-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I'm thrilled to have your input here, Julian. I've enjoyed your work. (As you obviously already understand, it's not personal.) Welcome!
Wow, that is impressive. Very suspicious that you were censored immediately before the drop, it looks to me like you could have prevented it!
Mike. I actually think (without ego) I did have a material effect on halting and reversing the slide.
With the commentary below (someone did paste it into the location suggested, and others pasted it elsewhere Goldman Sachs' New Price Target On Tesla... Time To Jump Ship? - Seeking Alpha - note that the original title of this piece as emailed and published was: Goldman Sachs Downgrades Tesla's Price Target By 34%... Time To Jump Ship? - I wrote George Moriarty of Seeking Alpha to explain in no uncertain terms that this was untruthful in a manner that would probably (and rightly) be deleted from this forum, continuing: "GOLDMAN RATING IS NEUTRAL THEIR RECENT REPORT IS AN INCREASE IN PRICE TARGET FROM $60 TO $84 HOW DID THIS EVER GET PASSED EDITORIAL?" He made the following excuse for it by reply "Thank you for writing in. The headline attempts to play off the opening sentence, but we will address it as it is unclear." which they did from 34% downgrade to new price target).
After folk kindly pasted the piece below, the bear-run away with the story immediately changed direction to a lot of "why has SA banned Julian", taunting the shorts to produce a better buying price and the shorts trying to justify themselves with incoherent taunts. The slide halted pretty abruptly at around $108 and bounced to $117 and then $120 the following day.
I am actually getting an increasingly clear picture of what actually happened and why.
Here is the latest standard response from Seeking Alpha that many Tesla shareholders writing in to express support for my contributions and concerns to Seeking Alpha regarding my censorship have been getting back:
"While we can't discuss specific details, suffice it to say we did not make this decision lightly, nor did it have anything to do with Mr Cox's opinions. We welcome all sides of the debate. There were other factors, which we tried to resolve, that left us no alternative."
Now the truth is that my commenting privileges were cancelled without warning or discussion in between the time accredited investors received the GS report and the publication of hit-pieces referencing that report for the consumption of retail investors. The night before, there was a systematic raid of comment deletions notified to me automatically by email specifically of emails rebuffing some of SA's more mindless trolls, though oddly I do not believe the trolls themselves orchestrated that action, I think that was a diversionary bluff by a more sophisticated party. As SA confirms however, SA's actions had nothing to do with my opinions. I agree. No, this action had every sign of having something to do with orchestrating what is known as a "Flash Crash", and I am pleased to say the slide was halted before the stock dipped low enough to yield a reward for it - that would have been no doubt some way considerably below $100. For avoidance of doubt, I do not believe GS is directly responsible for trying to crash the price, the piece they wrote was a relatively measured trailing upgrade with a mild air of aloofness to the realities of the business that any long could fill in to their own satisfaction with the minimum of due diligence. The tone was sufficiently damming with faint praise to attract some skeptical shorts to the stock but hardly loaded with sufficient FUD to trigger a cascade sell-off. No. That FUD was added afterwards "GS 34% downgrade, jump ship". Apparently, and somewhat flatteringly, my absence was considered to be an important component of getting the message across. As luck would have it, some kind chaps did pass the message along and it was heard, and as miscalculation on the part of SA would have it, they would now appear to be sweating under a hail of fire from Tesla shareholders for their "editorial misjudgment".
Julian Cox | July 16, 2013
here is something I would think was a good idea to have put on Seeking Alpha today. Probably here: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1140422
Permission to copy and paste universally granted.
Today TSLA has taken a tremendous dive off what appears to be the back of a Goldman Sachs UPGRADE from $60 to $84.
Their GS best case scenario gives a PT of $120 - about par with TSLA prior to the report, which allows GS the opportunity to be right:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Tesla+%28TSLA%29+Stock+Worth+$113+in+Best+Scenario,+$58+in+Worst+-+Goldman+Sachs/8503031.html
Coincidentally the GS best case scenario corresponds directly to data points that fit a pattern of conservative guidance from Tesla. Having covered for credibility with their best case, GS are masters at understanding the actual impact of their actions with regards to sentiment.
It cannot be ignored that GS is both Bank and Bookmaker for Musk / Tesla and it's last intervention was to selectively sell shares and bonds as part of a $1.08bn fundraiser to institutional longs, most likely GS clients.
The outcome, and seemingly the intention of that move was to deny liquidity for short-covering and in so doing exacerbating a short squeeze. It is highly improbable that GS has changed either its allegiances or its mode of conduct towards either Tesla or its own clients so soon after the last offer and so shortly before the 22nd July Tesla Q2 earnings call at a time when GS itself could be criticized for harming its own credibility as bookmaker for the stock in the case of its own analysts triggering a net sell-off just weeks later. That just is not what is happening here, particularly when the 22nd July, stands firmly as a damage limiter. As a matter of fact it looks as though the slide (jitter) has bottomed regardless at around $108.
Of note in this GS piece is the absence of any short-term
prognosis, specifically any mention of Q2 profit or loss. This is telling when without doubt following the comments let slip by Jerome Guillen at Teslive over the weekend, Tesla will in fact produce a modest profit overturning the analyst-consensus of a small Q2 loss.
In essence this GS article looks true to form a carefully crafted measure to lure shorts into the stock ahead of a
hail of Q2 analysts beats, thereby rewarding GS clients handsomely at the cost of the comparatively ill informed shorts and skeptics with another significant short-squeeze.
This is a significant buying opportunity for the well informed for double digit gains in the space of 7~10 days with very high levels of certainty attached.
minor correction to the above - Q2 call date updated to 7th Aug.
http://ir.teslamotors.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=777667
With the commentary below (someone did paste it into the location suggested, and others pasted it elsewhere Goldman Sachs' New Price Target On Tesla... Time To Jump Ship? - Seeking Alpha - note that the original title of this piece as emailed and published was: Goldman Sachs Downgrades Tesla's Price Target By 34%... Time To Jump Ship? - I wrote George Moriarty of Seeking Alpha to explain in no uncertain terms that this was untruthful in a manner that would probably (and rightly) be deleted from this forum, continuing: "GOLDMAN RATING IS NEUTRAL THEIR RECENT REPORT IS AN INCREASE IN PRICE TARGET FROM $60 TO $84 HOW DID THIS EVER GET PASSED EDITORIAL?" He made the following excuse for it by reply "Thank you for writing in. The headline attempts to play off the opening sentence, but we will address it as it is unclear." which they did from 34% downgrade to new price target).
After folk kindly pasted the piece below, the bear-run away with the story immediately changed direction to a lot of "why has SA banned Julian", taunting the shorts to produce a better buying price and the shorts trying to justify themselves with incoherent taunts. The slide halted pretty abruptly at around $108 and bounced to $117 and then $120 the following day.
I am actually getting an increasingly clear picture of what actually happened and why.
Here is the latest standard response from Seeking Alpha that many Tesla shareholders writing in to express support for my contributions and concerns to Seeking Alpha regarding my censorship have been getting back:
"While we can't discuss specific details, suffice it to say we did not make this decision lightly, nor did it have anything to do with Mr Cox's opinions. We welcome all sides of the debate. There were other factors, which we tried to resolve, that left us no alternative."
Now the truth is that my commenting privileges were cancelled without warning or discussion in between the time accredited investors received the GS report and the publication of hit-pieces referencing that report for the consumption of retail investors. The night before, there was a systematic raid of comment deletions notified to me automatically by email specifically of emails rebuffing some of SA's more mindless trolls, though oddly I do not believe the trolls themselves orchestrated that action, I think that was a diversionary bluff by a more sophisticated party. As SA confirms however, SA's actions had nothing to do with my opinions. I agree. No, this action had every sign of having something to do with orchestrating what is known as a "Flash Crash", and I am pleased to say the slide was halted before the stock dipped low enough to yield a reward for it - that would have been no doubt some way considerably below $100. For avoidance of doubt, I do not believe GS is directly responsible for trying to crash the price, the piece they wrote was a relatively measured trailing upgrade with a mild air of aloofness to the realities of the business that any long could fill in to their own satisfaction with the minimum of due diligence. The tone was sufficiently damming with faint praise to attract some skeptical shorts to the stock but hardly loaded with sufficient FUD to trigger a cascade sell-off. No. That FUD was added afterwards "GS 34% downgrade, jump ship". Apparently, and somewhat flatteringly, my absence was considered to be an important component of getting the message across. As luck would have it, some kind chaps did pass the message along and it was heard, and as miscalculation on the part of SA would have it, they would now appear to be sweating under a hail of fire from Tesla shareholders for their "editorial misjudgment".
Julian Cox | July 16, 2013
here is something I would think was a good idea to have put on Seeking Alpha today. Probably here: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1140422
Permission to copy and paste universally granted.
Today TSLA has taken a tremendous dive off what appears to be the back of a Goldman Sachs UPGRADE from $60 to $84.
Their GS best case scenario gives a PT of $120 - about par with TSLA prior to the report, which allows GS the opportunity to be right:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Tesla+%28TSLA%29+Stock+Worth+$113+in+Best+Scenario,+$58+in+Worst+-+Goldman+Sachs/8503031.html
Coincidentally the GS best case scenario corresponds directly to data points that fit a pattern of conservative guidance from Tesla. Having covered for credibility with their best case, GS are masters at understanding the actual impact of their actions with regards to sentiment.
It cannot be ignored that GS is both Bank and Bookmaker for Musk / Tesla and it's last intervention was to selectively sell shares and bonds as part of a $1.08bn fundraiser to institutional longs, most likely GS clients.
The outcome, and seemingly the intention of that move was to deny liquidity for short-covering and in so doing exacerbating a short squeeze. It is highly improbable that GS has changed either its allegiances or its mode of conduct towards either Tesla or its own clients so soon after the last offer and so shortly before the 22nd July Tesla Q2 earnings call at a time when GS itself could be criticized for harming its own credibility as bookmaker for the stock in the case of its own analysts triggering a net sell-off just weeks later. That just is not what is happening here, particularly when the 22nd July, stands firmly as a damage limiter. As a matter of fact it looks as though the slide (jitter) has bottomed regardless at around $108.
Of note in this GS piece is the absence of any short-term
prognosis, specifically any mention of Q2 profit or loss. This is telling when without doubt following the comments let slip by Jerome Guillen at Teslive over the weekend, Tesla will in fact produce a modest profit overturning the analyst-consensus of a small Q2 loss.
In essence this GS article looks true to form a carefully crafted measure to lure shorts into the stock ahead of a
hail of Q2 analysts beats, thereby rewarding GS clients handsomely at the cost of the comparatively ill informed shorts and skeptics with another significant short-squeeze.
This is a significant buying opportunity for the well informed for double digit gains in the space of 7~10 days with very high levels of certainty attached.
minor correction to the above - Q2 call date updated to 7th Aug.
http://ir.teslamotors.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=777667
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Hey JC, glad to see you made it over here. Regarding your banning, were a number of your reported comments directed at one Tomfrompv? The reason I ask is I just had a comment deleted, a reply to one of his, but it was from over two months ago. I can't imagine anyone but the comment author going back two months to complain, and I wonder if he's trolling my comment stream trying to find enough violations to get me banned as well. Just for laughs here is my "offending" comment to him:
Last edited:
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Oh, I don't object to it at all. I have no qualms watching misinformed shorts load up positions on completely wrong, speculative Autodata data thinking it's real. Sucks to be them.
Julian, welcome to the TMC investing forum. Feel free to post here extensively! You might find the TMC blog format better for longer pieces.
+1 Can't agree more.
Julian, great to see you here on TMC, was furious when I heard about what happened on SA.
To echo Robert further, please post plenty as you're insights are very much appreciated and... perhaps TMC's blog format can offer you an excellent opportunity to share your thoughts in greater detail as well...
kevin99
Member
Julian! Nice to see you here Buddy!
With your brief presence on this forum, you are already an asset to the community. To welcome you in the most enthusiastic way, and a way to put your words where the money is, I post this radical Q2 Celebration proposal :
Proposal for Q2 Celebration and beyond; Invitation for Julian Cox!!!!!!
Folks, please respond with what you think. We have a few days left to plan and pull this off!
I look forward to about 5-10 "Founders" to join me to sponsor this event!
With your brief presence on this forum, you are already an asset to the community. To welcome you in the most enthusiastic way, and a way to put your words where the money is, I post this radical Q2 Celebration proposal :
Proposal for Q2 Celebration and beyond; Invitation for Julian Cox!!!!!!
Folks, please respond with what you think. We have a few days left to plan and pull this off!
I look forward to about 5-10 "Founders" to join me to sponsor this event!
ModelS8794
Member
I think there's quite enough deifying already on the TMC forum, no need to add another target to the mix.
:crying:
Refugee from SA: Julian Cox now on TMC
Welcome to Julian Cox, whose voice on Seeking Alpha was silenced. Since TMC always encourages respectful discussion, we're glad to see him here.
Welcome to Julian Cox, whose voice on Seeking Alpha was silenced. Since TMC always encourages respectful discussion, we're glad to see him here.
Well there was Top Gear, NYT, Barrons, Seeking Alpha...
We have ourselves a new media paradigm:
DON'T MESS WITH TESLA
"He has one heck of a lot more fans than you do, large numbers of grateful investors in fact who are praising him for his clear and deep analysis and prescience. SA has lost a lot of credibility by banning him."
Last edited:
Update!
Due diligence gentlemen (and ladies), but indications are that the Seeking Alpha FUD stream in the financial news-feed has been terminated. Hint: This is in no small measure very, very good news indeed for TSLA.
This a portion of message today from an Oil Investment advocate and Anti-Tesla activist commentator named "Nicholas Anderson" Nicholas Anderson - Seeking Alpha
Author of Instablog Article "Ya... Oil...It's 2013 And Its Still How We Make Money In The Market"
Mr Anderson reports that today he tried to get SA to publish what amounts to a horrendous piece of FUD literally advocating shareholders dumping their holding in Tesla to zero:
Excerpt 1: "The cash strapped insiders obviously realize that there is still massive risk surrounding TSLA and will likely take their initial investment out once they get a window to do so in Q3"
Excerpt 2: "The best way to play TSLA would be to reduce your stake in the company to 25 percent of current holdings, or 0"
NOT the sort of thing you want sitting next to TSLA as on the NASDAQ website, google finance, yahoo finance etc etc (or emailed from SA to every shareholder).
In a comment stream post Mr Anderson wrote:
"this is a portion of an article i wrote but the SA editors basically said no more tesla articles"
There is indeed a an absence of Tesla articles today at a time I had anticipated another coordinated Pre-Q2 bear attack.
Seeking Alpha editors have been bombarded by shareholders emailing and messaging complaint at their decision to set my Seeking Alpha account to Read Only. I have copies, I am aware that in a number of cases shareholders had copied-in Elon in sufficient quantities that today I felt the need to speak with his PA to pass on my apologies for my role in loading up his inbox).
My message today to Seeking Alpha's Editors:
Guys, I am sorry, what's the missing part of this picture?
Who are you trying to protect if it not the stated and independently well reasoned interests of large numbers of serious grown-up readers?
I have a stand out record on Seeking Alpha, I can respect it if you have not time to read every accolade, but it takes seconds to verify a record like this:
1,286 Comments
3,194 Likes
From your own data. This is approaching 1.5 : 1 approval vs veteran commentators with thousands of followers.
You have seen the attached [ http://www.liionica.com/Julian_Cox_Record_of_TSLA_Analysis.jpg ]. How can you ban a Seeking Alpha subscriber from commenting with a record like this and preserve and protect swathes of bullying, sneering and erroneous drivel from the likes of ********, *******, ******* ******.
These are not two sides of a rational debate, this is protecting wrong from right in a manner that is so blatant it is plain for all to see and it stinks.
Why is it worth it for SA to dig its heels in on what is so clearly an error of judgement?
I am sorry for my lack of sympathy, I am deeply offended, as are your readers.
Julian Cox
Well there was Top Gear, NYT, Barrons, Seeking Alpha...
We have ourselves a new media paradigm:
DON'T MESS WITH TESLA
"He has one heck of a lot more fans than you do, large numbers of grateful investors in fact who are praising him for his clear and deep analysis and prescience. SA has lost a lot of credibility by banning him."
Update!
Due diligence gentlemen (and ladies), but indications are that the Seeking Alpha FUD stream in the financial news-feed has been terminated. Hint: This is in no small measure very, very good news indeed for TSLA.
This a portion of message today from an Oil Investment advocate and Anti-Tesla activist commentator named "Nicholas Anderson" Nicholas Anderson - Seeking Alpha
Author of Instablog Article "Ya... Oil...It's 2013 And Its Still How We Make Money In The Market"
Mr Anderson reports that today he tried to get SA to publish what amounts to a horrendous piece of FUD literally advocating shareholders dumping their holding in Tesla to zero:
Excerpt 1: "The cash strapped insiders obviously realize that there is still massive risk surrounding TSLA and will likely take their initial investment out once they get a window to do so in Q3"
Excerpt 2: "The best way to play TSLA would be to reduce your stake in the company to 25 percent of current holdings, or 0"
NOT the sort of thing you want sitting next to TSLA as on the NASDAQ website, google finance, yahoo finance etc etc (or emailed from SA to every shareholder).
In a comment stream post Mr Anderson wrote:
"this is a portion of an article i wrote but the SA editors basically said no more tesla articles"
There is indeed a an absence of Tesla articles today at a time I had anticipated another coordinated Pre-Q2 bear attack.
Seeking Alpha editors have been bombarded by shareholders emailing and messaging complaint at their decision to set my Seeking Alpha account to Read Only. I have copies, I am aware that in a number of cases shareholders had copied-in Elon in sufficient quantities that today I felt the need to speak with his PA to pass on my apologies for my role in loading up his inbox).
My message today to Seeking Alpha's Editors:
Guys, I am sorry, what's the missing part of this picture?
Who are you trying to protect if it's not the stated and independently well reasoned interests of large numbers of serious grown-up readers?
I have a stand out record on Seeking Alpha, I can respect it if you have not the time to read every accolade, but it takes seconds to verify a record like this:
1,286 Comments
3,194 Likes
From your own data. This is approaching 1.5 : 1 approval vs veteran commentators with thousands of followers.
You have seen the attached [ http://www.liionica.com/Julian_Cox_R...A_Analysis.jpg ]. How can you ban a Seeking Alpha subscriber from commenting with a record like this and preserve and protect swathes of bullying, sneering and erroneous drivel from the likes of ********, *******, ******* ******.
These are not two sides of a rational debate, this is protecting wrong from right in a manner that is so blatant it is plain for all to see and it stinks.
Why is it worth it for SA to dig its heels in on what is so clearly an error of judgement?
I am sorry for my lack of sympathy, I am deeply offended, as are your readers.
Julian Cox
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Is Seeking Alpha really that much of a factor when it comes to the stock market? Really it's just a bunch of amateur bloggers expressing higly subjective opinions (no offense Julien!). Does whatever is published on SA really influence stock prices?
OTOH I guess you could argue that the large firms' analysts are also just expressing highly subjective opinions, all though often with fancier numbers to go with it.
OTOH I guess you could argue that the large firms' analysts are also just expressing highly subjective opinions, all though often with fancier numbers to go with it.
ModelS8794
Member
Some stocks have a very heavy retail following, and a seeking alpha article can have some short term impact in the same way a good piece of sell side research can. On the other hand, whatever is going on here reads a whole lot more like conspiracy theorizing and delusions of grandeur than it does some actual reasonable or actionable information on tesla. Hopefully this Julian Cox fellow and those excited by his presence can keep the conspiracy developments and ego stroking over here in Off Topic land, and leave the investment threads clear for those of us more interested in investment discussion.
Similar threads
