FWIW
Some sites never updated the 56,000 number:
Missed delivery headline:
Tesla Meets Model 3 Production Targets, Misses Delivery Estimates
Tesla on a roll: Model 3 production hits goal as sales keep rising – Silicon Valley
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Join push for SEC Investigation of TSLA manipulators and inside traders
- Thread starter Papafox
- Start date
FWIW
Some sites never updated the 56,000 number:
Missed delivery headline:
Tesla Meets Model 3 Production Targets, Misses Delivery Estimates
Tesla on a roll: Model 3 production hits goal as sales keep rising – Silicon Valley
Yuri_G
Member
Article was posted at 9am, October 2nd, per twitter: Twitter
I did not take screen caps, but here is the correction on the current version of the article, which the author did not add until October 3rd! As you can see he kept the same headline, but the body of the article was revised to say they had missed on deliveries compared to consensus from FactSet to just "slightly above" analyst consensus around 3-4 hours after the initial publication.
”Corrections & Amplifications
FactSet estimated Tesla would deliver 55,600 Model 3 sedans in the third quarter and 80,000 total vehicles. An earlier version of this article incorrectly used an early estimate from FactSet predicting deliveries of 56,000 Model 3s and 82,000 total. In addition, Tesla delivered 55,840 Model 3s during the period. The previous version incorrectly stated the number as 55,849. (Oct. 3, 2018)"
Tesla Meets Model 3 Production Goal, but Struggles With Deliveries
Much rosier headline for the print version, as well.
'Tesla Hits Model 3 Output Goal.'
Here's the false Business Insider Headline: Business Insider Misleading Headline
And here's the internet archive link for the WSJ article if the full text was in fact saved and someone can access it: Tesla Meets Model 3 Production Goal, but Struggles With Deliveries
Last edited:
Ah think.....
We are 3 weeks before an election. We need to make this an election issue.
It isn't just about tsla naked short selling is attacking many inovative US companies.
What can we do?
1. Social media. There is an article about the activities of those engaging in and profiting get it up on your facebook page.
Lets promote a twitter tag specifically to shine light on naked short selling.
2. Let us draft a letter/email to be sent to each of our congressmen and senators demanding an inestigation into naked short selling and market manipulation.
3. Let us draft a script for a phone call so we can call our congressional and senatorial offices and request an investigation into naked short selling and market manipulation.
4. Let us start an online petition calling for the sec to investigate naked short selling and market manipulation.
The idea is to shine a very bright light on these activities
We are 3 weeks before an election. We need to make this an election issue.
It isn't just about tsla naked short selling is attacking many inovative US companies.
What can we do?
1. Social media. There is an article about the activities of those engaging in and profiting get it up on your facebook page.
Lets promote a twitter tag specifically to shine light on naked short selling.
2. Let us draft a letter/email to be sent to each of our congressmen and senators demanding an inestigation into naked short selling and market manipulation.
3. Let us draft a script for a phone call so we can call our congressional and senatorial offices and request an investigation into naked short selling and market manipulation.
4. Let us start an online petition calling for the sec to investigate naked short selling and market manipulation.
The idea is to shine a very bright light on these activities
strangecosmos
Non-Member
How does the mistaken headlines issue affect Tesla 6 months from now? Or a year? Or two years? It doesn’t. It only matters to short-term speculators — I’ll define that term as people who are trading within a quarter, including day traders who trade within a single day.
Even short sellers like Jim Chanos do not benefit from the mistake because they are holding their short positions long-term.
This doesn’t harm long-term investors, it doesn’t benefit long-term short sellers, and it doesn’t actually affect Tesla the company.
Short-term speculators are just gamblers trying to make a quick buck — and mostly failing. Trading frequency is inversely correlated with return, and about 90% of day traders lose money. Short-term speculation is like the waves on the ocean. Just surface-level noise. What really matters is the inflows and outflows of large institutional investors who control the vast majority of investment capital. Those inflows and outflows are the like the ocean currents.
Rather than spending time tilting at windmills, why not take that time and spend it on learning about finance and investing? The more you understand about finance and investing, the more you understand about what’s important to focus on and what’s not.
Even short sellers like Jim Chanos do not benefit from the mistake because they are holding their short positions long-term.
This doesn’t harm long-term investors, it doesn’t benefit long-term short sellers, and it doesn’t actually affect Tesla the company.
Short-term speculators are just gamblers trying to make a quick buck — and mostly failing. Trading frequency is inversely correlated with return, and about 90% of day traders lose money. Short-term speculation is like the waves on the ocean. Just surface-level noise. What really matters is the inflows and outflows of large institutional investors who control the vast majority of investment capital. Those inflows and outflows are the like the ocean currents.
Rather than spending time tilting at windmills, why not take that time and spend it on learning about finance and investing? The more you understand about finance and investing, the more you understand about what’s important to focus on and what’s not.
Last edited:
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Day traders who skim headlines without reading the articles and trade stocks based on that — those people don’t matter to Tesla’s long-term financial success and should just be ignored. Why do you care? This isn’t hurting Tesla at all, or long-term Tesla investors. Not even slightly.
The Wall Street Journal article used a previous FactSet forecast of 56,000 deliveries, and then corrected the article with the more recent forecast of 55,600 deliveries. That’s a pretty small mistake, and a pretty easy one to make. I’ve made plenty of much bigger mistakes, and lots of professional journalists have too. It’s pretty much impossible to write about stuff and not mistakes like this.
Since Tesla delivered 55,840 Model 3s, the story changed from a slight forecast miss to a slight forecast beat — by about 200 cars. This is not information that a rational long-term investor would act on. It’s so small as to be insignificant.
Apparently Business Insider confused the Model 3 production figure and deliveries figure, which is a bit more embarrassing, but still a lot less embarrassing than mistakes I’ve made. I’ve also seen prominent journalists make bigger mistakes than that.
When you are rushing to get an article out minutes after Tesla announces the information so Business Insider can sop up all the clicks, I can see how it would be even easier than normal to mess up something like that. This is one reason why the subscription-based business model is better than the click-based business model.
Institutional investors would almost certainly read the report directly on Tesla’s IR website or in their email. Even retail investors do this. Anyone who trades Tesla stock based on a Business Insider article summarizing the quarterly deliveries report a) doesn’t own enough stock to make a difference and b) probably shouldn’t be buying stocks anyway because they don’t know what they’re doing and they’re behaving recklessly.
Well, these headlines will have literally zero long-term impact on Tesla, gasoline car companies, unions, or long-term short positions. So this would be a very silly thing to do. These news writers would have to not understand how capital markets work to think this would be an effective tactic.
You are just speculating that the mistakes were deliberate, without any evidence.
Last edited:
Actually, Google will happily give you older search results for a search. So, it can still matter in the future, even if it's less likely traders are seeing it (hopefully they have their search set to past week or day or whatever)..
And why should anyone let lies and misleading titles / articles to continue existing ? What sort of sense does it make to just give up and ignore them and hope for the best? That just continues the behavior to keep on occurring. It will never stop then.
And why should anyone let lies and misleading titles / articles to continue existing ? What sort of sense does it make to just give up and ignore them and hope for the best? That just continues the behavior to keep on occurring. It will never stop then.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
When I Google now, it shows the updated headlines for the Wall Street Journal and Business Insider articles.
Also, traders don’t matter. You might as well yell at the clouds.
People make honest mistakes all the time, including you and me. All we can do is try our best to fix them. The Business Insider and Wall Street Journal articles were apparently corrected within 1-2 hours. The Wall Street Journal’s mistake was pretty small and understandable. They used an older FactSet forecast instead of the newest one, which was 400 cars lower — barely a difference anyway. Honestly, who is basing their investment decisions on a difference of 400 cars?
400 cars at a $60,000 average selling price is $24 million in revenue. At Tesla’s revenue multiple of 3.2, that’s $76.8 million in market cap. Which is a difference of 0.18%, or a stock price difference of 46 cents.
Business Insider’s was a bit more sloppy, which might be a sign of one problem with the click-based business model is bad: it incentivizes rushing to publish. (Also Business Insider just generally seems like not a very good news site. I tend to avoid it if the same story is published somewhere else.)
Well, if you want, go ahead and complain to news publications if you spot a mistake. If you do it politely, they might thank you for the correction. But don’t spam the SEC with complaints about stuff that doesn’t violate SEC regulations.
Try publishing articles about Tesla’s financials or any other complex topic, and you’ll probably gain empathy for these news writers after you make tons and tons of mistakes over and over and over. It’s like typos or anything else. It’s unreasonable to expect human beings to be perfect.
Also, there is an opportunity cost to anything you can do. There are things that are both more helpful to the world and more fun than worrying about quickly corrected mistakes in news articles. Why not get involved in local politics? Or, I don’t know, mow your neighbour’s lawn?
Last edited:
Yuri_G
Member
If you don't see the point in digging into any manipulation of the share price, why post in this thread? Notice most of the people that agree this is an issue have been posting here and following Tesla for years. These aren't mere coincidences. There is big money at stake and if you can't see that, you are derailing the thread and going off-topic.
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Please point out a few of the many mistakenly-pro-Tesla headlines/stories popping up in the past few months, on BI, WSJ, NYT, etc. Thank you.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I’ve been following Tesla for years, even though I’m a relative newcomer to TMC. I’ve written something like 56 articles about Tesla, so I’ve done a ton of research.
I think some people posting in this thread misunderstand how the stock market works. There is no logical connection between day traders or other short-term speculators and Tesla’s success as a company. This is a fallacy.
Short-term volatility does not harm Tesla. I think a lot of people don’t understand this, and see volatility as bad or scary or harmful. Volatility is actually a rational and healthy part of the stock market that is partially a result of purely random factors and partially a result of uncertainty and risk. Tesla is a risky and uncertain stock, so there is high volatility. As it should be. As Elon said, if you don’t like volatility, stay away from Tesla.
Short-term speculators try (and mostly fail) to profit from volatility. This is essentially a form of gambling like betting on horses or UFC matches or football games. (Like sports betting, people have “systems” that are actually just junk and don’t do better than chance.)
It’s true that short-term speculators can, in theory, profit from spreading misinformation. As an easy example, if a speculator could somehow get TMZ to falsely report that Elon died in a car crash, the stock might drop briefly before Elon could tweet a photo of himself with today’s newspaper. This is illegal, and it could enrich a mastermind speculator. But it would not actually harm Tesla! At all! Even a little bit! The effect would be so brief, it would be like it never happened at all.
I think this is the main point people don’t understand. A hypothetical market manipulation would be illegal and unethical and a possibly lucrative crime for a short-term speculator. But it would merely be a way to create temporary volatility. The next day, it would not change the stock market’s assessment of Tesla’s intrinsic value based on discounted cash flow analysis. Let alone the next quarter, or the next year.
For false information to be harmful to Tesla, it would have to be something that can’t be quickly refuted, or that won’t be refuted in the next few quarters. And for it to be an illegal act that can be pursued by authorities, you have to at a minimum prove two things:
1) intent to deceive
2) the person stood to gain financially from the deception
So far, nobody has been able to find a single example where there is any evidence of uncontroversially, objectively false information about Tesla being intentionally spread by someone with a short position.
Journalists don’t own stocks or short positions, so that’s a dead end right there. And good luck proving intent to deceive.
Short sellers are well within their legal rights to express their opinions, come up with crazy conjectures and conspiracy theories, and make ridiculous assertions. As long as it is expressed as opinion or theory, it’s not market manipulation. As long as there is no intent to deceive, it’s not market manipulation. And even if there is intent to deceive, as long as you can’t prove that, you can’t prove it’s market manipulation.
Last edited:
Yuri_G
Member
The whole point of this thread is to try to prove just that, while you are derailing and adding nothing. It's nice that you believe short sellers do no damage, we believe otherwise.
Here's my first effort at putting together the puzzle of what we as Tesla supporters can do to bring some fairness back into the market.
A Field Guide To Potential Securities Violations By Tesla's Foes — In Depth | CleanTechnica
A Field Guide To Potential Securities Violations By Tesla's Foes — In Depth | CleanTechnica
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I am just trying to save you time, and also maybe prevent people from harassing journalists, or filing bogus SEC complaints that clog up the system. Earlier, there were people in this thread talking about doing shady and possibly illegal stuff to “investigate” or retaliate against perceived harms to Tesla. (I reported those posts and I’m happy to see they’re gone now.) People “investigating” conspiracy theories have done crazy stuff before, so it’s concerning to see that here on TMC. If you’re worried about bad headlines, “Paranoid Tesla fans commit crimes, harass journalists, file bogus SEC complaints” is not a good one.
Some of the ideas presented in this thread just defy basic facts about finance and investing. This is why I suggest taking time to learn how the stock market works before embarking on this endeavour. It’s akin to someone saying “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” and then going on to investigate who is behind the 9/11 conspiracy, without learning enough about steel, jet fuel, and structural engineering to understand if their theory even makes sense. The claim “day traders created false headlines and hurt Tesla” is the equivalent of “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”.
The claim about 9/11 doesn’t make sense because it ignores the kinetic impact of the planes and the fact that fire weakens steel. The claim about Tesla doesn’t make sense because an hour-long or day-long dip in Tesla’s stock price has no effect on the company. It fundamentally just doesn’t make sense.
Last edited:
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Papafox, it seems like you are just throwing out wild accusations based on no evidence:
Because you are certain that your perspective is right, and because you are certain that news writers couldn’t just have a different perspective, you decide to believe that there is probably a conspiracy afoot. Negative coverage —> conspiracy. That’s bananas.
With regard to all the stock price charts: why do you look at a change in the stock price and conclude it’s an attempt to manipulate? Can’t stock prices go up and down for any number of reasons, including a number of factors that we might as well call random? I don’t see any actual evidence. It seems like you just saw some kind of pattern and jumped to a conclusion.
I read a paper recently that found if you just randomly generate stock price charts, you can find the same sort of patterns that “technical analysts” see in real stock price charts. In other words, technical analysts are just looking at random noise and seeing random patterns that don’t mean anything. People tend to ascribe more meaning to randomness than there is.
Because you are certain that your perspective is right, and because you are certain that news writers couldn’t just have a different perspective, you decide to believe that there is probably a conspiracy afoot. Negative coverage —> conspiracy. That’s bananas.
With regard to all the stock price charts: why do you look at a change in the stock price and conclude it’s an attempt to manipulate? Can’t stock prices go up and down for any number of reasons, including a number of factors that we might as well call random? I don’t see any actual evidence. It seems like you just saw some kind of pattern and jumped to a conclusion.
I read a paper recently that found if you just randomly generate stock price charts, you can find the same sort of patterns that “technical analysts” see in real stock price charts. In other words, technical analysts are just looking at random noise and seeing random patterns that don’t mean anything. People tend to ascribe more meaning to randomness than there is.
Last edited:
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Over on Site Feedback I asked for private threads. This is why. Strike three.
Lots of good work. Not to sound like a party pp, wouldn't EM have already looked at all the angles. This evidence would definitely be useful by someone with some power. Bucking this system would be like trying to abolish slavery... let's be real.
I think EM already has the lawyer he needs for the SEC. Maybe he intends to counter sue, but I'm not a lawyer. His letter to the judge could be revealing. I think the plan is in motion but it needs to be such a thrust that it sends them into full and eternal orbit.
That being said, I'd gladly sign any petition. My suggestion on the strategy would be to involve the wealthiest people you know... Bill Gates, Buffet, U2 (cuz Bono is so cool) etc... (people who care about the planet). Get them to understand the problem to infuse about $50B in TSLA and lock up the shares tight in a vault. In other words, force a squeeze considering that >50B will likely counter the move.
And vote for the right congress person and president this time. We don't even have an EPA at this point.
I think EM already has the lawyer he needs for the SEC. Maybe he intends to counter sue, but I'm not a lawyer. His letter to the judge could be revealing. I think the plan is in motion but it needs to be such a thrust that it sends them into full and eternal orbit.
That being said, I'd gladly sign any petition. My suggestion on the strategy would be to involve the wealthiest people you know... Bill Gates, Buffet, U2 (cuz Bono is so cool) etc... (people who care about the planet). Get them to understand the problem to infuse about $50B in TSLA and lock up the shares tight in a vault. In other words, force a squeeze considering that >50B will likely counter the move.
And vote for the right congress person and president this time. We don't even have an EPA at this point.
I will be asking the SEC for feedback on my CleanTechnica article. It's a great way to get the conversation going as to what conduct constitutes securities violations and what doesn't For the grey areas, maybe we can have an extended discussion. It is in their best interest to have a discussion with us since we desire to avoid filing unusable tips and the best way to make that happen is to receive some guidance.
Consider this article to be one of our starting points in pinning down what does and what does not constitute securities fraud. Let's keep working together on this project and ignore the detractors unless they have something of value to offer. Tesla and SpaceX have both become successful companies due to their "why not?" thinking. Let's follow their lead.
Consider this article to be one of our starting points in pinning down what does and what does not constitute securities fraud. Let's keep working together on this project and ignore the detractors unless they have something of value to offer. Tesla and SpaceX have both become successful companies due to their "why not?" thinking. Let's follow their lead.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Why not Google it? Or ask a securities law expert?
Here's a thought. Instead of pushing back on stock buy-back approach, use a strong Media campaign. Media listens when you pay. $100M is all should do it to stop buying ICE vehicles, period. Wrap Tesla story inside to expose SEC.
CalX
Member
I found this posted by someone on this forum but I am reposting it here because it really enlightened me to the level of manipulation through naked shorts and counterfeit shares. The parallels with tsla are astounding Let me know if there are holes in their thesis.
Illegal Naked Short Selling Appears to Lie at the Heart of an Extensive Stock Manipulation Scheme | Expert Financial Analysis and Reporting | Smith on Stocks
Illegal Naked Short Selling Appears to Lie at the Heart of an Extensive Stock Manipulation Scheme | Expert Financial Analysis and Reporting | Smith on Stocks
Similar threads
