Seeking Alpha and Tesla: Fair or FUD?

[SteveG3]

VA, while having a fact and reason based discussion here matters some to me, it is part of something larger that matters more to me, and I'm not going to step on the latter to continue trying to pursue the former.

I wish you well,

Steve

 

[ValueAnalyst]

I don't mind the rejection. Most often it is from legitimate complaints related to me being a bad writer that I fix. But many times it is for stupid things like don't use wikipedia as your source for Prius sales or asking me to say something negative because a completely positive article is a no-no. Joe Blow's blog is more acceptable as a source than wikipedia. The other issue I had is that sometimes I'm asked for sources for information which bear authors used without such issues (funnily I found that quoting their articles as the source was acceptable as a solution). I'll say that it is better now because I've understood what it takes for me to publish something. But it bothers me that some authors seeming to have the ability to publish anything (including almost completely information free articles) without the same level of nitpicking.

The other thing that bothers me is that it is increasingly tiresome for authors like me who tend to respond to the comments.

Yes - I agree, which is why I spend about half hour to respond to legitimate comments/questions, and then move onto better things. It's not clear to me why FUDsters spend so much time in the comments section as the vast majority of readers don't bother to read the comments anyway... it may have something to do with algos gauging the sentiment in comments, but I'm not sure.

I'm glad that we agree a lot of the rejections could be overcome with further understanding what the editors are looking for. Is the process perfect? Of course not, but I think it's moving in the right direction. We'll see where it goes from here.

FWIW, I'm also often asked to point out the weaknesses and possible risks in my arguments, and I think this is good practice.

 

[Electroman]

I don't mind the rejection. Most often it is from legitimate complaints related to me being a bad writer that I fix. But many times it is for stupid things like don't use wikipedia as your source for Prius sales or asking me to say something negative because a completely positive article is a no-no. Joe Blow's blog is more acceptable as a source than wikipedia. The other issue I had is that sometimes I'm asked for sources for information which bear authors used without such issues (funnily I found that quoting their articles as the source was acceptable as a solution). I'll say that it is better now because I've understood what it takes for me to publish something. But it bothers me that some authors seeming to have the ability to publish anything (including almost completely information free articles) without the same level of nitpicking.

The other thing that bothers me is that it is increasingly tiresome for authors like me who tend to respond to the comments.

That bolded line (my emphasis) is a red flag.

 

[geneclean55]

Thank you for providing this account. I am not aware of the details of this, and there are always two sides to a story, but this is the best support for the ongoing SeekingAlpha bashing I've heard so far. I'm curious why Tesla or Electrek have not taken further action; any ideas?



I do not appreciate your accusation that my thoughts/posts on this topic are motivated by financial reasons. Clearly unbeknownst to you, I do not make much on the premium subscription service, because as it turns out the vast majority of people would rather read free FUD than pay for more detailed informed articles that require more time and research. What you fail to recognize, even though I have repeatedly said this and logic should also tell you this, I have zero interest in changing your opinion on this topic. SeekingAlpha's reach is orders of magnitude more than TMC; this is a fact. I don't gain anything by changing a few minds here, and I'm not under the illusion that I have changed any minds as the continued "disagrees" make it clear.

What has happened instead is that, while I thought I was adding value here by providing insight into how the article approval process works and the tremendous amount of B.S. from both sides that editors go through daily, I have simply wasted my time, while I could have been writing more articles or growing my business. This is very disappointing.

I see zero upside and a lot of downside for me in continuing this discussion. This is my last post on the topic.

Didn't you get a slap on the wrist from moderators here on TMC when you started to link directly to your subscription only articles over on SA?
If I remember correctly...you tried it more than once. I will go back and double check.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Didn't you get a slap on the wrist from moderators here on TMC when you started to link directly to your subscription only articles over on SA?
If I remember correctly...you tried it more than once. I will go back and double check.

I get a few cents for posting my article links here. One cent for desktop click, and I don't think more than a handful of people were clicking on them here at TMC. That's it. I thought I was helping by posting them here, but I guess the moderators thought otherwise, so I don't anymore.

I don't think few cents is financial motivation. Do you?

 

[Electroman]

I do not appreciate your accusation that my thoughts/posts on this topic are motivated by financial reasons.

Sorry it came out that way. That was not my intention. My bad.

 

[neroden]

Further SA had been hit with investigations by the SEC alleging Pump and Dump schemes, which could bias their editorial staff to look more favorably on negative bent articles.

Scammers Used SeekingAlpha for Bogus Stock Promotions, SEC Says

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...kingalpha-for-bogus-stock-promotions-sec-says
Perhaps SeekingAlpha management is so shallow and incompetent that they can't tell that they're aiding and abetting a different sort of stock manipulation scheme. They shouldn't be running an investment site if they don't have the experience to be able to identify *multiple* standard types of stock manipulation.

 

[neroden]

These contributors simply get the most views among thousands of contributors....

Yes. They're writing what's traditionally known as "lies", of a specific sort called "yellow journalism".

Skilled con artists know how to write lies which attract attention.

Seeking Alpha management is turning a blind eye to the frauds because it makes them money. This isn't acceptable behavior, at least not to me.

 

[neroden]

Again - you are confused about how moderation of comments work. SeekingAlpha does not have a team of moderators who sit down and discuss and check the book on which comments should get deleted.

I've communicated with the biased moderators.

I've even warned them that they're subjecting the company to a risk of SEC investigation and told them to warn their bosses. I've done all I can.

What SeekingAlpha is doing is in fact criminal stock manipulation, but it won't be prosecuted any time soon. It's only prosecutable by the SEC (and possibly by the NY Attorney General under the Martin Act). If you have read anything I've written about the long view of the stock market, you'd know that the SEC is off the job (and the NY Attorney General has other priorities).

What SeekingAlpha is doing is also punishable in *civil* court, but the only people who have standing to sue over that are people who were induced to short-sell Tesla by reading the fraudulent articles. I don't know any such people. I do expect them to sue if they have any money left.

 

[neroden]

Yes, I do think I may be wrong, but my point is that so many of you think you are certainly right about the malicious intent on the side of SeekingAlpha (which is a very serious accusation) without any concrete evidence, and I'm providing alternative explanations which y'all are ignoring, again, without sufficient evidence.

You're talking your book. Get over it. We have concrete evidence.

I caught MontanaSkeptic commiting blatant fraud: simply lying about financial statements. Specifically, accusing Tesla of committing fraud in its financial statements when Tesla was using bog-standard GAAP reporting.

Because MontanaSkeptic is one of their "golden boys", apparently he's allowed to make accusations of fraud when he doesn't even understand financial statements.

I don't think any reputable investment discussion forum would allow this.

 

[neroden]

This is pretty much what I have been telling you guys. SeekingAlpha does not edit for content or fact check articles.

I just told you, they edit the comment sections for content and they approve articles which contain blatant fraud. Saying "We don't fact check" isn't actually a legal defense when they're pretending that they're an investment information website and they're *deleting the fact checks in the comments*.

They do edit for spelling, grammar, and just want to make sure the articles on battleground stocks aren't making outlandish assumptions for 2030 for example.

No, they're specifically protecting articles by "golden boys" which make assumptions which are not only outlandish but actually disproven by anyone who can read an accounting statement.

 

[neroden]

Ok. I'll tell my clients to not hire me.

Good. I would not feel comfortable having clients if I were you. You're too naive, bluntly. You're prone to self-delusion of the wishful thinking variety. Get some more world experience.

Let me ask you this. If SeekingAlpha publishes so much malicious content on Tesla, why hasn't Tesla sued SeekingAlpha? If things are so clear cut as you say, Tesla should be able to prove intent, no?

Because SeekingAlpha isn't actually hurting Tesla. Tesla has had no problem raising funds when it needed to.

To sue, you need to have incurred damage. The people SeekingAlpha is actually *hurting* are naive investors who believe the fraudulent articles and sell or short-sell because of them. Victims of an inverse pump-and-dump, basically. They're the only people with standing to sue. (Why they haven't sued? They probably can't afford to pay a lawyer, or feel embarassed at falling for the scam.)

This is a rhetorical question.

Because you don't understand the situation, I answered it for you.

 

[neroden]

SeekingAlpha does not take down comments which point out their track record.

• You are now lying. Steve has pointed out explicit instances of SeekingAlpha taking down comments which point out the their track record.

Stop talking your book. You are at best deluding yourself now.

The evidence that SeekingAlpha has a *double standard* and a short list of "golden boy" authors are allowed to violate all the rules which apply to everyone else, including posting articles which nobody else would be allowed to post, and having all criticism of them taken down immediately -- this evidence is quite overwhelming at this point.

I can only conjecture why they do it, but having seen this sort of thing happen in many many other businesses, it's probably a matter of letting the people who make them the most money break the rules. It's disgraceful, and I don't want to patronize a company which behaves that way.

I'm sure they don't care in the least about TSLA, but "cui bono" applies. If a company's best salesman sexually harasses the staff and pads his expenses... often the company will turn a blind eye, because $$$$. I think it's that. I don't like companies which act like that.

I'm putting you back on ignore, and I'm going to tell you why. While everyone is prone to self-delusion, someone who is as badly prone to it as you are is not worth listening to until they develop some better abilities to absorb new evidence.

 

[SteveG3]

• You are now lying. Steve has pointed out explicit instances of SeekingAlpha taking down comments which point out the their track record.

Stop talking your book, liar.

I just did a search of my emails from SA with the terms "allegation of bad faith." The very first email I found in this search sent to me from SA reads exactly as copied below (will provide a screen shot if requested). I've put the content of the removed comment in italics, SA asserts that comment was removed because "it was nested within a broader discussion that was deleted," but, that comment actually tells the story of a previous comment removed as an "allegation of bad faith" that I think is quite a telling example for this discussion.

"Dear Value Horizon,

Your comment (copied below) was removed as it was nested within a broader discussion that was deleted. We apologize for the inconvenience.

If you feel your comment is still relevant, we invite you to edit it as needed and repost it.

Regards,

Seeking Alpha Moderation Team

The text of your comment: Joe, There was an article a week or two ago that had absolutely made up data on average sales prices for the Model S. This was obvious because the alleged ASP was below the starting price of the least expensive Model S without any options. The data was impossible to be true. I pointed this out. The author changed the data without ever acknowledging that he had made an error or changed the data. My post was then removed as being an "allegation of bad faith."

 

[SteveG3]

Here's the second one (exact content copied, and italicized) just going straight down the line in that search of my emails,

This comment was both removed as an "allegation of bad faith" and tells the story of an earlier comment being removed as "off topic" that brought up Anton's allegations of bad faith toward Tesla CFO Deepak Ahuja, Elon and Adam Jonas... so... SA blogger making allegations of bad faith against C-suite executives at Tesla is "OT", and mentioning that this happened is an "allegation of bad faith."

Good questions surfer. Anton published here on Seeking Alpha an entire article based on an allegation of bad faith on the part of Deepak Ahuja (Tesla CFO), Elon Musk, and Adam Jonas (an analyst at Morgan Stanley). Seeking Alpha published this. Pointing out in the comments section that Anton has made allegations of bad faith on the part of these three (something that Seeking Alpha does not allow)? That comment is removed as "off topic". As you say surfer, "what is going on here?"

 

[SteveG3]

In this very next one (again copied exactly as originally written), Seeking Alpha removed my post just informing people on SA about their explicit policy of not editing for factual accuracy because they considered the post an "allegation of bad faith." If Seeking Alpha considers the mention of their own policy to be an allegation of bad faith... what does it say about their own sense of the decency of that policy?

"brilliant"? It is Seeking Alpha's explicit policy NOT to fact check its "articles". That is a fact, neither snark nor an expression of displeasure with a point here or there. Seeking Alpha's explicit policy is not to engage in any editorial review for veracity of content from its contributors. Things make more sense now?

This line in the boiler plate text they sent to me with their removals of posts was particularly ironic in this instance, "Please understand that we do strive to err on the side of facilitating free and open debate." You see, SA strives for free and open debate... but, don't mention SA's own explicit policies.

 

[SteveG3]

Here's one where I encouraged other people on SA to read one of "Logical Thoughts" earlier blogs so they could in hindsight get a sense of the quality of his blogs. This one was removed for "threats/violence/insults/personal attacks/ or harm the collegial atmosphere"

"LT doubling down on that absurd article? I advise anyone who hasn't yet learned not to read LT's posts to read that blog he linked. I know of no faster way to discover the complete lack of substance to the house of cards that LT wants you to believe."

 

[SteveG3]

removed as a "blanket dismissal", a comment revealing the article was built on incorrect data.

"You claim an AVERAGE price paid lower than the cost of the lowest price Tesla without any options. Simple reasoning says your data is not real. As it turns out, the pricing you've imagined is roughly 50% below Tesla's average price per vehicle based on repeated statements by the company and analysts. Clearly imaginary data results in a thesis that is structurally groundless."

 

[SteveG3]

referring to Paulo's track record, removed as an "allegation of bad faith"... to be fair, I can see in this case that I used the word "bashing", but the point of the article was taking Paulo's past blogs on SA as the basis of his reputation,

"Santos the fact is your track record on Tesla precedes you. Given your track record, why would anyone give any credence to your speculation about Tesla's line of credit. Perhaps if you'd merely written 3 or 4 articles trying to bash Tesla, people would consider your speculation, but going on two and a half years, and what 40 Tesla bashing pieces, your simply preaching to fellow bashers... everyone else tunes you out."

 

[SteveG3]

referring people to a prior Anton blog that I think provides evidence of Anton writing a blog that implies something false, removed as "material that is not directly related to the topic under discussion"

"obviously someone accustom to making false statements can make say they don't do this (simply another false statement on the pile). Anton, if anyone reading what you and I have written here cares to, they can simply read what's still in your blog from Thursday (the excerpt above, or the whole thing in the original blog if they like) and decide for themselves if it implies something false."