Member
It's the shorts trying desperate measures to cause AH drops like after every trading day, but the methods are getting more and more panicky...
you know, TSLA could help out the shorts... It could make at the time when there is hardly any sellers left a secondary offering at far above market price so that the money the shorts wpuld pour into eliminating their short position wouldn't dilute the company. Say 27M short of 140M shares. That's about 20%. So offer at $270 27M shares for sale
the shorts buy them from TSLA giving the company money and returning the shares to those already long it would prevent a spikey squeeze, but would give TSLA 7.3B
you know, TSLA could help out the shorts... It could make at the time when there is hardly any sellers left a secondary offering at far above market price so that the money the shorts wpuld pour into eliminating their short position wouldn't dilute the company. Say 27M short of 140M shares. That's about 20%. So offer at $270 27M shares for sale
the shorts buy them from TSLA giving the company money and returning the shares to those already long it would prevent a spikey squeeze, but would give TSLA 7.3B 
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
Either someone is incredibly stupid to sell at such low prices, or they are actively trying to drive the price down. That last trade was for 600 shares. Do they have some way to control who buys their sales, so that the money stays in their (or their friends) hands?
IMHO, the SEC should be investigating after hours trading to see who is trying to control pricing.
Last edited:
Thumper
Active Member
WSJ article on fake SEC investigation was fully open for me to read. Usually WSJ articles that I try to read are greyed out after a few sentences because I am not a subscriber. This makes me wonder why they allow the anti-Tesla FUD to go to all parties.
Mike Smith
Active Member
My guess is someone went to the SEC asking for an investigation. The SEC responded that they would take a look. The person then went public saying that Tesla was 'being investigated'. While technically correct, anyone can do this to any company. If you ask the SEC to take a look at something they will, but it doesn't mean they'll do a full investigation. In my opinion CNBC was negligent in being used as the tool for this deceit.
as Jim Cramer admits to here, they don't bother with that. they get a false story into the news, they invest some cash losing money pre-market or after-market to create the false impression of a sell-off in the hopes of creating a real selloff before the longs find out the story is bogus. of course, in this case today, we don't know at the moment whether the story is bogus or not.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
Probably because they are glad to give away negative dis-information.
Cars get into accidents. Some car accidents cause injuries. Some are fatal. Unfortunately, the same is true with and without autopilot.
This unfortunate accident is fodder for the press because autopilot is new and exciting. But car accidents, including accidents that cause injuries and fatalities, are just inevitable. I think most investors understand that and that's one reason the market shrugged off the news of the accident and the stock price rose the day Tesla reported the NHTSA had initiated a preliminary evaluation of the crash.
This is another tempest in a teapot, if that.
This unfortunate accident is fodder for the press because autopilot is new and exciting. But car accidents, including accidents that cause injuries and fatalities, are just inevitable. I think most investors understand that and that's one reason the market shrugged off the news of the accident and the stock price rose the day Tesla reported the NHTSA had initiated a preliminary evaluation of the crash.
This is another tempest in a teapot, if that.
Last edited:
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I don't understand why so many of you seem upset. I don't even know if this lingers until the opening tomorrow. I think instead of getting upset (ST Thread) I'd buy some shares, if I traded shares, in the post market. The SP will probably bounce back by tomorrow afternoon.
I don't think that I'd try to trade this with options but I hope I can at least take advantage of the dip to buy some that I was planning to buy anyway.
I don't think that I'd try to trade this with options but I hope I can at least take advantage of the dip to buy some that I was planning to buy anyway.
Why wouldn't they make the article free for you to read? It's already been paid for....
VanE
Member
I measured the three spikes, and it appears that it happens at virtually exactly the same time, a bit before 5 o clock.
Could it be a fault in your trading software? I can't find these spikes on the graphs of Yahoo nor Google.
dc_h
Active Member
Regarding the SEC story: What a load of BS. SEC should investigate WSJ and CNBC to see if this "news" was pushed by a shortholder. The WSJ article has no new news, just noting that the SEC is reviewing the issue to determine if an investigation is required. It literally says there is no current investigation in the article. The CNBC tweet siting DowJones seems either wrong, or a complete fabrication. There is no DJ article or tweet I have found.
Ulmo
Active Member
FUD machine is on. Generally all issues being parroted are ones we've already discussed here. I, of course, think that often, because I'm one of the canaries, then think others are overreacting after we've looked at it. But the market has slow movers too, and that's part of it.
Generally the outstanding issues have been holding back higher raises, rather than pushing lower. The nice thing about "autopilot", "SCTY 2.0", and Model 3, is that within a couple years we should see where they're headed. Things are looking ok.
Generally the outstanding issues have been holding back higher raises, rather than pushing lower. The nice thing about "autopilot", "SCTY 2.0", and Model 3, is that within a couple years we should see where they're headed. Things are looking ok.
Yes, why isn't the SEC investigating this? I've always accepted that the market was manipulated, but they could at least pretend to care about real manipulation.Either someone is incredibly stupid to sell at such low prices, or they are actively trying to drive the price down. That last trade was for 600 shares. Do they have some way to control who buys their sales, so that the money stays in their (or their friends) hands?
IMHO, the SEC should be investigating after hours trading to see who is trying to control pricing.
From the THIRD (!!!) update to the original story by Dow Jones (these are not factual updates, just additions with new quotes and details about the after-hours action since the original story came out--it seems like someone wants this story to dominate the news feeds)
Last edited:
What I want to see is a close look at the metastory: how someone trying to influence TSLA stock price "accidentally" released a story about an SEC investigation of Tesla. Ironically, the argument for the withheld info on the autopilot accident being material is weak, but there's forces that may be intentionally at work trying to damage Tesla and send the SP lower. Thus, the story involving DOW Jones and CNBC itself is perhaps far more appropriate for the SEC to investigate than the subject of that story (Tesla). I am sure those involved in the inaccurate story will have their paper trails and stories already put together, so there's little chance of successfully investigating the journalists. Too bad Curt has to witness what has become of business journalism after his departure.
What a day! Elon twits master plan to push stock up, CNBS twits to push it down. What's next? Bring it on!
Is it legal to publish a story about a company as fact when its only based on hearsay in essence? They don't even say whether the person "familiar with the matter" works for the SEC. It could be anybody. I just don't understand how they can publish this as fact, nor call it an "investigation" when in reality its probably a simple review of the situation at this point by the SEC, if even that much.
Edit: Instead of legal, I meant are the publications not putting themselves at risk of civil liability for defamation?
Edit: Instead of legal, I meant are the publications not putting themselves at risk of civil liability for defamation?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
