-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
You're welcome. Indeed, an author can twist the facts subtly through implication rather flat out lying. One must wonder about the author's motives, if his editors had to tone down his rhetoric. Reporters are highly dependent upon sources. Hedge fund managers may be more than willing to provide ideas, perhaps even actual words that make the chore of writing so much easier. When I was a financial reporter, people with an agenda often offered unsolicited "help". I ignored them.
bluenation
Member
i have mixed feelings about this thread
on one hand, i think it's an excellent idea to post links here to discuss their merits
however, its very problematic that mods are cutting discussion in other threads and willy nilly pasting them here. why not leave the original thread alone, but just copy the link here?
the other big problem is the thread's entire concept
- the title: why 'FUD or fact'? and i cant believe the OP called it "FUD bunker" originally....i mean, really? why not simply: "Lets discuss the merits of an article" - a much more productive title for quality discussion.
- the necessity (?) for this thread highlights one of the biggest problems of TMC:
a) the thin-skin, the unwillingness to accept critical or alternative lines of thinking on TM-related topics,
b) the unwelcome mat for ppl who may not have positive things to say about TM
c) and the use of pejoratives.
a number of times, myself and others have been chastised by others for using 'fanboy' in what i honestly, legitimately thought was appropriate to use. and yet....the words 'FUD', 'fud machine' or 'fudster' not only is accepted, but appears to be sanctioned.
might anyone explain in a calm, non-defensive manner how FUD (or its variants, like haters) is not as bad or (imo) worse than 'fanboy'?
heck , try using 'fanboy' in real life - it's part of everyday vernacular, and is sometimes used in a fun, light hearted manner.
but try using 'FUD' or fudsters - you'll get weird looks, as you should. because no normal person uses that. it is the vocabulary of an emotionally defensive person.
ppl's reactions to that WSJ piece is a good example.
PS: i do agree cramer sucks ass.
on one hand, i think it's an excellent idea to post links here to discuss their merits
however, its very problematic that mods are cutting discussion in other threads and willy nilly pasting them here. why not leave the original thread alone, but just copy the link here?
the other big problem is the thread's entire concept
- the title: why 'FUD or fact'? and i cant believe the OP called it "FUD bunker" originally....i mean, really? why not simply: "Lets discuss the merits of an article" - a much more productive title for quality discussion.
- the necessity (?) for this thread highlights one of the biggest problems of TMC:
a) the thin-skin, the unwillingness to accept critical or alternative lines of thinking on TM-related topics,
b) the unwelcome mat for ppl who may not have positive things to say about TM
c) and the use of pejoratives.
a number of times, myself and others have been chastised by others for using 'fanboy' in what i honestly, legitimately thought was appropriate to use. and yet....the words 'FUD', 'fud machine' or 'fudster' not only is accepted, but appears to be sanctioned.
might anyone explain in a calm, non-defensive manner how FUD (or its variants, like haters) is not as bad or (imo) worse than 'fanboy'?
heck , try using 'fanboy' in real life - it's part of everyday vernacular, and is sometimes used in a fun, light hearted manner.
but try using 'FUD' or fudsters - you'll get weird looks, as you should. because no normal person uses that. it is the vocabulary of an emotionally defensive person.
ppl's reactions to that WSJ piece is a good example.
PS: i do agree cramer sucks ass.
Last edited:
NigelM
Recovering Member
I agree also. I know a number of folks caught up in the GTAT debacle felt they'd fallen into the groupthink trap. TSLA remains a volatile stock for a number of reasons (true FUD being one of them) and beating down all potential negatives to irrelevancy is not helpful in the short term; and let's not kid ourselves that folks here don't do a lot of short term trading.
This is very good and interesting analysis, definitely shines light on the author's intentions.
Just to add, there is another interesting bit: the WSJ article's title is "Tesla Focuses on Pricey Car to Boost Revenue", while similar articles from Marketwatch and Dow Jones Business News titled "Tesla Posts Short Waiting Time for Upscale P85D Model S". This clearly highlights what is the main premise of the article. Interesting to note, that although WSJ editors seem to change the title originally used by author, the URL used in the link for the WSJ article still contains the "real" title - which is identical to the titles used by Martketwatch and DJ Business News.
The links for the non-WSJ variants of the articles:
DJ Business News (via NASDAQ)
MarketWatch
It very important to debunk the FUD floating around, particularly the one about the demand, as it is the most egregious and often used one for quite some time. I am glad, though, that we have a separate thread on this, and do not clutter the Short-Term thread.
- - - Updated - - -
.
I agree with this with one qualifier - it seems that person linking the article has an obligation to share their reasoning, one way or another. Saying something generic like "it can be argued by Bulls and Bears both ways" does not cut it for me.
Last edited:
Now the title of the WSJ article is "Buying a Tesla? Waits Are Short for the Priciest"
I don't get why they keep changing titles. Is it to get to the top of the newsfeed? Kind of annoying the same article keeps getting posted repetitively. If they constantly change the title and content, it is much harder to hold them accountable for what was written. This isn't journalism, it's advertising.
I don't get why they keep changing titles. Is it to get to the top of the newsfeed? Kind of annoying the same article keeps getting posted repetitively. If they constantly change the title and content, it is much harder to hold them accountable for what was written. This isn't journalism, it's advertising.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Let me be clear about one thing. This is the thread where anyone can post FUD or Hype without fear of being called a FUDster or fanboy. The point of posting here is to analyze and refute intentionally misleading media originating beyond TMC. The point is to have a place where we can attack the distortions without attacking one another. I see no need to surgarcoat our language, so long as our intent is to attack distortion and misinformation.
I will also take credit for the original thread name, FUD Bunker. For me, this was an expression of how Tesla investors get daily bombardment from well heeled anti-Tesla propagandists and so might need a bunker, and it was a pun for debunking which is a proper task for handling misinformation. My apologies to anyone who may have taken offense to this. If you feel personally slighted, please send me a PM so we can work this out.
Remember this, fear, uncertainty and doubt are the enemy, not fellow TMC members.
I will also take credit for the original thread name, FUD Bunker. For me, this was an expression of how Tesla investors get daily bombardment from well heeled anti-Tesla propagandists and so might need a bunker, and it was a pun for debunking which is a proper task for handling misinformation. My apologies to anyone who may have taken offense to this. If you feel personally slighted, please send me a PM so we can work this out.
Remember this, fear, uncertainty and doubt are the enemy, not fellow TMC members.
jhm, great idea for a thread, but the thread name that has such dubious makeup word as FUD is just not my cup of tea, but hey, we all have different tastes, some people can find the term fitting
I also disagree that fear is the enemy. Fear can be a life saver or an account saver, in this case. Uncertainty and doubt are my best friends as well, as I would be very hesitant to go through any decision with high stakes on it without questioning myself.
If there is 'FUD' out there attacking Tesla, in my view FUD can only do so much damage before backfiring on 'FUD' generators, not on investors. I would like to think that Tesla investors are able to tease out facts from fiction. If they are not, their accounts will suffer.
Now a short update on possibly the most popular Tesla "FUD" generator (in the past), Jeremy Clarkson.
In case someone is not familiar with Top Gear show that prompted Tesla lawsuit, the link to the story is here. Briefly, JC falsely presented Tesla losing power on his very popular show.
That was in 2008, when Tesla was far more vulnerable to such attacks. I did not know of Tesla in 2008, but I find it very likely that the damage to Tesla's image was real, at a time when that image was at the beginning stage of being built. Tesla lost lawsuit on the premise that Top Gear is an entertainment show that does not claim to be truthful.
JC seems to be suspended by BBC, on an unrelated matter. It seems to me that the unrelated matter is just the last straw that broke the camel's back, something akin to Al Capone getting busted on tax noncompliance.
I think this example just nicely demonstrates that the damaging behaviour eventually backfires on the originator, one way or the other.
Last edited:
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/david-stockman-tears-apart-tesla
This is a truly FUD based piece. It was reprinted and commented on in a number of articles less than a month ago. Stockman has a history of attacking Tesla. His article actively ignores the fact that Tesla paid back their loan. As FUD as it gets...
This is a truly FUD based piece. It was reprinted and commented on in a number of articles less than a month ago. Stockman has a history of attacking Tesla. His article actively ignores the fact that Tesla paid back their loan. As FUD as it gets...
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
I'm amazed that an actual adult wrote that article. It's the emotional equivalent to smashing a kid's favorite toy.
jhm
Well-Known Member
It may be helpful to analyze the Stockman piece from the perspective of who the target audience is and how Stockman connects with that audience in language and values. Specifically, Stockman is tailoring his message to a particular kind of political conservative who is deeply skeptical of the Fed "printing money" and the government "wasting taxpayer's money." Clearly this blurs the distinction between politics and investing.
Here's my basic question: is stockman trying to achieve political goals by attacking Tesla or is he trying to achieve stock manipultion goals by deploying political attack language against Tesla?
FYI, the Stockman piece was debunked in another thread earlier this month. It's a more vitriolic version of a NYT op-ed piece, also discussed.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Disagree. No-one has an obligation nor is there a requirement to read anyone else's posts; if there was an obligation to share reasoning then the number of posts on TMC would be halved overnight.
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
Not at all. People should be able to share an article while they're on the fence. In plenty of cases, the reason someone posts a link in the first place is precisely because they don't know what to make of it.
Moderator's Note
One more (and hopefully final) iteration on the thread name, which I hope addresses the concerns expressed with the original name. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Re a complaint about moderators moving posts across threads, or into new threads: TMC moderators routinely move posts that are pulling a thread off-topic. The point of this thread is to provide space for a focused discussion about news articles, where such discussion is likely to derail other threads (e.g. Short-Term Price Movements). Nigel and I have been "curating" the Investor Discussions this way for years, and I hope that the net effect is to promote cogent conversations. For better or worse, our software platform doesn't allow replies to be read sequentially, so reading fast-moving threads like Short-Term can be challenging if there are too many unrelated conversations going on.
One more (and hopefully final) iteration on the thread name, which I hope addresses the concerns expressed with the original name. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Re a complaint about moderators moving posts across threads, or into new threads: TMC moderators routinely move posts that are pulling a thread off-topic. The point of this thread is to provide space for a focused discussion about news articles, where such discussion is likely to derail other threads (e.g. Short-Term Price Movements). Nigel and I have been "curating" the Investor Discussions this way for years, and I hope that the net effect is to promote cogent conversations. For better or worse, our software platform doesn't allow replies to be read sequentially, so reading fast-moving threads like Short-Term can be challenging if there are too many unrelated conversations going on.
jhm
Well-Known Member
My near-term prediction is that Tesla's recently announced Resale Value Guarantee in Europe will soon become a target for FUD reports.
NigelM
Recovering Member
In my opinion you're focusing on one point and assuming it's a deliberate mis-read of the situation by the author. I read it to be useful commentary in some parts and uneducated in others; a sound piece of journalism would hopefully have had better research but the truth is that takes time and this short piece is clearly a filler story. Serious investors won't take stories like this as a trigger to buy or sell stock so I'm always mildly surprised why folks here get so worked up about these things.
Seeing as you asked for my view I'm going to dissect the article but please understand that I don't intend to enter a circular debate with anyone and I'm quite happy to have different opinions....
Link: tesla-posts-short-waiting-time-for-upscale-p85d-model-s
Firstly, there's been some comment about the headline, true it's changed a couple of times but that also isn't unusual in any field of online journalism; it's about building clicks not necessarily agenda and more clicks equals more revenue.
That headline doesn't look like FUD to me; it's a statement of fact confirmed by Tesla that they are prioritizing the top end cars. BTW, that also happens to be good business sense and as an investor I appreciate that.
This photo caption isn't bad news either, considering that Tesla has been saying in the past that they were production constrained and not demand constrained; it can easily be read that supply is getting stronger.
The first three paragraphs are fact that are apparently confirmed by Tesla in the fourth paragraph.
This paragraph (after the first sentence there) makes little sense either way; the author says that Tesla confirmed they're prioritizing but then assumes that questions demand. It also ignores production efficiencies and capacity expansion but it's also possible that the author just didn't do his homework for this filler piece.
Folks may jump on that statement about "weaker-than-expected" demand, but it also reads as Tesla confirmed it. On the other hand though the following paragraph provided some balance:
Then the next paragraph speaks purely to Tesla's reporting and I doubt there's an investor on this board who wouldn't like more information:
What follows then is reasonable discussion about what Tesla's numbers might be and how inventory is really measured; that subject has also been discussed on TMC.
A nice compliment to the car and favorable comparison to Porsche and Ferrari follows and the piece ends with a statement that isn't good or bad, it just reflects what the situation is:
Which is one of the many reasons TSLA is a volatile stock.
-------
So overall, sure there's some homework lacking but I think there is also room to question that this was an intentional piece of FUD. The bulls may assume that there's an intentional implication of poor demand while the bears might argue that the focus is on a lack of true numbers and the difficulties of forecasting a volatile share price. On balance I personally can't get too excited about the article one way or the other; I do think that we should be critical enough to question things from all angles and not just be boosters talking up all the positives and poo-poohing negatives.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
I really like how this chart shows the interplay of Hype and FUD. In retrospect, I think the Apple rumors were harmful to the recovery of the stock. "Build it up and break it down." The prospect of Apple magically tripling the value of your shares is just too good to be true, and it is no sustainable way to grow shareholder value. This is the risk of Hype to shareholders.
Thanks, 32no. Please keep these coming.
Similar threads
