Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[SteveG3]

In addition, just the idea that a guy who manages a few million dollars out of his apartment (a recent article showed him working on his laptop in the bathroom), and loses money at it, should been given press time and interviews as if he’s some kind of authority just bewilders me. Really?

yup.

given what I've seen of Tesla coverage since 2012 (and Bernie Sanders coverage, whether you think his ideas are helpful or not)... to a very large extent (an extent I'd of thought someone was nuts to suggest before the past 7 years of watching this), corporate media is an infomercial for the perceived interests of massive concentrated wealth... whether individual concentrated wealth or that of very large corporations.



back to Spiegel specifically... notice how NYT referred to Mark and his activity as,

"a managing partner at Stanphyl Capital, which has a large position shorting Tesla"

as if he were a partner of some large firm with a large position.

the entire "hedge fund" has $10 million under management, and appears to simply be Mark.

it is simply not possible for a "hedge fund" with $10 million of assets under management to have a "large position shorting Tesla" given Tesla's $40-65 Billion market cap over the past year. for further context, the total short position in Tesla has been running about $10-12 Billion. 1/1000th, or 0.1% of that is not a "large position."



what's more, for context, google "funds needed to start a hedge fund", and you'll find guidance like this,

"Seed Capital
Business Insider said in 2009 that $1 million will not get you very far in the launching of a hedge fund and that $5 million is a more realistic target to aim for when all costs are considered. With $5 million under management, success rates for hedge funds improve, observed one hedge fund consultant. Beyond this, other notable thresholds are the $20 million mark, which will make you more noticeable to investors, as well as the $100 million hurdle, which will open the door to more institutional investors."

How Much Money Do I Need to Start a Hedge Fund?

They are talking about seed capital... Mark's operation is barely a "hedge fund."


Mark's appearance in the NYT and on CNBC, is likely the result of their opinion shopping (trying to find someone they can frame as an expert who will pound a narrative they want to promote) and/or promotion of Mark by some larger entrenched wealth to these media outlets to use him as a mouthpiece for their perceived interests.

There are other examples of this among the experts that show up in the media. Jeff Sonnenfeld became a go to "expert" last year. Granted the guy does teach at Yale School of Management... but, that happens to be where he works with... Jim Chanos. I don't watch CNBC, so I don't know if they disclose this connection (their online clips don't contain such disclosure), but the NYT has not disclosed this in its articles I've read with aggressively disparaging Sonnenfeld commentary about Elon/Tesla.

 

[SteveG3]

I agree with everything else you've written on this topic other than the above. When Elon/Tesla have released statements the media has picked it up and spread the message. Unlike a weak kid Elon/Tesla have power, I think they should use it more.

I somewhat agree with your disagreeing- I did oversimplify the point there. To some extent, such rebuttals have helped, and I'd like to see them do more, and do it better (see last paragraph below).

What I was trying to get at, was that, so much of the media appears to be willfully misrepresenting events, simply thinking a polite tap on the shoulder, "hey, uh, you misunderstood what I meant there," won't, and hasn't sufficed... it is usually not an accidental error, but, an attempt to create and spread a false narrative by twisting & teasing bits of Tesla or Elon communications out of context.

With that often willful intent to create false impressions in the public's view of Tesla, unsurprisingly, follow ups from Tesla, and particularly from Elon, to yesterday's misrepresented media coverage has frequently just signaled, for those who fabricated the bs being rebutted, the opening for today's round of misrepresenting the latest Tesla/Elon statements while also regurgitating the laundry list of horrible, awful Tesla disasters. Now, it's not always that bad... sometimes more than another round of active misrepresentation, it's more, share some of Tesla's rebuttal, but, be sure to neuter the core of Tesla's rebuttal, so as not to have the false narrative soundly taken out of service. (It also sometimes gets rougher than usual, when it's from Elon, sometimes virtually none of the content of his rebuttal is discussed, instead, it's explained to all of us that Elon is an, unstable, obnoxious child, attacking the media, maybe sexist or racist...).

Final bit, and I think you may have also said some of this before on TMC... Yes, more responses, But, responses with awareness there is not much Tesla fair (much less friendly) mainstream media. Out with taped interviews that can be edited before airing or printing. Perhaps have calm and collected Deepak A., phone into CNBC, Bloomberg etc., live for like 5-10 minute focused interviews to explicitly correct misrepresentations being whipped up into these media duststorms. As to Elon, really carefully select the settings for a) intelligent, fair, empathetic hosts, b) long form interviews, c) arrangements where full uncut versions will be released with easy access, like posting on YouTube.

 

[JRP3]

I'm thinking more simple and direct factual refutations. If the media reports "A", which is false, Tesla responds "B" with supporting facts, discrediting the initial report. If this happens consistently the media learns they can't get away with it as easily. For now they know they can post almost anything and Tesla won't respond. I too would like to see live phone in responses as well but I think they might need a dedicated team to handle that effectively.

 

[PeterK]

yup.

given what I've seen of Tesla coverage since 2012 (and Bernie Sanders coverage, whether you think his ideas are helpful or not)... to a very large extent (an extent I'd of thought someone was nuts to suggest before the past 7 years of watching this), corporate media is an infomercial for the perceived interests of massive concentrated wealth... whether individual concentrated wealth or that of very large corporations.



back to Spiegel specifically... notice how NYT referred to Mark and his activity as,

"a managing partner at Stanphyl Capital, which has a large position shorting Tesla"

as if he were a partner of some large firm with a large position.

the entire "hedge fund" has $10 million under management, and appears to simply be Mark.

it is simply not possible for a "hedge fund" with $10 million of assets under management to have a "large position shorting Tesla" given Tesla's $40-65 Billion market cap over the past year. for further context, the total short position in Tesla has been running about $10-12 Billion. 1/1000th, or 0.1% of that is not a "large position."



what's more, for context, google "funds needed to start a hedge fund", and you'll find guidance like this,

"Seed Capital
Business Insider said in 2009 that $1 million will not get you very far in the launching of a hedge fund and that $5 million is a more realistic target to aim for when all costs are considered. With $5 million under management, success rates for hedge funds improve, observed one hedge fund consultant. Beyond this, other notable thresholds are the $20 million mark, which will make you more noticeable to investors, as well as the $100 million hurdle, which will open the door to more institutional investors."

How Much Money Do I Need to Start a Hedge Fund?

They are talking about seed capital... Mark's operation is barely a "hedge fund."


Mark's appearance in the NYT and on CNBC, is likely the result of their opinion shopping (trying to find someone they can frame as an expert who will pound a narrative they want to promote) and/or promotion of Mark by some larger entrenched wealth to these media outlets to use him as a mouthpiece for their perceived interests.

There are other examples of this among the experts that show up in the media. Jeff Sonnenfeld became a go to "expert" last year. Granted the guy does teach at Yale School of Management... but, that happens to be where he works with... Jim Chanos. I don't watch CNBC, so I don't know if they disclose this connection (their online clips don't contain such disclosure), but the NYT has not disclosed this in its articles I've read with aggressively disparaging Sonnenfeld commentary about Elon/Tesla.

I fully agree with your points about Spiegel - though I think he previously had about $25 million in his fund before losses and redemptions. I remember seeing an article that mentioned that amount a few years ago.

Sonnenfeld runs a CEO Forum that I attended a couple of times (my employer was a sponsor) so to me I just figured he was anti-Elon because Elon doesn’t fit the mold of what Sonnenfeld thinks a CEO should be and how she/he should behave.

I wasn’t aware of a Chanos connection. What is it?

 

[traxila]

I'm thinking more simple and direct factual refutations. If the media reports "A", which is false, Tesla responds "B" with supporting facts, discrediting the initial report. If this happens consistently the media learns they can't get away with it as easily. For now they know they can post almost anything and Tesla won't respond. I too would like to see live phone in responses as well but I think they might need a dedicated team to handle that effectively.

While I overwhelmingly agree based on logic and sentiment, you are giving people too much credit. No one cares past the headlines. Tesla would be pissing against the wind. Furthermore, their repeated responses would be easily spun to be overly defensive and evasive, as in what are they hiding?

 

[Mader Levap]

I feel that if these things go like that, in few decades job of journalist will be treated like job of actor in ancient times. I find it very threatening for democracy. Ironically nature of internet contributed significantly to problem of clickbait and unreliable news. Who would thought that?

 

[traxila]

I feel that if these things go like that, in few decades job of journalist will be treated like job of actor in ancient times. I find it very threatening for democracy. Ironically nature of internet contributed significantly to problem of clickbait and unreliable news. Who would thought that?

Common meme Mader. So many people who lived through the birth of the internet (starting early 90s let's say) are absolutely stunned at what it has become. What a cesspool....and yet it still can be an amazing thing. Just a reflection of people in the end.

 

[JRP3]

While I overwhelmingly agree based on logic and sentiment, you are giving people too much credit. No one cares past the headlines. Tesla would be pissing against the wind. Furthermore, their repeated responses would be easily spun to be overly defensive and evasive, as in what are they hiding?

If the responses were timely, simple, and direct, with evidence, it would be much better than letting the falsehoods go unanswered. Being direct is the exact opposite of evasive. It's the lack of opposing information which allows the BS rumors to keep replicating.

 

[JRP3]

On the other hand...

Weirdly, all the negative press seems to increase sales!

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[SteveG3]

If the responses were timely, simple, and direct, with evidence, it would be much better than letting the falsehoods go unanswered. Being direct is the exact opposite of evasive. It's the lack of opposing information which allows the BS rumors to keep replicating.

Such responses can help some, so agree, more of them, but currently they won't get even remotely a fair airing.

People are mostly used to this food fight fake news atmosphere from the world of politics... there, the mainstream Republicans have their media so to speak, and the mainstream Democrats have their's so to speak. They sling mud at each other using "their media vs the 'other side's' media," rebut mud slung at them using "their media vs. the 'other side's media."

In mainstream corporate media there is no 'Tesla's side' media. They're virtually all at times carrying the false narratives, they're virtually all at times twisting Tesla's attempts to rebut BS. Fox, CNN, Wall Street Journal, NYT, all the traditional major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, even NPR and PBS)... they've all seen that it's open season on Tesla, because unlike throwing horse manor at Republicans, or throwing horse manor at Democrats... there is virtually no voice that is going to call out your antics and have you pay a credibility price for your 'attack ads' posed as journalism. Yes, we get some favorable alternative media, but it is so much smaller in reach than mainstream corp media... and while some of it does some quite competent reporting, some of it, well,...

Prime example of this, Kara Swisher. My recollection from that interview was her admonishing Elon to self-reflect re being so thin-skinned dare anyone in the media do their job and criticize him or Tesla while Kara is being utterly unreflective about how rampant, deep, and long-lasting 'attack ad' infomercials aimed at Tesla and Musk have been.

tl;dr false narratives currently have essentially a police escort through virtually all of mainstream corporate media. This dramatically changes the nature of what is required to "clear things up by getting the facts out to the public."

 

[SteveG3]

I fully agree with your points about Spiegel - though I think he previously had about $25 million in his fund before losses and redemptions. I remember seeing an article that mentioned that amount a few years ago.

Sonnenfeld runs a CEO Forum that I attended a couple of times (my employer was a sponsor) so to me I just figured he was anti-Elon because Elon doesn’t fit the mold of what Sonnenfeld thinks a CEO should be and how she/he should behave.

I wasn’t aware of a Chanos connection. What is it?

Chanos is an adjunct at the same school within Yale that Sonnenfeld teaches. Sonnenfeld has had Chanos as a guest speaker at conferences he's run. If you watch/read Sonnenfeld's interviews he often gratuitously crams in misleading and/or false talking points aimed at Tesla we've heard from Chanos in interviews about unrelated Tesla stories. It's one thing for a known short to try to use every question to cram in unrelated talking points, but, when a guest invited as a management expert does it (and they are the same talking points Chanos uses) it is more than a tad suspicious.

 

[Enginerd]

If the media reports "A", which is false, Tesla responds "B" with supporting facts, discrediting the initial report.

In a perfect world, this would work. One issue with a policy like this is that if a journalist wants to know something about a company, all he would have to do is make something up without doing any research. Then Tesla would come along and correct that false statement? It may very well be something they weren't going to share, but were compelled to volunteer in order to correct the narrative.

Maybe we need some kind of a rating system on the reliability of information from the various organizations, so people can make an educated choice.

 

[winfield100]

Actual decent article on SA about Tesla, with an aside pointing out the iPace will be constrained at 50 kW charging not 350 and iPace sales will crash in favor of Tesla 3
The thing tho is the factory inLathrop and how google maps 2 weeks ago said Tesla factory but not has been scrubbed to host say factory possibly for Model Y construction
For once a decent article
https://seekingalpha.com/article/42...estimate-possible-model-y-factory?app=1#/alt2

 

[neroden]

Take a look through their twitter feeds through the whole Tesla bankruptcy "reefer madness" of last spring. Unless the editor's have the reigns of their twitter feed, they are not simply having their work twisted by editors.

I would actually say the major problem with modern media is the lack of competent editors. There's no pay structure rewarding quality editors.

In book publication, the authors now basically have to pay the editors themselves. How bad do you think it is in *newspapers*?

 

[neroden]

In addition, just the idea that a guy who manages a few million dollars out of his apartment (a recent article showed him working on his laptop in the bathroom), and loses money at it, should been given press time and interviews as if he’s some kind of authority just bewilders me. Really?

However, if the media is firm in its belief that "a guy who manages a few million dollars out of his apartment" should be given press time and interviews as if he's some kind of authority...

....then I offer myself up for media interviews. Anyone know how I can get some?

Oh. But I own a house, not an apartment. Is that the difference?
Also, I make money off my investing. Maybe that's the difference?
Or maybe it's that I don't live in New York City. I'll be happy to meet them at my club there, though.

 

[neroden]

I fully agree with your points about Spiegel - though I think he previously had about $25 million in his fund before losses and redemptions. I remember seeing an article that mentioned that amount a few years ago.

That was Spiegel's max. Calculations show he's probably down to around $4-5 milllion now. Obviously he hasn't published numbers recently; I dug through the reports of new money added and gains/losses by year to figure it out.

 

[neroden]

On the other hand...

Elon Musk on Twitter

"Any publicity is good publicity".

 

[Navin]

yup.

given what I've seen of Tesla coverage since 2012 (and Bernie Sanders coverage, whether you think his ideas are helpful or not)... to a very large extent (an extent I'd of thought someone was nuts to suggest before the past 7 years of watching this), corporate media is an infomercial for the perceived interests of massive concentrated wealth... whether individual concentrated wealth or that of very large corporations.



back to Spiegel specifically... notice how NYT referred to Mark and his activity as,

"a managing partner at Stanphyl Capital, which has a large position shorting Tesla"

as if he were a partner of some large firm with a large position.

the entire "hedge fund" has $10 million under management, and appears to simply be Mark.

it is simply not possible for a "hedge fund" with $10 million of assets under management to have a "large position shorting Tesla" given Tesla's $40-65 Billion market cap over the past year. for further context, the total short position in Tesla has been running about $10-12 Billion. 1/1000th, or 0.1% of that is not a "large position."



what's more, for context, google "funds needed to start a hedge fund", and you'll find guidance like this,

"Seed Capital
Business Insider said in 2009 that $1 million will not get you very far in the launching of a hedge fund and that $5 million is a more realistic target to aim for when all costs are considered. With $5 million under management, success rates for hedge funds improve, observed one hedge fund consultant. Beyond this, other notable thresholds are the $20 million mark, which will make you more noticeable to investors, as well as the $100 million hurdle, which will open the door to more institutional investors."

How Much Money Do I Need to Start a Hedge Fund?

They are talking about seed capital... Mark's operation is barely a "hedge fund."


Mark's appearance in the NYT and on CNBC, is likely the result of their opinion shopping (trying to find someone they can frame as an expert who will pound a narrative they want to promote) and/or promotion of Mark by some larger entrenched wealth to these media outlets to use him as a mouthpiece for their perceived interests.

There are other examples of this among the experts that show up in the media. Jeff Sonnenfeld became a go to "expert" last year. Granted the guy does teach at Yale School of Management... but, that happens to be where he works with... Jim Chanos. I don't watch CNBC, so I don't know if they disclose this connection (their online clips don't contain such disclosure), but the NYT has not disclosed this in its articles I've read with aggressively disparaging Sonnenfeld commentary about Elon/Tesla.

Try this on for size. I would be willing to bet that his fund’s investors or limited partners are either big oil, auto, or other larger financial shorts that want to see tesla fail. The money they give to Mark is insignificant in that it’s more of a scheme to legitimize a short attack via a fund manager vs just paid media and other tactics. I also bet the requirement with their investment is that Mark has to be on 24/7 for them attacking Tesla, including when in the bathroom brushing his teeth.

 

[winfield100]

another stretch by another short with bad info at best
Tesla Massively Delays U.S. Title Registrations For Its Cars - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

i gave them the link of SP going higher
Opricot Open Interest|Volume|Max Pain

AND Also (Could we omehow force a buy for that dude? share the LUV and such? (legally ofcourse"
"uptick_rule_now
Comments1764 | + Follow
I sold a huge amount of those January 2020 calls (naked) knowing full well the stock price will not reach the levels people were paying me to sell those calls. Even if everything went in Tesla's favor. Not counting the fraud of course.
NEW|07 Jan 2019, 06:13 PM
"

 

[neroden]

Tesla is having trouble getting cars registered on time, and it is, of course, operational process disorganization (which has been endemic). Not much news in that very long short-seller article..