-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
By focusing on the next big move. Tesla's next big move is already set in stone and my position is already in. So I am spending most of my time and resources on the Canadian Real Estate collapse. Now on year 2 of a slow melt.
K_Dizzle
Member
I’ve been waiting for this collapse for over a decade. I doubt it’s haopeninf, here in London the market has been stronger then ever. Homes selling within 24hr of listing, multiple offers no conditions
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Well, it's happening in detached market in Van. Will take 6 years to play out by my estimate.
I'm unaware of a single other short-squeeze of the magnitude of VW's for a company of Tesla's market cap or larger in history.
When you take a look at what happened with VW, it appears to be tremendously improbable to about the hundredth power that the extraordinarily rare basic dynamics of the VW short squeeze exist with Tesla. Not improbable like on the scale of aliens coming to earth in the next year, but, like them coming to earth in the next year, and informing us that they are "Mork from Ork." I wouldn't have known this without reading about the VW squeeze- have a look below at the circumstances around that event,
"In March of that year, Porsche owned 31% of VW and stated publicly that it did not intend to increase that to 75%. Lower Saxony holds 20%, so Porsche reasoned it would be too difficult and expensive to acquire basically all other shares on the market.
On 26 Oct 2008, Porsche revealed that it had increased its stake from 31% to 43%, plus 31% in options -- 74% of the shares of VW.
Problem: as of that date, 13% of the company was on loan to speculators short the stock, and 74% + 20% + 13% = 107%. So if Lower Saxony didn't intend to sell them any (it didn't), and Porsche didn't intend to sell them any (it certainly didn't), the speculators would be completely incapable of covering those short positions. Just to add insult to injury, the other 6% belonged to index-tracking funds, also unlikely to sell on short-term moves.
In other words, Porsche could pretty well set its price and force the speculators to pay it. The price exploded, going from 200/sh to 1000/sh in just a couple of days."
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-greatest-short-squeezes-ever
I realize that is an answer from Quora, but, it is so well corroborated by this Reuter's article below, I find the the more detailed walk through I quoted from Quora highly credible,
Short sellers make VW the world's priciest firm
bottom line, there are extremely compelling reasons to be invested in Tesla, but to my view Tesla's prospects for a VW like short squeeze is not remotely one of them.
Last edited:
Vancouver is probably the biggest real estate bubble I have ever seen but it's been that way for years now.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Ya. Corruption pays. But it already fell by around 14% from last year's peak.
No such luck for condos though since that's what I actually want to buy.
The vehicles used in the comparison are:
Small cars:
Diesel: Mazda 2 Skyactiv-D 105
Gas: Mitsubishi Space Star 1.2 CT
Hybrid: Toyota Yaris 1.5 Hybrid Style
Electric: BMW i3 (94 Ah)
Compact cars:
Diesel: Mazda 3 Skyactiv-D 105 Sports-Life
Gas: Volkswagen Golf 1.5 TSI ACT BMT
CNG: Mercedes B 200 c 7G DCT
LPG: Dacia Logan MCV TCe 90 LPG
Hybrid: Toyota Prius 1.8 Hybrid Executive
Plug-in hybrid: Toyota Prius 1.8 PHEV
Electric: Hyundai Ioniq Electric Style
Large cars:
Diesel: Mercedes E 220 d 9G-Tronic
Gas: Mercedes E 400 Coupé Edition 1 4matic 9G-tronic
Plug-in hybrid: Volvo XC90 T8 Twin Engine AWD Geartronic
Electric: Tesla Model X 100D
Obviously, when you compare an X100D to an E220, you're not comparing apples with apples. They should have gone for a GLC 350d, or something similar. Even so, with the renewable energy in Norway and the stated assumptions, in my X100D I'd break even vs an E220 in about two years.
That's actually not the case. If you order green electricity, the power company will buy certificates from Norway, for instance. The renewables never leave Norway and the power company basically greenwashes their nuclear/coal. All buying certificates does is guarantee that somewhere in the world, an equivalent amount of renewable energy is being produced and consumed. (Just read the small print.)
This is a huge flaw in the current system, where the certificates are completely separate from the physical power. This means that you don't get the needed economic pressure towards renewables where they are needed. For the most part, I consider the current system so deeply flawed that it amounts to fraud. It misleads consumers into believing they are receiving renewable energy, when in fact, they are not. The certificate system is probably negative for the environment in total, because it gives people a false sense of being green. This means that to some degree, you can expect that people will continue to use nuclear/coal, even when they could have installed solar, at maybe only slightly higher cost.
Last edited:
His very clear words to the shorts make me wonder. Its against his previous behavior where he just warned but never recommended and now he even attached a timeline to it.
It could be also a summary of his believe that the time is just due and knowing that a series of good news will come out that will trigger a run.
If you want to surprise the market with the one big news you don't warn the market upfront.
In any case the conditions are set for a very nice SP increase in 2018 at least and the downside risk is low.
Allow me to politely disagree in the case of Germany.
My country produces more energy than it consumes. Sometimes its that much that even neighbor countries cannot absorb it and it goes into the bin. Its as bad as that.
Given that we are a net exporter the energy mix we have in Germany is not affected by the certificates that are bought and sold. Your statement is true though for other countries.
For the overall world consumption the system does work and is not fraud as somewhere the green energy is produces that you pay for. As we are one world it does not matter really where the reduced carbon emissions are happening.
Lets close that topic as it does not belong here....
I just have read that they marked the lifespan of an EV with 150 k km! Thats unrealistic low but okay for an ICE car. We have seen S with 600 k Km and still running just fine. Batteries can be recycled as well so the carbon footprint gets better and better with every mile.
If you set the parameters right you can twist all data in a way that the results is in line what you are looking for.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
For those not aware, Muddy waters is a short only fund
Reciprocity
Active Member
A short squeeze will probably but not be like VW as noted, it's unlikely Tesla will have over 100% of the float shorted and the rest owned by die hard longs. But that does not mean the stock won't get squeezey. If you look at 2017 you basically have a slow squeeze of short covering rallies. This is what I expect for next year as the onslaught of news on Tesla comes to pass. Basically this is the moment of Truth for shorts, it's either Tesla runs out of cash and cant get more while suppliers cut them off and they end up in bankwuptcy, or they are forced to start covering. Some will start sooner then later some will hold it until Q4 earnings and some idiots even longer.
Fiction warning:
On mongo's planet (thanks to @sundaymorning ):
History repeating itself:
Tesla is picked to supply batteries to VW. Deal includes 5 billion in stock purchase plus 5 billion up front for expansion and 13 billion in guaranteed purchases. (GWh level deal) Along with integration of Tesla connectors on all VW charge stations.
To go further, Project Tim in Durand MI will turn out to be a green smelter to recycle all the diesel gate cars. Joint VW/ Tesla campus.
During a gold rush, open a stove that sells shovels.
Someone may already have pointed this out, but Dr. Jeff Dahn's research group has been working in partnership with Tesla for 2 years or more and after only a year claimed they had found a way to double the lifetime (cycles) of NMC cells.
Tesla battery researcher says they doubled lifetime of batteries in Tesla’s products 4 years ahead of time [Updated]
From this 1 year ago article:
"For the batteries in its vehicles, Tesla uses Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) and Dahn said that they are also working on this chemistry. " And:
"He added that considering Tesla’s use of aluminum in its chassis, there’s no reason why both the cars and the batteries couldn’t last 20 years."
Partnering with Dahn seemed to be a major coup by Tesla 2 years back. Developments seem to suggest this is proving out.
German science is so very precise .There seems to be a German article on EVs that says that
EVs are not quite more green than ICEs, in terms of CO2:
Ökobilanz: Alle Antriebe im Vergleich
Basically, it says that manufacturing an EV produces much more CO2 than producing an ICE:
This is being picked by an Italian newspaper now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
