You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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:
Anton Wahlmann
Paolo Santos
Montana Skeptic
John Peterson
Bill Maurer
Dr Valueseeker
I quit at 6 in less than one minute. All post totally useless FUD.
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.
Whether you understand that distinction or not makes zero diffence to me, but it's difficult for me to sit idly and watch y'all basically do to SeekingAlpha what FUDsters are doing to Tesla, just like it was difficult for me to sit idly before I started writing about Tesla.
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 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.
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.
they censor any comments which point out verifiably false claims of fact in the articles by these fraudsters.
@Value Analyst
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 :
Galileo Russel
Max greve
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)
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).
ValueSeeker should be listed under negative articles, not positive.Edit: - ValueSeeker 11 articles on Tesla (out of 11). Last one in Feb 2014.