Hi, I’m a short seller

[Ocelot]

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.

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?

There is tons of talk on this board of 'failed materializations' of the upcoming 'Tesla Killer'. However, just like the boy who cried wolf, eventually there will be an actual wolf. Will it be a Tesla Killer? I doubt it, however the more delay Tesla has in rolling out new models, the less market share they will eventually have.

As someone who reads Motortrend/car and driver/ road and track/ and automobile monthly for the last decade or so, I have witnessed the shift in feeling, and perceptions. the major shift is extremely near. The perceptions have changed. The alarm bell has rung. Sure some companies do not get it yet, but those will be left in the dust.

Daimler, I think gets it. They have stated publicly they are investing 12 billion into getting their full EV line (EQ) off the ground , starting real production next year (2019), and also expected to be seen on roads in Europe this year! With a 100 year history of building cars, the 'ramp' will likely go somewhat faster than what we are witnessing. Volvo (owned by Chinese company Geely) notes they will no longer make any ICE past 2025. Their performance models (polestar) are now solely focused on EV's.

What I am trying to say in essence, is by 2030 no major manufacturer will be producing ICE cars. Zero. The ramifications from maintenance to gas stations, to used car sales will be exponentially bigger than massive.

So if anyone has any other ideas how to profit off this, (while bettering the world) feel free to chime in, as currently I am all-in TSLA.

 

[skitown]

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.

I really think once Tesla Truck is a thing, Tesla will have halo vehicles for all the major segments that people lust over - roadsters, sedans, SUVs, pickups, semis - and that will be checkmate for ICE; as it will be obvious everywhere that EVs are superior. Where I live, in rural America, it's all about huge diesels and rollin' coal. These fools think that pollution equals performance. They will soon too be emasculated just like Tesla's other vehicles are doing to their respective segments.

 

[ggr]

it's all circumstantial, so when i say strong evidence i guess you want me to clarify "strong circumstantial evidence"?

Ummm, no, I want you to quote actual evidence, otherwise it's FUD. You didn't say "maybe", you said "pretty strong evidence". There's a reason why circumstantial evidence is more often than not thrown out.

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

You claim to know about this stuff. Have you ever filed a 10b5-1 form? I'll bet you haven't. There's a reason for that. No-one does. There is no such form! Can you show me a filed form from anyone at all? I have filed declarations of my safe harbor trading, even though it wasn't required, but I just write a letter, and ask my accountants to keep it on file.

There is nothing in the SEC laws that make it necessary to disclose the use of Rule 10b5-1 to the public, but that doesn't mean companies shouldn't release the information anyway. Announcements of utilizing Rule 10b5-1 are helpful to ward off public relations problems and helps investors understand the logistics behind certain insider trades.

Read more: Rule 10b5-1 Rule 10b5-1
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

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)

You continue to state that they have to raise cash or go bankrupt. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Maybe you're right, but Tesla's corporate filings deny this. So stop repeating it until something changes.

Significant questions around the Solarcity lawsuit and the claims around the solar roof capabilities (see solar city lawsuit)

So this is supposed to be evidence of a current, ongoing SEC investigation?

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.

So this is supposed to be evidence of a current, ongoing SEC investigation?

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.

So this is supposed to be evidence of a current, ongoing SEC investigation?

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.

So this is supposed to be evidence of a current, ongoing SEC investigation?

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

Clean out the boards and frauds Rupert Stadler, Martin Winterkorn, Dieter Zetsche, and Harald Krüger, and run them like truthful companies

There ya go. Fixed that for ya.

You are shorting Daimler, BMW, and VW right? Your argument only makes sense for them. If you started in January, you’ve already made a tidy profit, but there’s more to come.

 

[dondy]

There is tons of talk on this board of 'failed materializations' of the upcoming 'Tesla Killer'. However, just like the boy who cried wolf, eventually there will be an actual wolf. Will it be a Tesla Killer? I doubt it, however the more delay Tesla has in rolling out new models, the less market share they will eventually have.

EV market is empty. Even with no financial restrictions from Wall Street, even with infinite financing Tesla would not grow beyond 250k per year. You don't have batteries, you don't have good personnel understanding perks of EV, you don't have battery specialists. The last problem is especially painful.
More of it, selling autos is one part. You need to service them. You need secondary market, you need sufficient supply of parts, and enough of service centers etc. etc. etc. Actually you need to reeducate firefighters and police even....There is nothing done yet.
Tesla just has to grow as they can and not to listen to anybody outside of factories walls. They need to make a good stuff which will make clients happy and workers proud.

Daimler, I think gets it. They have stated publicly they are investing 12 billion into getting their full EV line (EQ) off the ground , starting real production next year (2019), and also expected to be seen on roads in Europe this year! With a 100 year history of building cars, the 'ramp' will likely go somewhat faster than what we are witnessing. Volvo (owned by Chinese company Geely) notes they will no longer make any ICE past 2025. Their performance models (polestar) are now solely focused on EV's.

What I am trying to say in essence, is by 2030 no major manufacturer will be producing ICE cars. Zero. The ramifications from maintenance to gas stations, to used car sales will be exponentially bigger than massive.

So if anyone has any other ideas how to profit off this, (while bettering the world) feel free to chime in, as currently I am all-in TSLA.

Daimler started long time ago. I see Daimler EV buses on the roads of Germany and the Netherlands since the end of 90s. But, and that's very big BUT. All big autocompanies are entangled in traditional auto industry labyrinth of OEM factories.
Transfer to EV would mean that they would have to through away huge mountains of ICE specific hardware and spend no less money on reeducating personnel. They don't have to build new lines only, they need first find money to close existing ones. Existing infrastructure is dragging them down.
More of it:
The solutions they follow, the choices they make don't really come from some fundamental research but originate by some OEM ingegrator like Magna. It is often financially driven choice. For example now all and I mean all european companies have "chosen" sandwich batteries designed in LG(?) and "promoted" in Europe by Samsung. Is there any real advantage for specifically this choice? LOL No. It's just copy-past of a solution already standardized in China.
But the chinese make electrical autos not to drive, they build them because all companies are required to have percentage of EV autos in their auto-park....Tesla has nothing to worry about.

 

[Electroman]

By expressing their disdain do you mean investing heavily?

Is this supposed to be a smart and funny retort? If so I am not tickled.

You know clearly what nwdriver is implying. The investment you are referring to is ICE giants being dragged into the EV scene kicking and screaming. That is why they have ganged up against EPA regulations against higher mileage.

 

[Reality]

@ggr

You are correct that you are not required to disclose if a sale is a done under a 10b5-1 plan, or file one. BUT a 10b5-1 plan does have to be documented and every form 4 up until the most recent one with Doug Field where there was a disposal disclosed that it was part of a 10b5-1 plan. Doug's didnt, which you are right isnt required. So either A) it wasnt part of a plan or B) it was and Tesla went against accepted practice of disclosing. Maybe they just like to make them up and backdate them to avoid litigation, either way it's weird.


If it's B it is really sketchy, because that means they intentionally didnt disclose because people keep talking about it on twitter. If it's A then well the theory is wrong. Not a major part of the theory just a data point, not afraid to admit it's possible that it is nothing (like the solar roof, roadster 2, tesla truck, model Y, rocket cars, missions to mars and all the other make believe that you guys buy into)



Also, I spent a lot of time to write up a decent amount of facts that most reasonable people will admit look a little questionable when considered as a whole. You didnt address any of them in any way.

 

[ggr]

@ggr

You are correct that you are not required to disclose if a sale is a done under a 10b5-1 plan, or file one. BUT a 10b5-1 plan does have to be documented and every form 4 up until the most recent one with Doug Field where there was a disposal disclosed that it was part of a 10b5-1 plan. Doug's didnt, which you are right isnt required. So either A) it wasnt part of a plan or B) it was and Tesla went against accepted practice of disclosing. Maybe they just like to make them up and backdate them to avoid litigation, either way it's weird.


If it's B it is really sketchy, because that means they intentionally didnt disclose because people keep talking about it on twitter. If it's A then well the theory is wrong. Not a major part of the theory just a data point, not afraid to admit it's possible that it is nothing (like the solar roof, roadster 2, tesla truck, model Y, rocket cars, missions to mars and all the other make believe that you guys buy into)



Also, I spent a lot of time to write up a decent amount of facts that most reasonable people will admit look a little questionable when considered as a whole. You didnt address any of them in any way.

Unless I am very forgetful, Doug Field is currently on leave from Tesla, and has no material non-public information, and doesn't have to trade based on a trading plan, so it would be option (C).

 

[Henchman]

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.

Bwahahahahaha.

"Strong evidence Tesla is under SEC investigation" you mean HOPING. As thsts the only thing thsts going to save your ass.


Your hope they will go bankrupt is laughable as well.
FYI, the reason Tesla is as succesful as they are, is BECAUSE of Elon.

Last time pencil pushing accountants pushed out a visionary from a company, they almost destroyed it.
That company was Apple.

Oh. And you talk about running it like a "real" company.

Yeah, we all know what that’s like.
Those established "Real" companies had to get bailed out 10 years ago.

 

[Henchman]

Is this supposed to be a smart and funny retort? If so I am not tickled.

You know clearly what nwdriver is implying. The investment you are referring to is ICE giants being dragged into the EV scene kicking and screaming. That is why they have ganged up against EPA regulations against higher mileage.

And this is why we will see several of them go under in the next decade
Just like they almost went under 10 years ago

 

[Unpilot]

@ggr

You are correct that you are not required to disclose if a sale is a done under a 10b5-1 plan, or file one. BUT a 10b5-1 plan does have to be documented and every form 4 up until the most recent one with Doug Field where there was a disposal disclosed that it was part of a 10b5-1 plan. Doug's didnt, which you are right isnt required. So either A) it wasnt part of a plan or B) it was and Tesla went against accepted practice of disclosing. Maybe they just like to make them up and backdate them to avoid litigation, either way it's weird.


If it's B it is really sketchy, because that means they intentionally didnt disclose because people keep talking about it on twitter. If it's A then well the theory is wrong. Not a major part of the theory just a data point, not afraid to admit it's possible that it is nothing (like the solar roof, roadster 2, tesla truck, model Y, rocket cars, missions to mars and all the other make believe that you guys buy into)



Also, I spent a lot of time to write up a decent amount of facts that most reasonable people will admit look a little questionable when considered as a whole. You didnt address any of them in any way.

FUD in a not so clever form.

 

[neroden]

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.

I think they'd try, and I think the Chinese EV import boom coming in 5-10 years would destroy them anyway. At the moment, Tesla looks likely to be the only surviving non-Chinese car company. BYD, BAIC, Geely, and SAIC are well-positioned, and I wouldn't count out several of the others.

BTW, I like the LAME acronym. Of the LAMEs, Nissan, BMW, VW, GM, and Hyundai (in that order) are the best positioned to survive, but none of them are really in a very good position. Nissan and GM have squandered their leads, Hyundai is battery-constrained, and VW is suffering from most of its management getting arrested. BMW has its sights set far too low.

 

[neroden]

Daimler, I think gets it. They have stated publicly they are investing 12 billion into getting their full EV line (EQ) off the ground , starting real production next year (2019), and also expected to be seen on roads in Europe this year!

Maybe you're right. I'm already seeing them making mistakes like Nissan and mistakes like Hyundai, so I think they're going to trip themselves up and lose market share early.

With a 100 year history of building cars, the 'ramp' will likely go somewhat faster than what we are witnessing.

Slower. Tesla's ramp speed is actually better than most of the LAMEs, you just don't notice it because Tesla announces even crazier ramp speeds.

Volvo (owned by Chinese company Geely) notes they will no longer make any ICE past 2025. Their performance models (polestar) are now solely focused on EV's.

And Geely is likely to be a major player. Geely is listed in Hong Kong. So is BYD. You could invest in either one. CATL isn't, so only people who can trade on the Shenzhen market can get CATL stock. I'm a little uncomfortable with these Hong Kong shares due to the weird structure of ownership, which creates some legal risks for foreign stockholders, but I'm probably being silly.

What I am trying to say in essence, is by 2030 no major manufacturer will be producing ICE cars. Zero. The ramifications from maintenance to gas stations, to used car sales will be exponentially bigger than massive.

So if anyone has any other ideas how to profit off this, (while bettering the world) feel free to chime in, as currently I am all-in TSLA.

See above: both BYD and Geely can be invested in by Western investors.

 

[nwdiver]

By expressing their disdain do you mean investing heavily?

I don't count FUD investments. Most of the 'investment' news is heavily couched with words like 'plan', 'will', 'intends'... lots of future tense. Other LAMEs only invest in EVs with a gun to their head like VW.

For Example...

“We are all in,” Ford Motor Executive Chairman Bill Ford said of the company’s $11 billion investment, announced on Sunday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

.... the day earlier....

Ford is cutting back on sedans to build more SUVs

Which is it? Are they investing $Billions$ in a not yet announced SUV or in a discontinued car?... It's FUD... the goal is to keep consumers addicted to their POS fools fuel cars and wait for the EV they're 'building'.... wink, wink....

 

[Henchman]

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.

Agree 100%

 

[Unpilot]

I'v had a few beers so bear with me. I think I have a high level over view of the LAME's problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.
In order to make a large number of EV's they have to retool several factory's that currently make ICE cars. When they do that their CAPEX goes up while their profit's/margins decrease. They also have to source/or design the batteries and BMS for these car's.

When/if they do this their stock will fall as the margin's decrease. Then if they make a big bet on EV's they run the problem of not having a large fast charging system. In order to make car's that are not just city cars they will need to either build out a charging system or partner with someone that has or is building out one. This would further reduce margin's.

While they do this they have to convince the dealer network to sell these new EV's The dealers know they will not make the additional revenue from the EV's that they do from ICE so they will resist.

The time frame for them to switch is getting smaller and smaller every day.

Is that about right?

 

[Henchman]

I'v had a few beers so bear with me. I think I have a high level over view of the LAME's problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.
In order to make a large number of EV's they have to retool several factory's that currently make ICE cars. When they do that their CAPEX goes up while their profit's/margins decrease. They also have to source/or design the batteries and BMS for these car's.

When/if they do this their stock will fall as the margin's decrease. Then if they make a big bet on EV's they run the problem of not having a large fast charging system. In order to make car's that are not just city cars they will need to either build out a charging system or partner with someone that has or is building out one. This would further reduce margin's.

While they do this they have to convince the dealer network to sell these new EV's The dealers know they will not make the additional revenue from the EV's that they do from ICE so they will resist.

The time frame for them to switch is getting smaller and smaller every day.

Is that about right?

Yep.
That's it.

If I was shorting stock longterm, I'd be doing it with any number of the traditional car companies.
A repeat of 2008 is in their future.

 

[beamthegreat]

Yes, of course electric car sales are limited by supply. Have you bothered to look at the supply growth curve?

Yes lots of research have been done in this area but not a single one predicts that 100% of all vehicle sales will be electric by 2030.

EV Adoption Hits The Accelerator

Do you actually have a sound model explaining why you think the current exponential growth curve will slow down?

People will first under predict the impact of the technology then over estimate it as growth become exponential. IIRC even Elon said this during one of his interviews.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Because of the logistic curve nature of technology adoption, it is difficult to see in the early stages whether the hype is excessive.

The two errors commonly committed in the early stages of a technology's development are:

• fitting an exponential curve to the first part of the growth curve, and assuming eternal exponential growth
• fitting a linear curve to the first part of the growth curve, and assuming that take-up of the new technology is disappointing

Technology life cycle - Wikipedia
The Innovation S-Curve
The Diffusion of Innovations – The Bass Model

 

[dondy]

I think they'd try, and I think the Chinese EV import boom coming in 5-10 years would destroy them anyway. At the moment, Tesla looks likely to be the only surviving non-Chinese car company. BYD, BAIC, Geely, and SAIC are well-positioned, and I wouldn't count out several of the others.

BTW, I like the LAME acronym. Of the LAMEs, Nissan, BMW, VW, GM, and Hyundai (in that order) are the best positioned to survive, but none of them are really in a very good position. Nissan and GM have squandered their leads, Hyundai is battery-constrained, and VW is suffering from most of its management getting arrested. BMW has its sights set far too low.

There will be no import EV boom from China. Period.
Autos produced there when complied to the european or american safety rules are not cheaper.
Absolutely all "european" brands produced in China are "simplified". This was the case with trucks, and I am sure is the case with small autos.

More of it if to request "equal ground" rules which would require sufficient ecological compliance, transparent accounting and workforce safety no China product would come cheaper than produced in Europe or US. This "salary" gap is nonsense, salaries consist only some 10-15% of production expenses max.

VW is really alright, funny that you missed the real EV leaders in LAME world.
the real EV leaders among LAME are obvious. It's the companies which invested in Tesla in the beginning: Toyota and Daimler. They both have extensive long term programs developing and producing EVs, which both started before 2000. Both have no rush of introducing EV because of obvious financial reasons. Both have ready designs in house. Both start first with the assembly of huge battery factories. Toyota has contract with Panasonic, Daimler builds factories in Germany (giga in Kamenz). Both have no need to rush or "compete", whenever these companies come they take their "market share" very easily.
First company (see Tesla) needs to introduce charger network (which costs Tesla around 300-500mln per year), first company has to struggle with chronical shortage of educated service personnel (EVs being electrical software devices are fundamentally different in servicing from mechanical ICE vehicles). To change a motor you call service, they come to your home and do it outside using mobile tools, air-suspension which will be the base for all EV is also fundamentally different from "normal" types. The list can continue on and on.
First company has to pay all introduction costs associating with building fundamentally new market.

If to compare with IT revolution the best comparison would be internet infrastructure providers. There were new players in hardware service, some are still alive and a couple even became really big, but the old ones are doing actually ok. They are ok because the sheer volume of infrastructure hardware costs meant that they had enough time to adapt and change to the new "data driven" reality. the EV introduction time in auto industry will be another 10-20 years.

 

[mandoskippy]

@tesla people, this thread is a fantastic display of the trolling art. We are all trying to have logical conversations with people who aren't in the conversation for the purpose of argument, they are hear to get an emotional rise out of you. Coming to a Tesla fan site and being anti Tesla is the DEFINITION of troll.

Some may say they have valid points. Maybe, I would argue that many of the arguments are purposefully based in logical fallacies. If you see the need to respond, maybe a better approach would be linking to Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies Basically, anytime someone posts a obvious logical fallacies, just quote their post, and add a link to appropriate fallacy.

For example:

"Elon Musk isn't a business man, he doesn't know how to run a company, and therefore Tesla will fail" - Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

"So and So hedge fund manager or So and So investment bank said Tesla is failing, thus short the stock!" - Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You: "Shorts are using false information (cites sources) to artificially drag down positions so they can make money" Short: You are nothing but a fanboi, and this company is only based on fanbois." - Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

Just a few examples. But if you think it through, most are just that, fallacies. instead of engaging, just call out the fallacy. We are smart enough to see your argument once the fallacy is pointed out.

Cheers!