Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by EinSV, Sep 3, 2017.
Moving the debate over here .....
SeekingAlpha is a platform, and there are 10,000+ independent contributors.
Few writers are there to bash Tesla. I can't prove whether they're paid to do so or not. They're clearly motivated to do so in some way though.
The VAST MAJORITY of 10,000+ contributors, however, are simply trying to publish their research and are honest hardworking people.
The bolded sentence is complete and utter nonsense when it comes to TSLA. I really think you should retract it.
List more than five contributors that have written perma-bear articles.
Off the top of my head:
I quit at 6 in less than one minute. All post totally useless FUD.
I've never heard of Dr Valueseeker. Paolo and Bill have been writhing for longer than Tesla was even public, and I think they're just clueless. Paolo has written 1,500 articles on many stocks and was bearish on amazon as well, go figure... Bill also has written about numerous stocks and I think he just doesn't really do the deep level work to fully understand a company, and I hope you agree that Tesla at the surface level is just a money-losing company.
So you really listed three of the FUDsters, and I would add a couple more to that list. So that's FIVE OUT OF MORE THAN 10,000 CONTRIBUTORS! LESS THAN 0.05 PERCENT!
That's all you have to justify constantly trolling a legit platform where people come together to share their ideas? Constantly disagreeing with every single post I put up about the subject without even taking one step back to think about it?
That's like saying Tesla is a shitty car because it doesn't have enough cup holders.
Do you get it?
The truth is out there.
Value Analyst, first I applaud you for taking the time to publish on S.A. and also repeatedly correcting facts there in the (TSLA-hostile) comment section there. However IMHO you give S.A. a bit to much credit.
For those who are not familiar with these 'authors':
These guys regularly do write 'articles' that are an insult to the intelligence of whomever is reading them. IMHO just top spread negative headlines of Tesla. Most of them repeatedly insinuate Elon Musk is a fraud. I have a hard time to believe they do that only for the 1ct-per-click.
Anton Wahlmann : Last article was a low, but not even the lowest low. Compares every car model (ICE included) that he can find in order to publish a bad headline referring to Tesla. No matter how crazy the comparison is. Never answers any question, I asked many time who provided him the Model-X that he used to write a negative article about Tesla. If S.A. was a serious website they should not allow authors to simply ignore ALL questions.
Paolo (Potemkin-Village) Santos : His low was to write an article claiming the GigaFactory was all fake, insinuating Elon Musk is a fraud.. And he even kept defending his article.. IIRC even in posts in 2017. Many of his other articles on Tesla are as dishonest at that one.
Montana Skeptic :
Hiding behind an anonymous identity MS has written exclusively about Tesla, and he does that in a very professional style. He wrote MANY articles, 100% very negative on Tesla).
Read back his articles and notice that over-and-over again he starts presenting personal assumptions as facts and later in other articles and in comments he refers back to them as if these are 'commonly known' facts. He keeps doing that even when repeatedly given proof his 'facts' are wrong.
His professional style and the time he spends on writing articles and commenting is not in-line with his bio. For me it is clear there must be money behind this. He once announced that at the end of a calender's month he would stop writing and do far less commenting, but suddenly changed his mind and continued (My turn to present an assumption : did he get a new contract ???)
John Peterson : He has always been wrong about Tesla, while pushing 'competing' technologies in what looked like a way to pump the shares of a company he had a big interest in. Now he lost big time being proven wrong it seems to me he is on a personal mission to proof he was right all along about Tesla.
Dr Valueseeker : IIRC he has been posting here as well. Kept repeating misinformation even when proven wrong again and again.
The people at S.A. must have noticed the above, but keep accepting articles from them containing the sale proven misinformation. Also they do not seem to insist these authors correct misinformation and proven lies in these articles. In the past I have addressed this to the S.A. a few times. From their answers and the continued publication of such low quality articles it was clear to me they do not care.
> Moving the debate over here .....
And then to: device/null
Google search: tsla -seekingalpha
It seems illogical to believe that what happens concerning Tesla on SA somehow doesn't happen concerning any other company or topic blogged about on SA. That just doesn't make any sense when you understand human behavior.
It's also illogical to think you know statistics or trends or percentages or any measure of 10,000 contributors on SA unless you've actually sampled the majority of those 10,000. Have you? Or are you just guessing based on a handful you've paid attention to?
Probably a good sized portion of bloggers are as you suggest, I'll give you that. What constitutes/defines that portion is up for debate if and until far more in depth research is done.
But a site like SA that nurtures, supports and encourages (yes, it quite obviously does and has done so for YEARS) the atrocious poo flinging behavior that happens in regards to Tesla is a site that dollars to doughnuts (it's a bet I'd take all day long, every day) nurtures, supports and encourages that same behavior in regards to other companies and topics. Tesla isn't a 'one off' on SA no matter how strongly you argue it. I didn't, nor did others who have followed SA and participated for years, fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Like the general media that have proved time and time again to be lazy (at best) to downright viscous liars (at worst), anything coming out of SA - positive/supportive or negative/critical of one's own position/beliefs - needs to be taken with a grain of salt and thoroughly fact checked and researched independently. And then forgotten because there will never be a Jeopardy trivia question ever asked about anything SA related.
It's telling that you seem to value the experience and wisdom of many here on TMC when it comes to Tesla yet try to dismiss as "group think" our longer and deeper experience interacting with SA. Again, many of us have been studying Tesla longer than you and have been interacting with SA longer than you. If you want to dismiss our collective wisdom regarding SA you should do the same with our knowledge of Tesla. Or you could take a step back and possibly realize that we all didn't suddenly become delusional about SA and, as with Tesla, we might actually know what we are talking about. Pretty much everyone here seems to disagree with your position on the neutrality of SA regarding Tesla, do you think it's just possible you might be wrong? Do you think the highly intelligent and informed members here suddenly become delusional idiots when it comes to SA? I don't read many articles on SA about other stocks because I don't have the knowledge to tell if they are as biased as the ones on Tesla and don't know if the comments are as unfairly moderated, so I can't and don't speak about that, but the track record there for Tesla leaves me suspicious of the entire site.
So you dare @EinSV to list 5 Tesla perma-bear article writers, he gives you 6 off the top of his head, and then you dismiss the validity of his list for a variety of irrelevant excuses and cry foul because the 6 is a small percentage of 10,000 overall site article contributors.
Here's a little tip: make sure you actually know more on a subject than the person you're challenging, especially when you want to be smug.
P.S. There are more than 6 that belong on that list (and dozens of perma-bear Tesla commentators.) See my previous post discussing human behavior, trends and the like to know there isn't a chance I believe this only happens concerning Tesla on that site.
No, it's actually worse than that: they censor any comments which point out verifiably false claims of fact in the articles by these fraudsters. And they reject articles which tell the truth about the same topics.
Anton apparently has a securities fraud conviction.
I believe that if an article writer is getting lots of clicks, SeekingAlpha treats them as a "golden boy" and lets them commit whatever crimes they like and whatever frauds they like as long as they keep getting clicks. They censor any disagreement with the "golden boy" and generally carry water for him.
This is behavior which has happened before in an awful lot of businesses; it's a pretty standard pathology. The "big salesman" is allowed to harass the staff and pad his bills. Etc. It shouldn't be surprising.
On obscure stocks, the Seeking Alpha articles are perfectly fair and the comments are fairly moderated.
I think it's only on *high-click-count* articles that Seeking Alpha is exhibiting bias, in favor of their "moneymakers". "Golden Boy" syndrome.
I'd expect to find this on any other popular/controversial stock. Anything where promoting fraudsters will get big clicks. I haven't checked, because I'm not sure what other stocks would fall in that category.
Seeking Clicks is what they should really call themselves.
@Value Analyst, I answered your question but the number of posters of one type or another is not why I don't find Seeking Alpha useful. I find the content generally to be low quality (with a few exceptions others have noted) and the discussion section useless and unpleasant, with a bunch of people arguing past each other in a nasty way.
As others have also noted, SA has a long history of publishing a large number of vile and patently dishonest articles that no decent financial publication would sponsor. And we have a large number of credible members here reporting that their criticisms of this muck gets censored.
You can choose to publish your own articles there but I choose not to patronize their site. I think on balance their platform is providing an awful lot of misinformation from short sellers who are in the business of providing distorted information about the stock and the company. Even if this were just a natural byproduct of their platform, I wouldn't use the site because I find it unhelpful and the comment section unpleasant, largely due to the nastiness of short sellers who can't rely on facts and logic so resort to other tactics that degrade the discussion. I don't really enjoy discussions with dishonest debaters.
I feel bad for individual investors who might get taken in by all this nonsense but don't have the time or energy to spend to try to correct it.
For all these reasons, SA falls into the life is too short category for me, and I stopped visiting the site on a regular basis long ago. I occasionally peek at an article and comments, which has done nothing to change my view.
I'd rather spend time here where the vast majority of posters are individual investors trying to share information and perspectives to try to make better investment decisions. We have our fair share of debates but there is also a lot of collaboration and exchange of information that has been extremely useful for me. People are also generally civil toward each other in the investment threads here, which is nice.
I do have to qualify that somewhat since I've totaled up over 10K comments there, mostly pointing out inaccuracies. It seems as if they more aggressively censor/moderate newer commenters and/or those with lower post counts.
Maybe the list below helps you (and those not familiar with SA) to get some more perspective on how 'balanced' SA is by expanding the list.
The statements of articles of an author regularly containing misinformation is of course just my personal humble opinion.
Strong negative headlines & articles :
Bill Maurer 210 articles on Tesla (out of 1884) all negative, with many containing misinformation
Anton Wahlman 124 Tesla articles (out of 234). All negative. Many contain misinformation
EnerTuition 110 articles (!) on Tesla (out of 345). 100% strong negative (with lots of misinformation)
Paulo Santos 110 articles, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Montana Skeptic 89 articles out of 89. all very negative on Tesla, many contain misinformation. Also 7543 (!!) comments, all on Tesla.
Orange Peel 69 on Tesla, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Mark Hibben 68 (out of 678) Mostly negative
Alberto Zaragoza 23 on Tesla (out of 27) All strong negative.
Donn Bailey 20 articles on tesla (out of 21) All very negative, with several including misinformation
Logical Thought (Mark B.Spiegel) 18 articles, on Tesla (ourt of 55). All very negative, ... misinformation
Bill Cunningham 14 on Tesla (out of 14) All negative
Zoltan Ban 15 articles on Tesla (out of 277) , all negfative
John Petersson 100% negative articles, Count unknown (as many seem deleted)
Tales From The Future 3 articles on Tesla (out of 13) All negative.
Kwan-Chen Ma 5 on Tesla (out of 39) All negative.
And I did not look further back.. So that will be adding up to close to 900 (!!) articles by writers with a strong negative bias towards Tesla / TSLA. A pretty steady stream. And my of those (IMHO) many contain proven misinformation, that at least some kept using after being proven wrong.
Both positive & Negative :
Feria Investor 7 articles
Mainly positive articles :
- Dalasid 51 (!!) articles on Tesla. Note: only a single one in 2017. Several articles rejected. Those I did read on his own site were much better researched content than most Tesla articles I can find on on S.A.
- Randy Carlson 45 articles on Tesla, out of 47. Note: only 3 in 2017.
- ValueAnalyst 33 articles in Tesla (out of 68)
- Trent Eady 17 on tesla (out of 23)
- Alex Cho 14 on Tesla out of 679)
Edit: - ValueSeeker 11 articles on Tesla (out of 11). Last one in Feb 2014.
It is very clear there is a very strong negative overall bias in the Tesla/TSLA articles & headlines as published on SA.
One also has to take in consideration that over these years the Tesla Share Price went up from 17 to 380. So virtually all these negative articles were giving potential investors reading them most of the time a bad advise.
Hmmm, and that for a website that promises to be an Investor Forum ??
There are a few authors that are able to get positive articles published on S.A, but of these 'big' three, two seem to have given up in 2017. My personal guess would be that this is because to many of their articles got rejected (Dalalsid seems to confirm that).
Edit: I can also very well understand that some serious authors are 'not so enthusiastic' to be published next to articles & headlines like Anton Wahlman's most recent masterpiece.
Having said that, ValueAnalyst please note I applaud your effort !
Links to the articles by Dalasid, Randy and ValueAnalyst:
Siddharth Dalal's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Randy Carlson's Articles | Seeking Alpha
ValueAnalyst's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Found one more:
Valueseeker's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Wow! Great synopsis! I was wondering about this!
PS--I've gone through the general thread and "reported" my own posts relevant to this discussion. I think it would make it easier on the mod, if others would do the same. Then we can all move the SA conversations over here for a more concise discussion.
ValueSeeker should be listed under negative articles, not positive.