Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[Citizen-T]

A lot of the recent news is not so much FUD as it is confusion. We have to remember that we are tremendously better informed about Tesla than those shorting the stock (forget the bias) and think just how much less informed random financial or, even worse, auto journalists are.

Take, for instance, the latest piece about P85D delivery schedule. To know that this is likely a non-issue you need to know that Tesla has always heavily prioritized delivery of higher-end models, that Tesla always focuses on US sales at the end of the quarter, realize that the timing of these deliveries corresponds with the end of the quarter, and understand that the P85D is in a price category where even a 4 week backlog is impressive (given the addressable market).

These points are obvious to us, but at best the journalist who wrote that piece recognizes the final point (though he gave no indication of that) because it is pretty intuitive. The spokesperson for Tesla did point out the first point (that they prioritize higher-end cars), but it is easy to disregard that if you aren't familiar with the history of the company like we are. You can easily write it off as an excuse given that everybody knows Tesla's demand is wearing thin.

I think it is fine for us to pick apart these articles. But, there seems to be a tendency that has grown in recent months to attribute malice where stupidity (or really just the fact that these people have a life) is much more likely. And, rather than moan and complain about it, realize that this right here is what every investor dreams about. To know more than the rest of the market. This is your chance to make money, because there is an imbalance in information about the future of this company. We have more information and a higher quality understanding of it.

The bigger and better known and more popular Tesla (and TSLA) get, the harder and harder it is going to be to have such an advantage.

 

[Lump]

Anyone want to second this motion?

I asked if this is how things are going to work around here & seconds later I got my answer.

Setting up a FUD Bunker then asking for someone if they wanted something relabeled & moved is a nice new feature in moderating. I await the day when a "Fanboy Bunker", "Head in the Sand" or "Tesla can do no Wrong Bunker" is created & a Mod ask for someone to second the motion for movement.

 

[Curt Renz]

I appreciate the intention but if an argument is substantiated then it isn't FUD, even though it's been labelled as such by the thread title. Hopefully some discussion will be allowed to play out before they automatically get moved here (and therefore labelled as FUD)?

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) can equally apply to truthful or fanciful comments that appear negative to a company's prospects. I applaud the moderators creating a thread for dissecting any truths, lies, or half truths in published commentary that may cast a negative light on Tesla Motors as an investment.

 

[ecarfan]

As always, comments about these works of FUD should refute (or substantiate) the arguments with facts and thoughtful analysis, rather than ridicule the writer (unless the writer holds himself out as a media personality, and then the gloves can come off—I'm looking at you, Cramer).

That really made me Laugh Out Loud! Cramer is all "personality" and zero content.

 

[Hogfighter]

Tesla is deliberately lazy in updating their wait times for vehicle deliveries. If you reference the thread http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/31153-Website-wait-times-for-delivery-change, you'll see that quite often the wait time will change by months. This happened last May when it jumped from just a few weeks to September, among other times.

They don't want everyone over-analyzing wait times and making assumptions regarding demand, as the WSJ article just did.

 

[NigelM]

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) can equally apply to truthful or fanciful comments that appear negative to a company's prospects. I applaud the moderators creating a thread for dissecting any truths, lies, or half truths in published commentary that may cast a negative light on Tesla Motors as an investment.

Fair enough, but I'd argue that most people don't see the term 'FUD' as applying to statements of truth. If any and all negative statements (even those based in fact) are going to be corralled under the heading of "FUD Bunker" we risk finding ourselves on a slippery slope.....

 

[SteveG3]

A lot of the recent news is not so much FUD as it is confusion. We have to remember that we are tremendously better informed about Tesla than those shorting the stock (forget the bias) and think just how much less informed random financial or, even worse, auto journalists are.

Take, for instance, the latest piece about P85D delivery schedule. To know that this is likely a non-issue you need to know that Tesla has always heavily prioritized delivery of higher-end models, that Tesla always focuses on US sales at the end of the quarter, realize that the timing of these deliveries corresponds with the end of the quarter, and understand that the P85D is in a price category where even a 4 week backlog is impressive (given the addressable market).

These points are obvious to us, but at best the journalist who wrote that piece recognizes the final point (though he gave no indication of that) because it is pretty intuitive. The spokesperson for Tesla did point out the first point (that they prioritize higher-end cars), but it is easy to disregard that if you aren't familiar with the history of the company like we are. You can easily write it off as an excuse given that everybody knows Tesla's demand is wearing thin.

I think it is fine for us to pick apart these articles. But, there seems to be a tendency that has grown in recent months to attribute malice where stupidity (or really just the fact that these people have a life) is much more likely. And, rather than moan and complain about it, realize that this right here is what every investor dreams about. To know more than the rest of the market. This is your chance to make money, because there is an imbalance in information about the future of this company. We have more information and a higher quality understanding of it.

The bigger and better known and more popular Tesla (and TSLA) get, the harder and harder it is going to be to have such an advantage.

What you are saying re mistaking ignorance for malice certainly happens in some cases. I know personally I will do well to remember your point here reading various articles and comments.

That said, I think it is extremely probable that there is a substantial effort to paint a falsely negative picture of Tesla by some in the media. Looking at what come from the Rupert Murdoch trio (Wall Street Journal, Barrons, and MarketWatch). I would say 80+% is agenda driven and negative, varying from somewhat subtle to pretty blatant, with ~15% neutral. The headlines online from WSJ at the time of the Detroit Motor Show that "Musk says China sales Tanking" (maybe not exactly that but real close, pretty sure "tanking" was used), is an example of blatant. Not only was it sensationalist and negative, there was a timing issue between a selloff in the stock, that headline, and Musk's actual comments that looked highly likely to have been gamed to push the stock down (I'll look the details up if you'd like me to back that up).

I also agree with you that this misunderstanding in media coverage widens the gap in knowledge which is at the core of making money in the market on more than luck. My concern is that it crosses from investor confusion to consumer confusion... that is these themes create doubts in the public about the trustworthiness of the company, and the reliability and capability of its products and EVs in general.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I asked if this is how things are going to work around here & seconds later I got my answer.

Setting up a FUD Bunker then asking for someone if they wanted something relabeled & moved is a nice new feature in moderating. I await the day when a "Fanboy Bunker", "Head in the Sand" or "Tesla can do no Wrong Bunker" is created & a Mod ask for someone to second the motion for movement.

I am still waiting to hear a cohesive reasoning on why the main premise of the subject article is NOT FUD.

Why it is logical to consider that company is lying about being production constraint based on short wait for the most expensive variant of their car, P85D?

 

[MikeC]

Taking true facts and ascribing negative implications is what FUD is. Things that are obviously incorrect do not instill fear. When news outlets owned by known anti-TSLA people (I.e., Rupert Murdoch) put out a stream of facts implying demand problems, it is FUD. True bad news like China delivery problems was not FUD, it was bad news, and no one called it FUD. Implying that the corrective steps taken to address the problem are indications of further problems is FUD.

 

[Lump]

I honestly didn't see FUD when i posted the article in the Short-Term TSLA Price Movements thread, I expected I good debate. Bulls would have argued production problems have been resolved & customers are happier now with shorter wait times etc...& Bears would have claimed demand has weakened etc...DEBATE IS GOOD!

But the FUD paranoia & bullish bias dominates.

• 
  

 

[NigelM]

Why are you so focused on procedural and superficial side of this? I am still waiting to hear a cohesive reasoning on why the main premise of the subject article is NOT FUD.

Do you have any reasoning on why it is logical to consider that company is lying about being production constraint based on short wait for the most expensive variant of their car, P85D?

As Lump indicated, the argument can be turned either way, but I don't see anything in that article saying that Tesla is lying about production constraint. Feel free to copy/paste that quote from the article if I missed it.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly didn't see FUD when i posted the article in the Short-Term TSLA Price Movements thread, I expected I good debate. Bulls would have argued production problems have been resolved & customers are happier now with shorter wait times etc...& Bears would have claimed demand has weakened etc...DEBATE IS GOOD!

I wouldn't have labelled the article FUD; it does wonder out loud about what the numbers mean and bemoans the lack of hard information to tell one way or the other. That desire for hard information is shared by just about everyone on this board btw.

 

[maoing]

FUD is relative, it works for both directions. For GTAT case, I lost some money either, obviously those wishful thinking guys have Fear, Uncertain and Doubt about TRUTH and REALITY, they just put head-in-sand and dismiss any different opinions! It's so "dangerous" in investment if all people are saying unanimous tone.

I lost a lot of money in GTAT. The board there would put down and diminish "FUDsters" and essentially silence them. This board is much more balanced but occasionally i feel sometimes mislabels NEWS for FUD. I only mention this as I made a huge mistake believing everything labelled FUD was indeed labelled correctly. Now we have a FUD bunker, and it will be interesting to see what lands there. The first article already seems to stir the debate between FUD or news.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The problem is that the Short-Term Price Movement thread isn't a great place to have a thoughtful discussion about a WSJ article. Perhaps this thread title should be changed to something more neutral?

[Upon a careful read of the article, I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't cross the FUD line.]-->but see me change my mind below

 

[eepic]

The only thing keeping me 'in' at this state in time, is a belief in Elon. Not in his genius, but in his genuineness. When he speaks, I feel he is being 100% honest. Before the end of q4 I received a "cold" call from Tesla in Vancouver, asking if I wanted to buy a model S as they had some inventory/testers they were 'trying to move'. ( I am on the X reservation list). I thought it was strange at the time, but also really try to question is there ANY validity to suggest there is a problem with demand. ie. What if Tesla is not sandbagging Q1 guidance. What would happen then to the stock? I ask as i have been down that road before, without asking.

I lost a lot of money in GTAT. The board there would put down and diminish "FUDsters" and essentially silence them. This board is much more balanced but occasionally i feel sometimes mislabels NEWS for FUD. I only mention this as I made a huge mistake believing everything labelled FUD was indeed labelled correctly. Now we have a FUD bunker, and it will be interesting to see what lands there. The first article already seems to stir the debate between FUD or news.

+1

I believe Elon is one of the most genuine corporate leaders out there, but sometimes he can't tell us the full truth publicly. I'd go as far as suggest taking turns playing devil's advocate to come up with the best bearish arguments to see if they hold water (e.g. the insights into China here turned out to be right). I think we all believe in the long term vision here and want information, not cheerleading.

 

[jhm]

Sorry, I disagree. As this thread is labelled "FUD Bunker" anything that gets moved here is automatically labelled as FUD by the mods and by definition there's not likely to be much discussion. In the case of Lump's post it was apparently moved before any discussion had taken place so it's a reasonable point of view IMO to say that discussion has been curtailed, albeit by well intentioned motives.

- - - Updated - - -



I appreciate the intention but if an argument is substantiated then it isn't FUD, even though it's been labelled as such by the thread title. Hopefully some discussion will be allowed to play out before they automatically get moved here (and therefore labelled as FUD)?

Four responses, including a specific request to move this to the bunker, were presented before I asked if their was a second to move it. While I do not always believe that moderators need a second, I think it is fair to wait until there is a second. Additionally there have been several posts debating the WSJ piece since it was moved. Anyone who believes that this WSJ article is not FUD is encouraged to make their case.

I'd be happy to have a "Hype Chamber" for debating articles that hype the stock with misleading or erroneous claims. Both hype articles and FUD articles distort the market and hurt investors. So if anyone sees a need for some sort of Hype Chamber, let the moderators know.

 

[maoing]

Agreed. Elon was playing important role on China hype although he could be misled by wrong information from Tesla China management, but Elon's words are very influential to the market. Prediction for the future is always hard, so is for Elon.

+1

I believe Elon is one of the most genuine corporate leaders out there, but sometimes he can't tell us the full truth publicly. I'd go as far as suggest taking turns playing devil's advocate to come up with the best bearish arguments to see if they hold water (e.g. the insights into China here turned out to be right). I think we all believe in the long term vision here and want information, not cheerleading.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Elon doesn't need to hype anything about China. He knows the truth. When Tesla shows all its cards, a lot of journalists and "shorts" will look very foolish.

Also, people should begin posting pictures of the most dangerous gas stations in the world. I guess the people talking about EV charging in China haven't seen what improvised gas stations look like (In many countries, not just in China).

 

[Curt Renz]

A lot of the recent news is not so much FUD as it is confusion. We have to remember that we are tremendously better informed about Tesla than those shorting the stock (forget the bias) and think just how much less informed random financial or, even worse, auto journalists are.

Take, for instance, the latest piece about P85D delivery schedule. To know that this is likely a non-issue you need to know that Tesla has always heavily prioritized delivery of higher-end models, that Tesla always focuses on US sales at the end of the quarter, realize that the timing of these deliveries corresponds with the end of the quarter, and understand that the P85D is in a price category where even a 4 week backlog is impressive (given the addressable market).

These points are obvious to us, but at best the journalist who wrote that piece recognizes the final point (though he gave no indication of that) because it is pretty intuitive. The spokesperson for Tesla did point out the first point (that they prioritize higher-end cars), but it is easy to disregard that if you aren't familiar with the history of the company like we are. You can easily write it off as an excuse given that everybody knows Tesla's demand is wearing thin.

I think it is fine for us to pick apart these articles. But, there seems to be a tendency that has grown in recent months to attribute malice where stupidity (or really just the fact that these people have a life) is much more likely. And, rather than moan and complain about it, realize that this right here is what every investor dreams about. To know more than the rest of the market. This is your chance to make money, because there is an imbalance in information about the future of this company. We have more information and a higher quality understanding of it.

The bigger and better known and more popular Tesla (and TSLA) get, the harder and harder it is going to be to have such an advantage.

What you are saying re mistaking ignorance for malice certainly happens in some cases. I know personally I will do well to remember your point here reading various articles and comments.

That said, I think it is extremely probable that there is a substantial effort to paint a falsely negative picture of Tesla by some in the media. Looking at what come from the Rupert Murdoch trio (Wall Street Journal, Barrons, and MarketWatch). I would say 80+% is agenda driven and negative, varying from somewhat subtle to pretty blatant, with ~15% neutral. The headlines online from WSJ at the time of the Detroit Motor Show that "Musk says China sales Tanking" (maybe not exactly that but real close, pretty sure "tanking" was used), is an example of blatant. Not only was it sensationalist and negative, there was a timing issue between a selloff in the stock, that headline, and Musk's actual comments that looked highly likely to have been gamed to push the stock down (I'll look the details up if you'd like me to back that up).

I also agree with you that this misunderstanding in media coverage widens the gap in knowledge which is at the core of making money in the market on more than luck. My concern is that it crosses from investor confusion to consumer confusion... that is these themes create doubts in the public about the trustworthiness of the company, and the reliability and capability of its products and EVs in general.

+1
I worked for a broadcast TV financial news program based in Chicago. We were monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. We were always extremely careful to be accurate and fair. Actually, all of us working at the station were conscientious and would have behaved anyway. Of course the station's owner would have wanted to keep his license, and would have been careful with hiring.

Media entities controlled by Rupert Murdoch (The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, MarketWatch, Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network) are not broadcast over the air and not subject to FCC oversight. Advertising revenue is the lifeblood of the media. Unlike the case with commercials, in news presentations bad news is more frequently highlighted and made more sensational than good news. The automotive and petroleum industries advertise heavily. Tesla Motors does no media advertising at all, yet they are disruptive of those established industries that do advertise. Guess who Murdoch would want to target.

 

[mejojo]

FUD does not mean untrue, however to some people there is that connotation.

There was clearly a spin on this one, but not as bad as most.

My question about the article is why was it posted in the short term thread? Was it anticipated that there was something in it that would alter the course of the share price? I didn't view it as having anything in it that someone would trade on.

 

[Lump]

FUD does not mean untrue, however to some people there is that connotation.

There was clearly a spin on this one, but not as bad as most.

My question about the article is why was it posted in the short term thread? Was it anticipated that there was something in it that would alter the course of the share price? I didn't view it as having anything in it that someone would trade on.

If you find something that isn't relevant to you ignore it, thats what I do.

Since it was removed & not put back what difference does it make anyways?