Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[SteveG3]

Glad to see the name of the thread was changed. I'd suggest a step further, "Articles re Tesla fact FUD or Hype," which makes it clear we are looking to recognize and bust any distortion. The desire to do so is already pretty evident from the way unsupported bullish gibberish from Trip Chowdry has been quickly identified and picked apart in this forum. Including such "Hype" as also belonging here would help make it clear we are seeking to analyze all new information without prejudice.

 

[NigelM]

Please feel free to delete my post with the pasted article, Nigel.

Sorry, I'm not a mod anymore. Maybe jhm or Robert can get it for you.

 

[SteveG3]

Fantastic name for this thread. As a suggestion I wonder if there's a way we can set up a wiki of sorts and link each particular FUD article/rumor along with referenced bulletpoint facts that dispel it. In other words, create a handy quick look-up that can be referenced conveniently.

Last week there was a suggestion to make a subforum rather than an individual thread to address the same goal as this new thread. Within the subforum, each new distorted theme getting media coverage (FUD or Hype) could have it's own thread to achieve the easy look-up and reference goal you are suggesting via a wiki. I think the first post in each thread could summarize the distortion, and list the media sources that have presented it (the first post could be updated over time if the distortion was repeated to indicate the latest source of the repetition of the distortion). Following posts could debunk the distortion.

Whether by wiki or subforum, I think it would be helpful to individually identify each misperception spread through media coverage rather than have it all lumped in one thread. Over time this would also serve to form a record of the volume (and sources) of these distortions.

 

[Curt Renz]

Sorry, I'm not a mod anymore. Maybe jhm or Robert can get it for you.

That's right, Nigel; I forgot. Meanwhile, I just deleted it myself, since you are the one who wanted to see it and apparently already did so.

 

[aznt1217]

What I dont understand is... After all this time people are still quoting a lack of demand as an issue... I mean literally since the roadster...

 

[SteveG3]

What I dont understand is... After all this time people are still quoting a lack of demand as an issue... I mean literally since the roadster...

I see something encouraging in this sort of thing... there are bears working hard to find a case against Tesla. If the best they can do is regurgitate something a modest familiarity with the company can see through, it reveals their lack of convincing arguments.

 

[jhm]

Comparing side by side the versions that Curt cited (Tesla Posts Short Waiting Time for Upscale P85D Model S - NASDAQ.com) and what I presently pull from WSJ, it is abundantly clear that this article has been rewriten. The WSJ is much better written stylistically and the tone has been soften and content better supported. I belief Curt's version to be closer to what Ramsey orginally wrote, and therefore more revealing of the author's intention. Note a couple of quotes from Curt's version:


"While Tesla's inventory is far lower than mainstream competitors, ..." WSJ editors removed this comparison with the volume of established automakers. This sort of comparison is standard FUD material, and WSJ editors had the decency to cut it.

"The P85D launch is a litmus test for this model." This line was entirely cut. The notion of a "litmus test" is clearly unmotivated and sets up a kind of strawman hypothesis. In other words, Ramsey is deploying rhetoric to make Tesla look like they are failing in something very critical. Again, WSJ editors had the good sense to cut this.

In analyzing potential FUD, it can be very helpful to pay attention to variations in text. In the world of online publishing it can be simple to change the text, but in doing so we can see the differences in original intent and the role of editors to cover that intent.

- - - Updated - - -

That's right, Nigel; I forgot. Meanwhile, I just deleted it myself, since you are the one who wanted to see it and apparently already did so.

Since this text is valuable for analysis, can anyone find a link to an identical online version? Bonus points to the first person!

Edit: Found it! Tesla Posts Short Waiting Time for Upscale P85D Model S - NASDAQ.com

It looks like Robert got Curt's post.

 

[Curt Renz]

If you don't take my word for the quotes not being in the original article, try Google page search (Ctrl F on the article page if you use Google Chrome); you'll find that the first quote Curt's posted isn't in there at all, the second quote was in there but worded differently, the third quote isn't there, the fourth quote was in there but worded differently, the fifth quote wasn't in there.

Nigel, I just now noticed that you could not find a match for the third quote. In this case the rewrite is more significant, but still apparent

DJ: “…Still, investors are hungry for more details about the company's progress toward meeting its goals, particularly after Tesla fell short of its delivery target in 2014…”

WSJ: “…Investors hungry for details about the company’s progress toward meeting its 2015 delivery goals aren’t likely to be sated soon…”

 

[SteveG3]

In analyzing potential FUD, it can be very helpful to pay attention to variations in text. In the world of online publishing it can be simple to change the text, but in doing so we can see the differences in original intent and the role of editors to cover that intent.

On Friday it was Reuters that first reported the notion of a delay in the Gigafactory. They had a story out around noon that described a suspected delay based on the electricians union postings in paragraph one, followed only in paragraph five with mentioning that Tesla "disputed" there being a delay. A couple of hours later there was essentially the same Reuters story released again. No notice of a correction, but Tesla's position moved up to paragraph one (there may have been other minor changes).

 

[jhm]

Nigel, I just now noticed that you could not find a match for the third quote. In this case the rewrite is more significant, but still apparent

DJ: “…Still, investors are hungry for more details about the company's progress toward meeting its goals, particularly after Tesla fell short of its delivery target in 2014…”

WSJ: “…Investors hungry for details about the company’s progress toward meeting its 2015 delivery goals aren’t likely to be sated soon…”

This is another good example of the WSJ editorial hand toning down Ramsey inflamatory rhetoric. There is no reason for the expression, "particularly after Tesla fell short of its delivery target in 2014," than to discredit Tesla to make it sound as if shareholders are angry with Tesla.

 

[Curt Renz]

Comparing side by side the versions that Curt posted and what I presently pull from WSJ, it is abundantly clear that this article has been rewriten. The WSJ is much better written stylistically and the tone has been soften and content better supported. I belief Curt's version to be closer to what Ramsey orginally wrote, and therefore more revealing of the author's intention. Note a couple of quotes from Curt's version:


"While Tesla's inventory is far lower than mainstream competitors, ..." WSJ editors removed this comparison with the volume of established automakers. This sort of comparison is standard FUD material, and WSJ editors had the decency to cut it.

"The P85D launch is a litmus test for this model." This line was entirely cut. The notion of a "litmus test" is clearly unmotivated and sets up a kind of strawman hypothesis. In other words, Ramsey is deploying rhetoric to make Tesla look like they are failing in something very critical. Again, WSJ editors had the good sense to cut this.

In analyzing potential FUD, it can be very helpful to pay attention to variations in text. In the world of online publishing it can be simple to change the text, but in doing so we can see the differences in original intent and the role of editors to cover that intent.

- - - Updated - - -



Since this text is valuable for analysis, I would prefer to keep it. I know that this is contrary to TMC. Can anyone find a link to an identical online version? Bonus points to the first person!

Edit: Found it! Tesla Posts Short Waiting Time for Upscale P85D Model S - NASDAQ.com

It looks like Robert got Curt's post.

That's a fine analysis, James, of how things generally work in a print newsroom. Although a reporter who allows biases to seep through in what is supposed to be a straight news story, rather than an editorial, doesn't deserve to keep his job, especially when it might affect how people invest. I originally pasted Ramsey's newswire copy from my brokerage account, since I could not find a link at that time. Then I took up your challenge and found the NASDAQ link only to learn you had beaten me. Meanwhile, when Nigel told me he could not delete my post, I did it myself under the assumption he was the only one interested. Glad you supplied a link to the original Dow Jones newswire copy written by Mike Ramsey.

 

[vgrinshpun]

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.

I do not see how the main argument of this article can be turned either way.

In my post I did not indicate that the author of the article said Tesla was lying, instead he clearly implied it. Here is the quote that I had in mind: "The short wait time—in the past year deliveries have been as long as three months—raises concerns about the strength of demand for Tesla’s pricey cars." To make his point about questioning the veracity of Tesla's statement clear, the author then proceeds to indicate that " Last month, it said the order backlog included 10,000 deposits for its Model S and 20,000 for the Model X" ​

Of course the reasoning author is using to imply that Tesla is lying about the backlog is verifiably faulty. If the wait time for the most expensive variant of the Model S is "just 20 days", but wait for the other variants is two month, it is clear that total backlog is is NOT defined by the shorter wait for the P85D. In fact, the shorter wait time for the "P" variant is irrelevant as far as determining the backlog of orders goes, because the company prioritizes deliveries of the "P" cars.

The statement from the article that I quoted above also includes false assertion that in the past year deliveries (of the most expensive "performance" variants) of the car have been as long as three month. In reality the wait time for the "P" variants was always around one month or less, never three months.

So I explained in detail what is my reasoning for labeling this article FUD is: it certainly designed to create doubt about reporting from the company.

You seem to share the opinion that argument can be turned either way, so allow me to repeat the question to you: why specifically do you think that the main premise of this article is **not** FUD?

 

[sundaymorning]

I see something encouraging in this sort of thing... there are bears working hard to find a case against Tesla. If the best they can do is regurgitate something a modest familiarity with the company can see through, it reveals their lack of convincing arguments.

What I dont understand is... After all this time people are still quoting a lack of demand as an issue... I mean literally since the roadster...

Due to Tesla's secret nature of production and reservation numbers, "demand theory" is the only piece of FUD bulls can't disprove. None of us knows what demand truly is until Tesla publishes delivery numbers during QR. However, even then, shorts will comtinue to pounce on their demand FUD because production for the quarter was higher than actual deliveries. It's a never ending scam and will continue as such beyond Model 3.

 

[jhm]

On Friday it was Reuters that first reported the notion of a delay in the Gigafactory. They had a story out around noon that described a suspected delay based on the electricians union postings in paragraph one, followed only in paragraph five with mentioning that Tesla "disputed" there being a delay. A couple of hours later there was essentially the same Reuters story released again. No notice of a correction, but Tesla's position moved up to paragraph one (there may have been other minor changes).

Very interesting. It may be helpful when encourntering FUD to make a personal copy for later analysis and comparisons with revisions. We can't post this on TMC, but an individual can do their own analysis and post quotes. My general hypothesis is that earlier versions will be more inflamatory and give us a clearer lens into intentions.

The edit you refer to suggests that the orignal author may have wanted to downplay Tesla's denial, or at least did not think it very important. If we could do a side by side comparison, we might find all sorts of smaller changes in language.

When it comes to hit pieces impacting the stock price in real time, it is very important to know what the original text was. Stronger language can be deployed initially, then once the price impact has been achieved, the text can be toned down to avoid legal and reputational damage.

 

[Auzie]

Glad to see the name of the thread was changed. I'd suggest a step further, "Articles re Tesla fact FUD or Hype," which makes it clear we are looking to recognize and bust any distortion. The desire to do so is already pretty evident from the way unsupported bullish gibberish from Trip Chowdry has been quickly identified and picked apart in this forum. Including such "Hype" as also belonging here would help make it clear we are seeking to analyze all new information without prejudice.

I support your proposal to go a step further in changing thread name. It seems that this thread has a chance of hosting some heated discussions.

Most articles are not so easily classified as FUD or Hype, usually the truth is somewhere on a scale between the two. Articles may contain correct facts that are interpreted with a personal bias or may contain future expectations, again coloured with personal bias.

Who's to say whose bias is right, bears or longs? To avoid any prejudice, it might be best to avoid using words FUD or hype in the thread title.

It might be helpful if the name accurately signals what the thread is about and use some of these neutral, non inflammatory words in the name. The thread is really about discussion, teasing the facts and analysis, or use your imagination and add few more non inflammatory non prejudicial words.

 

[bonnie]

Glad to see the name of the thread was changed. I'd suggest a step further, "Articles re Tesla fact FUD or Hype," which makes it clear we are looking to recognize and bust any distortion. The desire to do so is already pretty evident from the way unsupported bullish gibberish from Trip Chowdry has been quickly identified and picked apart in this forum. Including such "Hype" as also belonging here would help make it clear we are seeking to analyze all new information without prejudice.

I support your proposal to go a step further in changing thread name. It seems that this thread has a chance of hosting some heated discussions.

Most articles are not so easily classified as FUD or Hype, usually the truth is somewhere on a scale between the two. Articles may contain correct facts that are interpreted with a personal bias or may contain future expectations, again coloured with personal bias.

Who's to say whose bias is right, bears or longs? To avoid any prejudice, it might be best to avoid using words FUD or hype in the thread title.

It might be helpful if the name accurately signals what the thread is about and use some of these neutral, non inflammatory words in the name. The thread is really about discussion, teasing the facts and analysis, or use your imagination and add few more non inflammatory non prejudicial words.

Totally agree with both of you. The other alternative is to have a sister-thread, entitled 'Articles re Tesla: Hype or Fact?'. But just throwing them all in together seems like the best option.

 

[jhm]

That's a fine analysis, James, of how things generally work in a print newsroom. Although a reporter who allows biases to seep through in what is supposed to be a straight news story, rather than an editorial, doesn't deserve to keep his job, especially when it might affect how people invest. I originally pasted Ramsey's newswire copy from my brokerage account, since I could not find a link at that time. Then I took up your challenge and found the NASDAQ link only to learn you had beaten me. Meanwhile, when Nigel told me he could not delete my post, I did it myself under the assumption he was the only one interested. Glad you supplied a link to the original Dow Jones newswire copy written by Mike Ramsey.

Well, you get bonus points just for playing along! I think we're covered on the deletion. Thanks.

In seminary I got exposed to text criticism and redactive criticism, so it's nice to see some practical application for all that. It good for detecting bias.

In this particualr article, it is hard for me to detect any reportable news. That Tesla's website says the P85D is available in late March hardly seems like news worthy information. So I view this entirely as an opinion piece where the website trivia is just an anecdote to launch the essay.

Perhaps we should be getting background info on Mr Ramsey.

 

[mejojo]

To me, the dodgy part is not necessarily the bogus articles, but rather that they are brought here.

What is the motivation for doing so? To inform us that there is a viable argument demonstrating there is lacking demand? If so, where is that viable argument?

My feeling is that, in general, this is not the intent.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I support your proposal to go a step further in changing thread name. It seems that this thread has a chance of hosting some heated discussions.

Most articles are not so easily classified as FUD or Hype, usually the truth is somewhere on a scale between the two. Articles may contain correct facts that are interpreted with a personal bias or may contain future expectations, again coloured with personal bias.

Who's to say whose bias is right, bears or longs? To avoid any prejudice, it might be best to avoid using words FUD or hype in the thread title.

It might be helpful if the name accurately signals what the thread is about and use some of these neutral, non inflammatory words in the name. The thread is really about discussion, teasing the facts and analysis, or use your imagination and add few more non inflammatory non prejudicial words.

I completely agree with this.

It is really important, in my opinion, for people to be free to share their thinking about an article, or to ask questions, without fear they will be painted as FUD promoters. We should feel free to take strong positions, but also to be on the fence, without the fear of being accused of pushing any agenda, be it bullish or bearish. Exchange of information, vigorous debate, and depth of analysis are what have always set this forum apart from most investor boards I've seen out there. Anything that makes groupthink more likely has the potential to weaken it.

 

[jhm]

Due to Tesla's secret nature of production and reservation numbers, "demand theory" is the only piece of FUD bulls can't disprove. None of us knows what demand truly is until Tesla publishes delivery numbers during QR. However, even then, shorts will comtinue to pounce on their demand FUD because production for the quarter was higher than actual deliveries. It's a never ending scam and will continue as such beyond Model 3.

FUD from the future: Sure, Tesla may have sold 3.7 million cars last year, but we believe demand is stalling. What's more, Audi will release their long awaited Tesla Killer within three years.