-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I accidentally hit the post reply. So since an oil and gas guy like me got convinced that electric is better I figure most people will find that out eventually. That's why I started investing in tesla heavily. I appreciate all the good information here and I'm learning a lot.
TrendTrader007
Active Member
I found the link on general discussion thread you can find it on Elektrek website
Sorry! I'm not web savvy enough to post link here
The silver maple tree in my front yard is scattering its whirli-gigged, winged seeds everywhere now...more is better. From watching your interview with DaveT, I get the impression that "more" for you, here, is the quality & proliferation of specially created seeds - your investing strategies.
If I'm seeing you correctly, it's very much parallel to what Elon does, in the sense of acting continuously within an "as if" inner framework of creativity, in his case knowing that physics-first-principle seeds can't help but move things in the direction of an outcome accurately designed, or seeded. In this way, life is more about interpreting our own experiences, our own identities, such that we do not live in the world as much as the world lives within us. This tends to silence all the deafening noise that's predictably attendant with the more common, reversed view. It's the accuracy of one's seed, one's point of view, that determines success or failure, not the reverse. Make any sense?
Welcome to the forum officially. Your timing is interesting. I literally had the thought today for the first time of "When are oil and gas companies going to recognize what's coming and simply buy Tesla stock as a hedge". In my opinion, you are a step ahead of the owners and managers of whatever oil and gas company you work for. They should be diversifying, at least to some degree, just as a hedge. It's a no-brainer in my opinion. But I guess the low oil prices make cash tight, and hard to justify to shareholders why you're buying the competition... Too much validation. But I think they would be better risking that than fighting a losing battle and being super late to join up. But no one knows the future for certain. But barring some major black swan event, I strongly believe Tesla will eat the lunch of auto companies, fossil fuel energy companies, and eventually a significant chunk of utilities. Oh, I guess I left out Semi Truck drivetrain suppliers. It will take quite some time, but looking back it will look like a short amount of time.
This almost resembles poetry. So philosophical and theoretical... Don't fall down the slippery slope.
You're further away from the action in Hawaii. We were groaning too loud to hear it. Thanks again.
That's exactly what I tell my coworkers that I buy TSLA for a hedge. I've only met a couple other oil and gas guys that think electric cars is the future. I would say most oil and gas guys do not see this coming cause the bias is so strong. Out of a full barrel of oil about half goes towards gas for cars so oil will be used for a long time but that sure will bring the price down because of so much supply.
sundaymorning
Active Member
I don't have as much invested as 007, but quite a sizeable chunk of it is in Tesla. About 5% of it is sitting in cash in case of a pullback I can go in hard. Despite saying this, it's actually very difficult for me to sit on that 5% pile of cash knowing Tesla's potential to break out any moment (greed is hard to keep in check). I will actually be kicking myself if the stock breaks out again this time, and my 5% is forced to chase the stock upwards. The reason for this is bc I've waited since 2013 for this thing called M3, and when the moment finally comes, I chickened out
but then again, this can be a genius move if we do pullback a bit. Needless to say, I'm quite jealous of 007 for having bigger b@lls than me.Key point: gasoline is typically the most *valuable* product out of a barrel of oil, followed by diesel. So the decline in demand for gasoline and diesel will either hurt profits a lot at oil & gas companies, or (less likely) it will cause the prices of all the other oil products to go up.
The competition, Tesla et allii, is already too successful, but not so during the second oil crisis of the 1970s. Profit was not the goal of oil company investments in energy conservation in 1979. The story of Exxon's purchase of Reliance Electric to forestall advent of energy efficient controllers for large industrial electric motors is well documented.
The case for government intervention by throwing sand in the gears of progress is harder to demonstrate, but here goes.
There is suspicion Carter, as now with Trump, sought to slow progress on independence from fossil sources of energy. There's an article in one of the San Francisco newspapers at the time based on interviews of Bay Area researchers with alternative energy solutions. (Author's last name is Moore, but can't remember more.) Moore interviewed Stanford and UCBerkeley researchers who were urinated off, or at least puzzled, about their unsuccessful applications for federal grants in furtherance of alternative energy sources. Remember Jimmy Carter's fireside chat on TV about the moral equivalent of war? The Carter administration and Carter himself were creatures of the Trilateral Commission founded and funded by David Rockefeller, who had at least slight acquaintance with the fossil fuel industry and was a direct descendent of its founding monopolist. I don't know if Carter specifically ordered the Energy Department and related agencies to be sluggish, but we do know Rockefeller and Carter were on speaking terms. There are many articles in the New York Times about pressure from "the Rockefeller Office in Mexico" urging the Shah's return for "crucial" hospital care available only in the U.S. (Do the Rockefellers still have a network of missions paralleling our State Department?) And you also will remember a Canadian doctor was flown in to a New York City Rockefeller hospital to remove the Shah's gall bladder.
Reliable sources here can argue better than I that shorts are backed by big fossils. In more ways than one they are the dinosaurs of industry and imperialism in the Middle East back to the days when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. But again, I digress into rant OT.
OK, I've stated this before and I'll state it again. I believe that SolarCity was valuable and was bought for less than it was really worth to Tesla. It contains a bunch of reliable future cash flows which can be sold, a sweetheart deal with the NY state government worth $750 million, a national network of installers who are trained electricians (valuable for Tesla's rollout of Powerwalls, Powerpacks, and charging stations).
SolarCity was also on the verge of collapse, because it was running a banking operation (borrow short term, lend long term) without a Federal Reserve backstop, and it had serious refinancing risk. This didn't matter to Tesla, which has good enough credit to cover this, but it mattered deeply to SolarCity as an independent company.
They're getting out of the banking operation (they're matching maturities). They're also dealing with their biggest other problem which is an overly expensive sales & marketing operation, by using the Tesla brand name and stores.
The opacity of SolarCity's financials is not really their fault; it's due to (a) the desires of the third-party "tax equity investors", (b) the desires of the third-party "cash equity investors", (c) the weird way that current GAAP treats PPAs, which is being changed in 2018 or 2019, and (d) the weird way that current GAAP treats leases, which is also being changed in 2018 or 2019. If there weren't tax breaks for solar, or if Solarcity made enough profits to use the tax breaks itself, and if the lease and revenue accounting made sense, the accounting would be transparent. However, that's enough weirdness to render it opaque even to me.
After checking SEC regulations.... they're not required to tell us.
Maybe we'll find out in the Q1 quarterly report (sometimes they do report "subsequent events" related to debt). Otherwise I figure we'll find out in the Q2 quarterly report, or on the next 13-F after Q2 ends.
While the changes are required in 2018/2019, they can start to use them as early as 1Q17 if they want to right?
So, I learn something new about the markets every day. I had the basic situation for options market makers figured out.... then I realized, Tesla's weird.
The put/call ratio calculated on open interest is greater than 1. (Though the calls have higher trading volume). This means that the market makers are not exposed in the same fashion as they are for most stocks. Usually they sell more calls than puts; they seem to be selling more puts than calls.
I'm still going to assume that the market makers are selling more than they're buying, though. (This is just a guess and there is NO way to verify this. If in fact the put sales are overwhelmingly guys like me selling to the market makers, then I'm totally wrong! Maybe they're buying more puts than they're selling, who knows!)
So let's run through this:
selling call: bearish
buying call: bullish
selling put: bullish
buying put: bearish
So the options market makers are probably in a net bullish position. In order to hedge this, they will have to be short the stock. This is probably some substantial fraction of the short interest.
Essentially, the general rule is that bullish trades made by "real traders" in the options market turn into real share purchases by the market makers, and bearish trades made by "real traders" in the options market turn into real short-sales by the market makers: so the options trades feed straight into the stock trading.
The put/call ratio calculated on open interest is greater than 1. (Though the calls have higher trading volume). This means that the market makers are not exposed in the same fashion as they are for most stocks. Usually they sell more calls than puts; they seem to be selling more puts than calls.
I'm still going to assume that the market makers are selling more than they're buying, though. (This is just a guess and there is NO way to verify this. If in fact the put sales are overwhelmingly guys like me selling to the market makers, then I'm totally wrong! Maybe they're buying more puts than they're selling, who knows!)
So let's run through this:
selling call: bearish
buying call: bullish
selling put: bullish
buying put: bearish
So the options market makers are probably in a net bullish position. In order to hedge this, they will have to be short the stock. This is probably some substantial fraction of the short interest.
Essentially, the general rule is that bullish trades made by "real traders" in the options market turn into real share purchases by the market makers, and bearish trades made by "real traders" in the options market turn into real short-sales by the market makers: so the options trades feed straight into the stock trading.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Article
