Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Banning Shorts

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Being "long" (stocks, options, etc.) simply means having a purchased position. It doesn't necessarily imply a future expectation.

Someone can be "long" in the morning, sell that position and go "short" in the afternoon.
My impression is that the term is used more to denote long term investors in this forum, but that is still correct. In case he is referring to traders then neither being short or being long implies rooting for the company to fail at a surface level.
However the attempts to spread misinformation and create false narratives do, and that's what the majority of the shorts try to do here.
 
I think I understand the bias against short selling here, but I don't agree with it. There is nothing inherently evil about taking a short position - one can believe in Tesla the company and the mission, but disagree with the consensus valuation. Shorting because one expects the share price to drop doesn't mean anything except you're a trader who is taking a bet in one direction. Removing shorts from the mix also removes sell side pressure, and it can be (and has been) argued that doing so will unfairly inflate the price of issues. There are already a host of restrictions to selling short, which (it can be argued) bolsters overall market value above true demand. At least at times.

I don't have a position in TSLA. But I have had long and short positions in a wide variety of other issues, often taking both sides thousands of times in the same day on the same issue. To me that's just working the numbers, it has nothing to do with the companies I've traded.

I think people conflate short sellers and FUDsters, and that's too bad. Sure, there's overlap, but grouping them together is misleading.
 
Well it works the other way. Tesla opening configuration for all reservation holders fed a bunch of call options and a price spike before the month end. However it did not represent anything which is why the price crashed back down below where it was before that happened.

Sudden changes in equity prices rarely have anything to do with fundamentals. It’s quite hard for an individual company to shock the market in the absence of an M&A or some huge drop in revenue that was unforeseen. That’s not going to happen with Tesla for years, if at all.

Bonds however are a different story. Prince changes in bonds (int he absence of a base rate change) ALWAYS are to do with fundamentals. Rather than discussing TSLA, this forum might want to spend some time looking at Tesla’s bond prices (hint they’re falling).
Sure, let discuss how actual 7% on Tesla 2025 bonds differ from most of the other traded bonds.
Is it really bad or unusual? Rhetorical question
As well let discuss how downgrading based on false information can damage or kill weaker companies dependent on external financing.
p.s. shorts don't push prices up, as it's well known they push Delta, they rise stock volatility. And of course they rise volume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
However the attempts to spread misinformation and create false narratives do, and that's what the majority of the shorts try to do here.

Who with an actual short position here makes a good argument here? I've never seen one. I think the idea of shorts influencing others on TMC is fanciful. Whereas I think a fair number of permabulls feel better finding villains here.

It's amusing that a professional stock analyst with a target price of $295 will be vilified in these investment forum in the same manner as Chanos. How dare someone have a considered opinion that TSLA is only worth 295!
 
Sure, let discuss how actual 7% on Tesla 2025 bonds differ from most of the other traded bonds.
Is it really bad or unusual? Rhetorical question
As well let discuss how downgrading based on false information can damage or kill weaker companies dependent on external financing.
p.s. shorts don't push prices up, as it's well known they push Delta, they rise stock volatility. And of course they rise volume.

I didn't mention yield, I mentioned price and shorting stocks won't impact bond prices (although there could be a correlation).
 
. When companies behave in an immoral and unethical way


This is what led me to invest in Tesla. Finished paying off some loans, and realized time to think about the future, and so went to look for an "ethical" fund to invest in. I quickly realized ethical means different things to different people. Exclusionary criteria ran the gauntlet from oil, to tobacco, to pornography, but as one would imagine nothing 'vibed' exactly with what my own definition of moral and ethical investing entailed. There is a reason they make chocolate and vanilla! Hence, I realized had to go at it alone, and choose companies that I feel will help make the world a better place.
 
This is what led me to invest in Tesla. Finished paying off some loans, and realized time to think about the future, and so went to look for an "ethical" fund to invest in. I quickly realized ethical means different things to different people. Exclusionary criteria ran the gauntlet from oil, to tobacco, to pornography, but as one would imagine nothing 'vibed' exactly with what my own definition of moral and ethical investing entailed. There is a reason they make chocolate and vanilla! Hence, I realized had to go at it alone, and choose companies that I feel will help make the world a better place.


"After many, many hours of researching the pornography forums, i decided i was ethically against investing in it"
 
I think people conflate short sellers and FUDsters, and that's too bad. Sure, there's overlap, but grouping them together is misleading.
Then the title of this thread should be updated, and when FUDsters are banned they shouldn't be defended accusing the forum of being biased and against short sellers.
There is a difference as you said, and I hope that this forum continues to be tolerant to people with different opinions, but in my opinion continued misinformation, continued false narratives, and ignoring arguments going in circles, should not be tolerated in this forum, since it wastes everyone's time and does not contribute to healthy discussion.
 
  • Love
Reactions: neroden
Then the title of this thread should be updated, and when FUDsters are banned they shouldn't be defended accusing the forum of being biased and against short sellers.
There is a difference as you said, and I hope that this forum continues to be tolerant to people with different opinions, but in my opinion continued misinformation, continued false narratives, and ignoring arguments going in circles, should not be tolerated in this forum, since it wastes everyone's time and does not contribute to healthy discussion.
I agree with this, but also I think many people here tend to mix "FUD" (which does exist) with "Information they don't like"


It's a tough line to draw though.
 
The fact or better yet, unfact of the matter is sometimes it is hard to distinguish FUD. I offer an example. When Doug Field took a leave of absence. People chimed in 'he was not leaving, its a leave of absence', 'resting up for the y', ' well deserved break', countering shorts arguments that is likely not a good sign that in the midst of an important ramp, your Chief of Engineering departs. Then, comes the announcement that he left. So with the benefit of time...both sides were right? Facts change, things shift.
443014-Albert-Einstein-Quote-Knowledge-is-realizing-that-the-street-is.jpg
 
r/realtesla is not a "decent" sub. It was founded by u/cliffordcat a notorious troll who got permanently banned from r/teslamotors after many repeated warnings and temp bans.

u/cliffordcat is an interesting account. I classify this person as a Tesla Hater of subclass Auto Industry Veteran. They genuinely believe that Tesla has no idea what it is doing from either a business or operational standpoint, and appear to gleefully await the downfall of the Tesla because they perceive it as a snotty upstart.

r/RealTesla is definitely not a “decent” community IMO. They exist mainly to hope for Tesla’s failure, and constantly post links to almost every issue that happens to a Tesla car.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
I didn't mention yield, I mentioned price and shorting stocks won't impact bond prices (although there could be a correlation).
You can just write that you don't know how bonds are valued.
It is OK.
You forget that you compare mk2025 dollars with mk2018. Just look at the news and values of other companies.

If there would be any risk that Tesla folds, bonds would fall to the trash levels to the range of 40-60% max.
Tesla's problem was that significant percentage of bonds were sold on open market. The reason was low rating and corresponding lack of interest from big index funds which are obliged to serve class A bonds only. hence you see speculating around 7-8+% currently acceptable for free market. Nominal price is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wnorris
The fact or better yet, unfact of the matter is sometimes it is hard to distinguish FUD. I offer an example. When Doug Field took a leave of absence. People chimed in 'he was not leaving, its a leave of absence', 'resting up for the y', ' well deserved break', countering shorts arguments that is likely not a good sign that in the midst of an important ramp, your Chief of Engineering departs. Then, comes the announcement that he left. So with the benefit of time...both sides were right? Facts change, things shift.
443014-Albert-Einstein-Quote-Knowledge-is-realizing-that-the-street-is.jpg
just out of curiosity here, how where both sides right?
 
Solarcity didn't need the bond market.
It did need the financial borrowing market; it is a finicky question as to whether it needed the *bond* market, but in essence, yes, it did.

Solarcity could not profitably play the middle man on the placement of debt secured by solar installs.
Yes, it could, and it did for years. The key word here is "profitably". This is a very different thing from "cash flow positively".

This is shown in Solarcity continually shrinking their ongoing business, even with the ITC still being in effect. Solarcity would not shrink if their activities were they cash flow positive.
They were cash flow negative, and by reasonable accrual accounting (such as will be mandated next year, IIRC) profitable. What is so hard to understand about that?

They were leasing solar panels with 30-year or 40-year income streams. The value of the income stream, discounted to the present day at typical interest rates, is substantially higher than their cost to install. I.e. profit.

However, they don't get this money until years in the future. So they have to borrow to get it -- initially at lower interest rates than the implied interest rates in the lease, but not much lower. That's where the profit margin was. *Pressure on their credit rating was enough to reduce and eliminate the profit margin*.

In addition to borrowing, they frequently sold off the *front half* of the income stream for roughly what it was worth, maybe a bit more. Which is fine, but it means the profit is entirely dependent on money coming in 15 years in the future.

Before selling off those front halfs, they used temporary construction financing with even shorter terms -- like a year. So they're borrowing on a one-year basis to finance a 30-year income stream.

This is the business model of a bank, which takes your deposit (withdrawable at will) or your purchase of a 1-year CD, and uses it to finance a 30-year mortgage. *It is badly subject to bank runs and cash flow issues*. It is also subject to rising interest rates. If you issue CDs at 1% and mortgages at 4%, you're fine. If you start having a bank run and people will only put money in your CDs at 5%, you have a problem the next time you refinance.

This is why Tesla is getting out of the mismatched-maturity finance game (i.e. banking).
 
Last edited:
Who with an actual short position here makes a good argument here? I've never seen one. I think the idea of shorts influencing others on TMC is fanciful. Whereas I think a fair number of permabulls feel better finding villains here.

It's amusing that a professional stock analyst with a target price of $295 will be vilified in these investment forum in the same manner as Chanos. How dare someone have a considered opinion that TSLA is only worth 295!
Will such a person be vilified? I wouldn't. A price target of $295 is a respectable opinion if you're pessimistic about Tesla's growth and margins. Although I disagree with the target, I like to see such analyses, because frankly if they're sufficiently pessimistic they put a good downside limit on the stock's long-term value, which means "margin of safety".