Google+ video hangouts (TSLA & other investments)

[AlMc]

Thanks to both. Gives me a frame of reference for TT007 posts and investment style

 

[AnneBoleyn]

Way to go girl! You are simply adorable thank you

Lol- not as cool as "Wall Street Part II" by any means.

 

[MitchJi]

Does anyone have any experience with using Astrology for trading or investing? A close friend, who is an astrologer mentioned that quite a prominent astrologers are expecting a market crash in 2017. I asked him for advice and he said that Ray Merrimen is considered one of the best in the field.

I listened to this podcast and it made a positive impression. Starting at ~11 minutes when he explains how he got started in the stock market and gold and silver is interesting:
Financial Astrology with Ray Merriman
Blubrry PowerPress Player


[*]Recent book: Solar-Lunar Keys to Gold Prices: Secrets of a Gold Trader.
[*]Identifying highs and lows in the gold market prices.
[*]Worked with Mark Urban-Lurain on the stats. [/Color]

He checked the records for every year that gold has traded and he stated that there is about a 75% correlation between some astrological formations and reversals in gold.

One of the reasons I'm posting it here is that if everyone doesn't think I'm nuts, I'd like it if DaveT could do a Google hangout with Ray.

 

[AlMc]

Does anyone have any experience with using Astrology for trading or investing? A close friend, who is an astrologer mentioned that quite a prominent astrologers are expecting a market crash in 2017. I asked him for advice and he said that Ray Merrimen is considered one of the best in the field.

I listened to this podcast and it made a positive impression. Starting at ~11 minutes when he explains how he got started in the stock market and gold and silver is interesting:
Financial Astrology with Ray Merriman
Blubrry PowerPress Player


[*]Recent book: Solar-Lunar Keys to Gold Prices: Secrets of a Gold Trader.
[*]Identifying highs and lows in the gold market prices.
[*]Worked with Mark Urban-Lurain on the stats. [/Color]

He checked the records for every year that gold has traded and he stated that there is about a 75% correlation between some astrological formations and reversals in gold.

One of the reasons I'm posting it here is that if everyone doesn't think I'm nuts, I'd like it if DaveT could do a Google hangout with Ray.

While I do not think you are 'nuts' I would prefer CapOpressor or myusername be considered instead.

I know many do not *like* the latter but I would prefer a more contrarian view on the short and long term future of Tesla/TSLA

 

[tlo]

I'm hosting a live interview of TrendTrader007.

Thanks! More entertaining than I expected and certainly gives a more interesting perspective of TrendTrader007's posts from now on.

 

[Crowded Mind]

Thank you both. Always appreciate it Dave. Looking forward to the next.

 

[GoTslaGo]

If not already done, maybe a Hangout with @Curt Renz one of these days?

 

[DaveT]

If not already done, maybe a Hangout with @Curt Renz one of these days?

I'd love to do a video interview with @Curt Renz . Curt, would you be up for it? I think a lot of folks here would benefit.

 

[jesselivenomore]

You should invite some of the resident bears on, maybe mmd or myusername. I am pretty heavily leveraged recently and would love to hear some counter arguments to dissuade me. If I go on there too and cannot pick apart every one of their arguments I would gladly sell some shares.

 

[TMSE]

Shout out to Dan Zanger, I started looking into technical analysis in 2000 because of him too.

Trendtrader007 I think you have the right mindset for a trader when you say the money doesn't affect you - just the win. I play a lot of poker and its the same deal. Whenever you deal with probabilities it is always more important to take the right action(consistently) than to fret about the end result. You can only do this if you don't view your trades from a monetary perspective. Also if you care too much about the money you are guaranteed to get out too early.

Jesse,
What is your take on the earnings call? Were you there at google hangout last night? Thanks

 

[MitchJi]

@DaveT, would you please see if you can set up another hangout with Andrea James?

Thanks!

 

[MitchJi]

Jesse,
What is your take on the earnings call? Were you there at google hangout last night? Thanks

He was not on the hangout.

 

[TMSE]

He was not on the hangout.

Thanks Mitch. I saw the video, very good discussion.

 

[jesselivenomore]

In light of TSLA's all time high, $300+ SP, surpassing Ford's market cap and GM's according to Google, the amount of valuation talk has been dizzying. The unit sale comparison to legacy automakers by the bears is and has been lazy. But even the bulls' justification that TSLA is a growth stock doesn't tell the whole story IMO. Justifying the valuation by calling it a "tech" stock is vague. What does that even mean, and how does it quantifiably add to valuation?

I have some thoughts on this but really don't feel like writing an essay. As the stock appreciates the valuation talk will only intensify. Dave, techmaven or anyone else want to have a discussion on this?

 

[Fallenone]

In light of TSLA's all time high, $300+ SP, surpassing Ford's market cap and GM's according to Google, the amount of valuation talk has been dizzying. The unit sale comparison to legacy automakers by the bears is and has been lazy. But even the bulls' justification that TSLA is a growth stock doesn't tell the whole story IMO. Justifying the valuation by calling it a "tech" stock is vague. What does that even mean, and how does it quantifiably add to valuation?

I have some thoughts on this but really don't feel like writing an essay. As the stock appreciates the valuation talk will only intensify. Dave, techmaven or anyone else want to have a discussion on this?

I do have a thesis on the fundamental valuation of Tesla as a transportation and energy solution company, and how to value it. I have written bits and pieces before but would love to have a more focused valuation discussion.

 

[DaveT]

In light of TSLA's all time high, $300+ SP, surpassing Ford's market cap and GM's according to Google, the amount of valuation talk has been dizzying. The unit sale comparison to legacy automakers by the bears is and has been lazy. But even the bulls' justification that TSLA is a growth stock doesn't tell the whole story IMO. Justifying the valuation by calling it a "tech" stock is vague. What does that even mean, and how does it quantifiably add to valuation?

I have some thoughts on this but really don't feel like writing an essay. As the stock appreciates the valuation talk will only intensify. Dave, techmaven or anyone else want to have a discussion on this?

Let's do it. I'll PM you.

 

[Navin]

I'd like to join. FWIW I was ranked by fortune as the number 1 apple analyst in the world so I know a thing or two about throwing darts at a darboard

 

[techmaven]

I am interested.

 

[SteveG3]

You should invite some of the resident bears on, maybe mmd or myusername. I am pretty heavily leveraged recently and would love to hear some counter arguments to dissuade me. If I go on there too and cannot pick apart every one of their arguments I would gladly sell some shares.

glad you guys are having the discussion.

fwiw, it is not complicated at all. The stock is valued on projected future earnings or cash flows, derived from what are considered the most probable assumptions and the most reasonable discounting of risk to meeting those assumptions. For many of us, on that basis, the stock remains undervalued. Instead of simply stating this for what it is and debating the assumptions of such models, much of the media tosses out the nonsense like valuation per car, and doesn't allow the real bull argument on air, instead tossing out lame bull arguments like Jesse mentioned "on bulls behalf."

Jim Cramer had an entire segment today on the false narrative that the TSLA price has nothing to do with valuation, but is simply what growth seeking buyers feel like paying today (for context, for years Cramer has been repeating two falsehood mantras like an ad campaign meant to stick in the public's mind the impression that Tesla's stock price has no rational basis, 1) "You can't value the darn thing", 2) "It's a cult stock")

here's a 140 character rebuttal to Cramer from a tweet to him today,

Research Tesla! Very possible at 2.5 million vehicles, $1500/sh, & 1.5 PEG (way below S&P) in 2026 (w/ nil$ from TE or TNetwork)

and a slightly longer rebuttal from a comment below the video link of his gibberish segment today on CNBC,

This is bullsh.., and it's hard to imagine Cramer doesn't know it. Tesla is at the price it is based on... valuation. There are about 15 Wall Street analysts covering the stock. They do not take a poll of what buyers are willing to pay for the stock, they create financial models of the company's future earnings, and value the company based on that (as analysts do with all covered companies). Again, the analyst VALUATIONS are based on future projected EARNINGS, with a discounting factor for the risk that the future earnings will not hit their targets. The current consensus estimate is a little over $230, despite extremely conservative assumptions for annual vehicles sold (for example, despite a $305 price target, Adam Jonas assumers Tesla will not reach 500,000 vehicles per year until 2024, long after Tesla's projection of 2018. Yes, an analyst with a $305 price target on Tesla arrives at that valuation by assuming Tesla will not hit its 2018 volume target until 2024).

link to video of ten minute Cramer swift boat piece today

Cramer explains why valuation is not the end-all for indi...

 

[SteveG3]

I'd be interested in joining the call as well. Not sure how this is done.