Joe Nocera in the NY Times has a doozy of an article today in the "paper of record".
Let me skip ahead to the conclusion before I engage with the meat of the opinion piece:
In other words, Blodget believed that Amazon would hit $400, but that that belied was "not the same as analysis", or reality.
So in December 1998, AMZN was at $240. In January 1999, the stick split 3-1. Then in September 1999, the stick split again, this time 2-1.
Today, AMZN is at $518 per share, or $3,108 per share if you take account for the two post-Blodget splits. So why does Nocera think Blodget was so wrong when he was so spectacularly right? Or if he was "wrong", it was because his price target was not sufficiently aggressive?
Well, it's the usual anti-Tesla pablum. Tesla loses money on every car sold! (No it doesn't. It loses money because of production expansion.) Falling oil prices hurt the company! (No it doesn't, not as long as people want to spend less than more.) Other luxury car makers are getting in the EV business! (Who knew there was only room for one automaker in any given segment? Better shut down 99 percent of the auto industry!)
But what really gets Nocera's goat is that Morgan Stanley boosted his price outlook for TSLA based on supposed nothing.
Yes, Tesla never announced the idea of a fleet of self-driving cars, but you have to be a moron to assume this isn't a goal. The biggest company in the world (Apple) and its chief rival (Google) are both working on self-driving cars at a time when Tesla is a good part of the way already there. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has already publicly begged Tesla to sell him half a million self driving cars in its quest to eliminate their pesky drivers. But just like Uber wants to cut out those middle-men drivers, why wouldn't Tesla want to cut out Uber and go direct to consumers? Well, whether it sells cars to Uber and its competitors, or whether it enters that market segment itself, the company profits.
But hey, once upon a time Blodget put a price target on AMZN which has now been exceeded nearly 8-fold, so Morgan Stanley's aggressive price target is soooo crazy! ... or something. Not sure what the logic is supposed to be, but if the situations are analogous, that means TSLA stock will someday be worth $3,720 some day. Would anyone here have a problem with that?
Let me skip ahead to the conclusion before I engage with the meat of the opinion piece:
In other words, Blodget believed that Amazon would hit $400, but that that belied was "not the same as analysis", or reality.
So in December 1998, AMZN was at $240. In January 1999, the stick split 3-1. Then in September 1999, the stick split again, this time 2-1.
Today, AMZN is at $518 per share, or $3,108 per share if you take account for the two post-Blodget splits. So why does Nocera think Blodget was so wrong when he was so spectacularly right? Or if he was "wrong", it was because his price target was not sufficiently aggressive?
Well, it's the usual anti-Tesla pablum. Tesla loses money on every car sold! (No it doesn't. It loses money because of production expansion.) Falling oil prices hurt the company! (No it doesn't, not as long as people want to spend less than more.) Other luxury car makers are getting in the EV business! (Who knew there was only room for one automaker in any given segment? Better shut down 99 percent of the auto industry!)
But what really gets Nocera's goat is that Morgan Stanley boosted his price outlook for TSLA based on supposed nothing.
Yes, Tesla never announced the idea of a fleet of self-driving cars, but you have to be a moron to assume this isn't a goal. The biggest company in the world (Apple) and its chief rival (Google) are both working on self-driving cars at a time when Tesla is a good part of the way already there. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has already publicly begged Tesla to sell him half a million self driving cars in its quest to eliminate their pesky drivers. But just like Uber wants to cut out those middle-men drivers, why wouldn't Tesla want to cut out Uber and go direct to consumers? Well, whether it sells cars to Uber and its competitors, or whether it enters that market segment itself, the company profits.
But hey, once upon a time Blodget put a price target on AMZN which has now been exceeded nearly 8-fold, so Morgan Stanley's aggressive price target is soooo crazy! ... or something. Not sure what the logic is supposed to be, but if the situations are analogous, that means TSLA stock will someday be worth $3,720 some day. Would anyone here have a problem with that?
