There's a lot of people in Silicon Valley that listen to him as a former Head of Growth @ Facebook. Dude knows how to pick trends.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
There's a lot of people in Silicon Valley that listen to him as a former Head of Growth @ Facebook. Dude knows how to pick trends.
My take (speculation/conspiracy theory) on the SP rise: NO negative news out of the Hedge fund meeting yesterday on Tesla and the possibility there were some quiet conversations about getting out of their short positions.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
What are the prices at which people would exit their positions if a short squeeze were to ensue?
I'm planning to hold my position through a potential short-squeeze due to (1) long-term potential and (2) tax implications of short-term trading.
Unless if the stock shoots above $2,000, which is possible (though not probable) since TSLA is the most heavily shorted stock and the float (ex-Elon, ex-long term holders) is limited.
I'm planning to hold my position through a potential short-squeeze due to (1) long-term potential and (2) tax implications of short-term trading.
Unless if the stock shoots above $2,000, which is possible (though not probable) since TSLA is the most heavily shorted stock and the float (ex-Elon, ex-long term holders) is limited.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Thanks. I didn't know his background.
Sure seems like more than coincidence that we've had this run up based on his additional comments today right before the open
Good point. There were fears that Einhorn might dis TSLA, yet he chose to recommend a different stock to short. Palihapitiya recommending Tesla convertible bonds and eventually converting them to shares appears to have been a huge positive. The price action today suggests that you may be right about hedge funds easing out of their TSLA short positions. It's the stubborn retail shorts who will likely be left holding the bag until it completely bursts.
Above $2,000 would mean a market cap valuation over 300 B.. that's a bit too much before the M3 comes out ...
However I can see Tesla be worth 100 - 120B after a huge short squeeze from the current levels. Implying a SP of over 700 dollars.
Muaddid
Member
I think most people (here) would still be holding at 700, so it would keep going higher before people start selling to the covering shorts... but that might not be the case of some of the institutions.Starno said:
non-short squeeze I would think 400$ at the end of the year is a reasonable target if the M3 ramp goes -ok-
ValueAnalyst
Closed
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Before we get to talking about $700 or $2,000 SP how about we get to $350 or $400 this year.
If a short-squeeze ensues, $350-400 may be a passing point... a pit stop... Best to have a game plan ready.
My game is intact. Just trying to 'keep it real' for others that have not been around this stock fir very long.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
The major reason that he was trying to figure out how to make high voltage cells with long cycle life is the increased capacity, without reducing the cycle life. Capacity is AH which is voltage x amp's. The fact that he found a way to actually increase the cycle life with the higher is obviously a huge bonus. I'd like to know if those cells have an increased C rate as well. That would make higher speed superchargering feasible. Maybe that is part of the reason for Elon's tweets about exceeding a charge rate of 350kw.
I disagreed with that post, because it must have been responding to a troll, and is absolutely useless to anyone else on this forum. In the future I intend to continue to do that. I just want to inform people that the reason for my dislikes in the future is because you are posting a useless but correct post in response to a troll. Not because I disagree with the content.
Can you, or anyone else please tell us how to avoid that problem when buying or selling options? The best way would clearly be a list of brokers who don't do that. If either most or all brokers are corrupt it would also be useful if there's a strategy to defeat that problem.
Last edited:
Papafox *has* found, IIRC, that historically the best time of day to buy Tesla was around midday -- not in the morning, not in the late afternoon. It tends to jump in the morning, swoon in the midday, and rise in the afternoon. Gods only know why.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
It really depends, and it's very difficult to know ahead of time, if at all possible.
See TSLA short squeeze in 2013. That squeeze was supported by fundamentals, but it was still extremely volatile. The stock at one point in October went down by 50% in just a few weeks, which would've wiped you out if you were even 150-160% on margin (i.e. long squeeze), and frequent 10-20% intraday swings.
Then see SDRL short squeeze in 2016. People thought that was somewhat supported by fundamentals, as oil price rebounded, but SDRL is now at the brink of bankruptcy.
So be careful. Don't get greedy. I'm sticking with the stock (vs. options) with a conservative amount of margin, which I will decrease as the price approaches intrinsic value of the company.
Last edited:
FWIW, I first learned about stock trading from someone who traded in the era before discount brokers.
Yeah, the market makers are sneaking pennies off you with front-running, but it's nothing like what the old full-service brokers charged. Some of them charged a percentage of the gross value (often upwards of 0.5%). Some of them (the better ones, believe it or not!) charged per share instead, as much as 25 cents a share. I remember routine $600 commissions on $100K trades as late as the early 1980s. This is still how large commissions are in many foreign venues: you expect to lose 1% on purchase and 1% on sale, so any trade which makes less than 2% on the underlying is a loss.
...and then they executed your order however they felt. You had no way to get a "morning execution" or a "midday execution". They were able to combine it with their own proprietary trades, and although it's illegal, they *would* front-run you sometimes. If you were trading any stock other than the most common, they'd trade it directly with the "specialist" (market maker) who would name his price and take his cut. Most of them would direct their trades to secondary exchanges (like Philadelphia) where you got worse pricing than on the NYSE. I remember buys which came out near the day high and sales which came out near the day low -- I even remember one sale which was *below* the recorded low for the day, which made me particularly suspicious -- and I had no particular way to predict what would happen. Occasionally you got good execution, but often it was off by *several dollars*.
And the spread was a minimum of 12.5 cents, usually 25 cents, and sometimes as high as a dollar, because they hadn't switched to trading decimals yet.
Back In The Day, Brokers Got Away With Murder In Trading Commissions
So this is the context in which the current order-flow-sale / market-maker skimming looks like "pennies on the fringes". I don't think I've been bit for even 0.5% by the brokers/market makers in a major stock since the 1990s. I think you still do better by buying your own seat on the exchange (which is what the real big boys did in the 1980s to get around this), but that's very expensive.
I have not decided. I would rerun my simple valuation model if it reached $900, and determine at that point (and not tell y'all until after I traded). I haven't been doing "optimistic assumptions" runs lately since they keep coming out over $1000.
Feel so happy for all the employees of tesla that are holding stock right now seeing their net worth go up on paper. Great feeling
I'm still trying to figure out how Facebook succeeded, and I suspect it's basically luck. They have network-effect monopoly power because you can't go elsewhere while your friends are there. But practically everyone, including their most avid users, *hates* them and particularly hates their advertising. I suppose it's similar to Microsoft's Windows monopoly practices. I don't like to invest in companies which are dependent on captive users who hate them, though they can be very profitable. They are the absolute most likely to be targeted by legislation, for fairly obvious reasons.
Much better to invest in a company whose users love the products.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Voltage x amps is Watts, Voltage x amp hours is Watt hours.
NMC typically has a higher C rate than NCA but lower density. Increasing the voltage of NMC would improve the density while potentially keeping the higher C rate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Article
