skitown
Member
Agreed. If it was easy, Tesla wouldn't have invested in a Gigafactory. As most of us know, they originally didn't want to; but they realized they had no choice if they wanted to actually produce a serious # of EVs.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hi, I’m a short seller
- Thread starter ShortSeller
- Start date
skitown
Member
Don't forget the Swiss watch industry.... Hammered by smartwatches.
The Swiss Watch Industry Is Being Given A Painful Lesson In Rationality
Esme Es Mejor
Member
Daimler stock is down over 25% since January. My financial knowledge tells me that at this pace, even re-investing your 6% percent dividend, your investment will lose half its value by the end of the year.
That shows about how intelligent an investor you are right now: not at all. You haven't done your research and are using "lol my sides" in lieu of actual research. This sort of emotional decision-making may be fun, but it isn't investing.
You're gonna get steamrollered if you don't actually study this stuff. Which you have clearly not done. Have fun losing your money. I don't even bother to talk to people who are so wilfully ignorant that they haven't bothered to figure out why EVs will be adopted literally as fast as they can be manufactured. You probably don't even know the long-run growth rate of solar power, or the learning rate for solar *or* for batteries, or the TCO calculations for EVs versus ICE cars.
I'm quite serious about nearly all new cars being electric in 2030-2032, and I have masses of research and evidence to back that up. If, *knowing this*, you still think Daimler is a good investment, fine! Maybe they'll do a great job at transitioning to EVs, quickly! But you seem to be using some really bad assumptions right now.
Last edited:
hacer
Active Member
Says the guy who "forgot" about Tesla's hedge on the convertibles and failed to see the flexibility in their repayment found in the prospectus.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that EV will become mainstream, I'm disagreeing that 100% of all cars will be electric in 12 years. Even if there is demand, EV adoption will be limited by supply. Manufacturers can't instantly flip a switch and churn out millions of electric cars worth hundreds of billions of dollars. These thing takes time. ~10 years is too optimistic IMHO.
Henchman
Member
Within 5 years the price difference between an ICE and EV will be 0.
In 10 years, it will be more expensive to buy a comparable ICE car.
15 years ICE will be all but dead.
Actually it's not really the case. BMW would theoretically be in troubles. Theoretically because BMW financials are multifaceted and they are own partially by the state of Bavaria.
Daimler earns big chunk of their money on with big autos. They are frigging leaders in pretty much all segments of +30t vehicles. They do have well designed electrical city buses, and they do have well designed electrical trucks.
For mamy years Daimler was loosing money on small cars.
More of it Daimler was one of the first big investors in Tesla and they were also one of the first Tesla's customers (with Smart 2). I fail to see them as Tesla competitors, they target different segments and please different breads of customers. And they have apparently (if to believe Mercedes part) still very decent "intimate" relations with Tesla.
They didn't apply for sharing Supercharger network because they were persuaded by their financial parties that Tesla is going to die "tomorrow". Since 2015.
While it's obvious that for ICE companies it is critically important to slow down EV introduction (so they will have time to accumulate finances for massive modernization of all supply chains) I don't see their involvement in this massive antiTesla hysteria and existing mass-media narrative. It comes definitely from financial market and it's possible the reason is not to kill Tesla but to push IPO of SpaceX.
It is obvious for any observer SpaceX is going to be Microsoft level monster in space industry.
This is the kind of post that annoys us bears. The thesis didnt "Change", its still the same, but now we have pretty strong evidence that says Tesla is ALSO under an SEC investigation. When a thesis adds a near-term catalyst that was previously not considered, its something to investigate this isnt "changing" our thesis or moving the goal posts. It is adding to the thesis.
Tell you what, the next time the bull thesis changes to NEARER term success, let us know. Then you will see what I am talking about.
Also, an ideal bear solution would be for Tesla to go BK. All assets from Tesla purchased by a legit company to settle bond holders claims fo 20c/$1. Clean out the board and fraud Elon, and run this like a true EV company at a reasonable valuation with the Tesla name.
I would look into buying into that company.
MartinAustin
Active Member
What is the evidence?
Mod: I approved the above post without noticing the bit about SEC investigation. Unsupported allegations are unacceptable. @Reality, please provide a credible link. --ggr.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mader Levap
Member
Uhh, we are talking about transition from cars with ICE to cars that are EV, not from one source of energy to another. Treating those two things like they are same is very silly. Replacing old car with new car is waaay easier than say replacing one power plant with another.
mershaw2001
I'm short the short sellers
I just went through the 10q from March 31, 2018. In it is listed the SEC investigation regarding Model 3 reservations that GGR and I discussed in the other main thread. There is no mention on an ongoing SEC investigation. Here is what the company says about litigation:
Legal Proceedings
Securities Litigation Relating to SolarCity’s Financial Statements and Guidance
On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity’s securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. On December 4, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the dismissal. On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in our favor. The case is concluded.
Securities Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition
Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 28, 2018, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. This case will now proceed.
These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017. Those actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla's board of directors. That action is stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation.
On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to inspect Tesla’s books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the SolarCity acquisition.
We believe that the claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits.
Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles
On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., two of its current officers, and a former officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants will file a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.
Other Matters
From time to time, we have received requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.
it's all circumstantial, so when i say strong evidence i guess you want me to clarify "strong circumstantial evidence"?
No sales of stock by named officers that were not filed under a 10b5-1 plan in over 12 months
No 10b5-1 plans filed in the same amount of time
No capital raise by Tesla despite liquidity issues that are far worse than when they typically have raised in the past (have never allowed WC to get this low)
Significant questions around the Solarcity lawsuit and the claims around the solar roof capabilities (see solar city lawsuit)
Upper level finance people leaving Tesla for significantly lower level positions in terms of size of company (CAO and VP Finance, this is not common in finance world)
To me, the biggest are the first 2, but when you wrap all of them together it looks very much like they cannot raise capital or file for a shelf registration. It would explain all of them, but just 1 of them doesnt really prove anything.
Together it is fairly strong evidence that Tesla cannot do an equity raise at this time. That might change if they hit 5k a week.
General speculation: The 1.8b in bonds were issued with a 5.3% coupon rate in August of 2017. The assumption on those bonds was that Tesla could reach 5k per week by the end of the year. That was essentially a cornerstone to the Moodys ratings and likely what non hedgers were relying on when purchasing (altho hedgers have a good gripe right now too).
By the end of Q3, just TWO MONTHS LATER, Tesla already pushed the timeline back on M3 guidance to end of Q1.
On the Q4 conference call in February, Musk admitted that 2 of the zones "just didnt work, and it took 6-9 months to fix, and are now up and running". See EC (im doing the date of this from memory, but the timeline implies the possibility they knew the lines were not working when they made the bond issuance and had to fix them)
Now if you piece that timeline together, one might infer that the bond issuance was done while management knew the 5k per week by the end of 2017 was not possible. If the SCTY item didnt raise a red flag already with the solar roof, you can bet that this did. Hence the Moody's quick downgrade.
Bond holders are risk averse and typically more well funded groups. Those bonds moving down so quickly likely made a lot of big money unhappy, which adds pressure to the SEC. If Tesla knowing made a bond issuance with material information they knew was not accurate, they could be in serious hot water with the SEC. Given all of the above, I think its a reasonable bet that they are.
Yes, of course electric car sales are limited by supply. Have you bothered to look at the supply growth curve? Do you actually have a sound model explaining why you think the current exponential growth curve will slow down? There are no technical or material obstacles to continuing on the current growth curve, as far as I can find. There are no financing obstacles either.
The companies which get the financing together first and start construction first have an advantage. CATL understands this. Does Daimler?
skitown
Member
I wouldn't. I'm investing specifically in the current team's vision and ability. I've seen nothing from so-called "legit companies" that give me confidence in their ability to do better in this industry. I like putting my money on the guy that figured out how to privately launch, land and reuse orbital class boosters despite everyone saying it's impossible.
Especially when my options are outstanding companies like VW Group.
Audi CEO Rupert Stadler arrested in Germany
Edit: To follow up on this. I could sure see why anyone that is short Tesla or being disrupted by them would think your proposal is swell. It's an obvious recipe for mediocrity from Tesla, thus kicking the can further and further down the road..... Decelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy and transport. I mean, that surely seems to be the goal.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I don't know where the 'point of no return' is for the EV transition but I'm not convinced we're there yet at least for the North American and European markets. The LAMEs (Legacy Auto Manufacturing Enterprises) have not been shy about expressing their distain for EVs. Neither have the stealerships. If Tesla were to fail I have little doubt the LAMEs would steer us back on the fools fuel path as quickly as possible.
By expressing their disdain do you mean investing heavily?
Similar threads
