Nonsense from John Petersen

[adiggs]

Woot! I love it when our contrarian indicator comes out to play. Wasn't his previous round of posting the trigger for the run from the 200's to 300's?

My eyeball on the chart shows TSLA at around $312 on April 26th, still early in the climb up to the new ATH.

 

[TMSE]

Woot! I love it when our contrarian indicator comes out to play. Wasn't his previous round of posting the trigger for the run from the 200's to 300's?

My eyeball on the chart shows TSLA at around $312 on April 26th, still early in the climb up to the new ATH.

Another contrarian indicator is Park Smeagol tweeting that he is shorting TSLA big again. No one can beat him in calling bottoms.

 

[SebastianR]

Another contrarian indicator is Park Smeagol tweeting that he is shorting TSLA big again. No one can beat him in calling bottoms.

Oh, is he? I missed that! Indeed, if that's the case it is high time to add to my position...

 

[TMSE]

Oh, is he? I missed that! Indeed, if that's the case it is high time to add to my position...

Here it is..

 

[SebastianR]

Here it is..

View attachment 243858

Thanks! Wow, I need to find more cash fast!

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Here it is..

View attachment 243858

This really sucks... I truly feel bad for him. This is probably the worst time to short TSLA...

 

[JRP3]

Your sympathy for those with evil intent seems misplaced to say the least.

 

[JRP3]

Since my reply to that article ended up being deleted I'll post it here. I did post an edited version, removing the reference to Petersen's previous errors, so that one might survive. Apparently bringing up past mistakes is seen as a "personal attack" and is not allowed

As is typical for this particular author he has taken incomplete data and created an erroneous conclusion to fit his narrative. What he failed to note, or understand, is that the new Model 3 battery pack now incorporates components which were previously placed elsewhere in the Model S/X. Also worth noting is that EPA certificates often have incorrect data. When you compare the weight of the entire vehicle the Model 3 75kWh, (closer to 79kWh actual), is about 665 lbs lighter than the Model S 75kWh, and though it has slightly smaller dimensions it also uses much more steel than the mostly aluminum S. That can't happen without cell/battery level improvements. Just because Tesla has packed other components into the battery pack it does not equate to stagnant energy density improvements. Tesla Model 3: Exclusive first look at Tesla’s new battery pack architecture Tesla Model 3 production specs revealed: up to 310 miles range, 140 mph top speed, and more Tesla Model 3: here’s the alloy mix of the Model 3 body http://www.guideautoweb.com/en/specifications/compare/20505,20506,20509,21310,21311/

 

[Ugliest1]

Can't keep a good FUDmeister down: Tesla's First Decade Of Battery Pack Progress - Much Ado About Nothing - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

He takes the data from the EPA documents and concludes that the Model 3 battery pack density is lower than the S and therefore there is no progress in cell energy density while ignoring the fact that the Model 3 pack includes items that were placed elsewhere in the S and X. He also ignores the possibility that the EPA document could contain inaccurate data, even though there are past examples of this happening. I helpfully explain this in the comment section, we'll see how he amends his article to reflect this...

Well, I couldn't help myself but respond to his rather ironic "fact free" comment to you. However, I'll be surprised if the SA moderators actually post my comment.

[EDIT] BTW your #788 post above ... that's the one I responded to JP's response. So, a few minutes ago your post still hadn't been deleted.

 

[JRP3]

Now he's using speculation from a battery market analysis company to speculate that there is no cell level density improvement with the move to the 2170 format. Tesla's Gigafactory Will Not Manufacture Better Or Cheaper Batteries - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
Here is the source material from Total Battery Consulting http://totalbatteryconsulting.com/i...ort/Extract-from-the-Tesla-Battery-Report.pdf

 

[techmaven]

Now he's using speculation from a battery market analysis company to speculate that there is no cell level density improvement with the move to the 2170 format.

Here is the source material from Total Battery Consulting http://totalbatteryconsulting.com/i...ort/Extract-from-the-Tesla-Battery-Report.pdf

The report is an interesting mix of some fact... some speculation, and some judgement. I don't like research reports that don't make it clear enough how much speculation and judgement is involved.

 

[JRP3]

I don't like research reports that don't make it clear enough how much speculation and judgement is involved.

Exactly, they have enough actual knowledge to make it appear that everything they state is factual and based on hard data, but it's not.

 

[dc_h]

I bought into Tesla originally based on JP. His thesis that lithium ion powered cars were not possible, in spite of the physical evidence to the contrary, made me think there was a LOT of irrational disbelief in Tesla. TT007 noted in the investment thread that a good contrarian invests against the short term obvious and into the long term obvious. The shorts still see every challenge as a cliff, while Tesla has seen each challenge as a leap of faith opportunity.
Hard to say what the future holds, but it seems like every prior JP article has been a significant buy signal.

 

[hcsharp]

Now he's using speculation from a battery market analysis company to speculate that there is no cell level density improvement with the move to the 2170 format.

Well there's some truth to the argument that there's no cell level density improvement. The only theoretical gains come from a slightly improved ratio of packaging material to actual battery chemicals. I admit I haven't read the article but it's an awfully big jump to then say "Tesla's Gigafactory will not manufacture better or cheaper batteries." Why does JP think manufacturing quality and efficiency is closely correlated with density improvement? I can't imagine anybody would fall for his fabrications.

 

[JRP3]

The only theoretical gains come from a slightly improved ratio of packaging material to actual battery chemicals.

Right, greater active material to outer can material ratio and greater active material to empty center mandrel space. Both should lead to gains at both the cell and pack level. Of course it is possible that Tesla traded those gains to increase some other parameter, such as charge speed and/or durability.

 

[JRP3]

Petersen taking aim at the semi Why Tesla's Semi Will Almost Certainly Be Shelved - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
No surprise since Tesla will directly compete with the hybrid trucking company he works for.

 

[dc_h]

Petersen taking aim at the semi Why Tesla's Semi Will Almost Certainly Be Shelved - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
No surprise since Tesla will directly compete with the hybrid trucking company he works for.

He really has an uncanny knack of stating detailed scientific facts and making completely arbitrary assumptions. Trucking companies will focus on the trucks end of life costs and not total cost of ownership, cause, you know, ahhh long term? Committing 1MW of batteries will "canablize" 600 - 900k in auto sales cause cobalt will only allow 250,000 lithium ion cars to be made globally. Cold, Tesla has not figured out cold weather, so the trucks will have really bad performance. Aging batteries will fail real quick. Please never mind 5 years of real world performance and improving results. And that 1MW battery, think of a big truck and the tiny Roadster with 200KW. Only 5 times the pack for a giant truck.

Thank you JP, you have always been a light at the bottom of every fall in price for Tesla.

 

[nwdiver]

Petersen taking aim at the semi Why Tesla's Semi Will Almost Certainly Be Shelved - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
No surprise since Tesla will directly compete with the hybrid trucking company he works for.

Regular readers of his 'writings' will be surprised to hear Teslas future truck will be shelved... they all thought Tesla went bankrupt ~2 years ago.

 

[dc_h]

Regular readers of his 'writings' will be surprised to hear Teslas future truck will be shelved... they all thought Tesla went bankrupt ~2 years ago.

You have to wonder if he really believes this stuff, or he NEEDS to believe this stuff. I can accept valuation articles and concerns about reaching positive cash flow and the business model. I believe the financial model is going to work out, that cash flow will become positive following a successful Model 3 ramp, but questioning the real performance Tesla has attained in battery performance, or the basic math of the cost advantage of the Semi seems delusional. Everything in his article seems easily refuted.

 

[Zythryn]

You have to wonder if he really believes this stuff, or he NEEDS to believe this stuff. I can accept valuation articles and concerns about reaching positive cash flow and the business model. I believe the financial model is going to work out, that cash flow will become positive following a successful Model 3 ramp, but questioning the real performance Tesla has attained in battery performance, or the basic math of the cost advantage of the Semi seems delusional. Everything in his article seems easily refuted.

I think the fact Tesla is moving in on what he saw as his "turf" (semi trucks) got under his skin.
He has pumped and dumped a number of stocks though, so perhaps he is just hoping to drum up action in his company (whichever one that may currently be).