Seeking Alpha and Tesla: Fair or FUD?

[SteveG3]

I looked through old emails and posted these comments because my description of SA taking down comments if one points to another member's track record was being taken as a point of contention, and I wanted to be fair and double check my memory (it's been a couple of years). I will say, it was only a few of the comments taken down for this reason, not as much of my removed comments as I thought... and, reading what I wrote, I think it's quite possible that if I'd been more neutral in my tone in those comments, some of them may not have been taken down. So, in fairness, I'd say, it's somewhat of an open question as to whether or not a calm, neutral post directing other people on SA to look through someone's track record would get taken down if it were to be reported to the SA mods. Having reread emails tonight from 2013-2015, I think my earlier comment overstated how clear it is that SA mods would do this to a calm neutral post, and I'm sorry if that caused any confusion.

That said... looking through those old emails, I was reminded of some real head shaker comment removals that played a role in my not very favorable view of SA, such as taking comments stating SA's policy of not fact checking down as an "allegation of bad faith" (that actually happened at least twice, I only shared one instance here). Every comment I posted here that had been removed by SA I copied and pasted here in its entirety without any editing.

Not looking to prolong this discussion, as I described this morning, but I just wanted to dig into my experiences of comment removals on SA and check my memory after seeing a previous comment of mine was being referred to by some others of us here.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

I looked through old emails and posted these comments because my description of SA taking down comments if one points to another member's track record was being taken as a point of contention, and I wanted to be fair and double check my memory (it's been a couple of years). I will say, it was only a few of the comments taken down for this reason, not as much of my removed comments as I thought... and, reading what I wrote, I think it's quite possible that if I'd been more neutral in my tone in those comments, some of them may not have been taken down. So, in fairness, I'd say, it's somewhat of an open question as to whether or not a calm, neutral post directing other people on SA to look through someone's track record would get taken down if it were to be reported to the SA mods. Having reread emails tonight from 2013-2015, I think my earlier comment overstated how clear it is that SA mods would do this to a calm neutral post, and I'm sorry if that caused any confusion.

Thank you for clarifying this.

That said... looking through those old emails, I was reminded of some real head shaker comment removals that played a role in my not very favorable view of SA, such as taking comments stating SA's policy of not fact checking down as an "allegation of bad faith" (that actually happened at least twice, I only shared one instance here). Every comment I posted here that had been removed by SA I copied and pasted here in its entirety without any editing.

Not looking to prolong this discussion, as I described this morning, but I just wanted to dig into my experiences of comment removals on SA and check my memory after seeing a previous comment of mine was being referred to by some others of us here.

I, too, have had many instances of "real head shaker" comment removals. I think it's just because of the sheer volume of moderation that needs to happen on Tesla articles. If the removal of my comment makes zero sense, then sometimes I respond and it's restated, but usually I don't bother.

"Allegation of bad faith" is usually the one that gets most commenters. Discussions get so heated that comments get personal. Once that happens, it's easy to find a reason to report a comment to moderators.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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.

Maybe, but I think it's the obligation to apply their rules uniformly to both bears and bulls. You can bet every single cent you have that bears accuse SeekingAlpha of the same stuff you accuse them; just on the opposite side.

Tesla is a very divisive investment: people either love it or hate it. So a lot of investors make emotional decisions, then grab at every "fact" they can find to justify their emotional decisions. There is a lot of this happening on Tesla boards, on both sides.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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.

You don't have to provide a screen shot. I believe you are telling the truth.

"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."

First, note that SeekingAlpha moderators did not flag this as a comment that should be deleted. It was automatically deleted, because it was posted as a "reply" to a comment that was deleted.

Second, sometimes I, too, get feedback from commenters that point out an error in my article. I thank them and submit an edit. This is a very quick process and doesn't involve a "this article was edited as it previously said.. etc" that you see in The New York Times or WSJ articles.

If you point out an error in an article, that's fine; but if you follow it with something like "the author is clearly hiding something" then that's "allegation of bad faith," so your comment will get deleted. This is not surprising.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

• 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.

Lying means, "to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive."

I am speaking correctly as I know how writing for SeekingAlpha, editorial process, and moderation of comments work, better than you do. I am not speaking utter untruth knowingly, and I don't have intent to deceive.

You, on the other hand, are committing "libel" (i.e. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation), which is a crime.

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.

Both MontanaSkeptic and I, for example, have been many times penalized for breaking forum rules. I also know of bears who were suspended because of breaking SeekingAlpha's rules. I am one of SeekingAlpha's most viewed authors, and I can tell you for a fact and with certainty that, if there is any special treatment I'm getting, it's to the negative side. Yes, most of my articles are approved, but that's because I now have a good feel for what will get approved or rejected, but at the same time, I get many stern e-mails from SeekingAlpha warning me when I do break rules, even unintentionally.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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."

"trying to bash Tesla" is an allegation of bad faith. This comment should have been deleted as it was.

You just have to learn how to play the game by the rules.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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.

This is not allegation of bad faith, so you should have responded to the moderation e-mail.

Your post, however, likely has nothing to do with what was included in the article, so if I was the author, I would have flagged this one as "not directly related to the discussion" and it would still get deleted.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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."

This is not "blanket dismissal" so you should have responded to the moderation e-mail as they ask you do in the e-mail itself.

I think they would have reinstated this comment.

In the future, it may help to not capitalize your words, not use inflammatory words like "imaginary," and I think your comments will be fine.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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."

"I advise anyone who hasn't yet learned not to read LT's posts to read that blog he linked" is a violation of the rules. Your post does in fact harm the collegial atmosphere, even though there isn't any left, but just because bears violate the rules doesn't mean we can.

Again, I would encourage you to play by the rules. Patience had never been my virtue, until I started writing for SeekingAlpha. You would be amazed at what contributors and editors go through if you only knew. After a year of enduring this torture, a commenter recently said, "ValueAnalyst has the patience of a saint."

I want more bulls to comment on SeekingAlpha articles, because right now bears are running the show there, although the balance has shifted a bit more to the middle recently. I now see just as many bull comments as bear comments, and there are a couple of TMC members who relentlessly respond to bear FUD.

I am trying to help you to see the specific ways in which your comments are violating the rules so that you can continue to help us stop bear FUD, and the only way to do that is by playing by the rules.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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.

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.)


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

I'll ignore your personal attacks and address the parts relevant to our discussion.

I agree that some investors are being sucked into shorting the stock due to bear FUD and that this is an inverse pump-and-dump.

I'm not sure why you think shorts can't afford to pay a lawyer. There are many billion-dollar level hedge funds that are short Tesla, and I'd bet that many people who read SeekingAlpha articles on Tesla manage multi-million dollar RIAs.

Investing almost always involves cutting through the nonsense, whether FUD or just noise. Bears have certainly taken this to a whole another level with Tesla, but the idea of investors being subjected to misinformation is nothing new. Don't feel so special.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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?"

You do have a point with this. Bears do often "allege bad faith" whether about Elon or bull contributors. I've been subjected to this many times as well. I don't know why SeekingAlpha has not put a complete stop to this. I agree that SeekingAlpha editors aren't perfect, but I don't agree that we should jump to the conclusion that they are doing this intentionally to an end.

Also - next time you see an article like this, I would encourage you to let me know, and I can send an e-mail to the editors and at least seek clarification. That may be the best way to go about this. You may also choose to e-mail them directly, but make sure the tone of your e-mail is inquisitive and collaborative rather than accusatory.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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.

I'm not happy about the way with which MontanaSkeptic conducts himself. Note that I know for a fact that he had previously been banned on commenting on my articles (not sure if that's still the case), and I know at least one bear who was suspended from commenting at all on any articles. I'm not sure if that, combined with the fact that bears accuse SeekingAlpha of the same stuff you accuse them but on the opposite side, changes your opinion on how SeekingAlpha applies its rules across both bulls and bears. I hope that it at least gets you to take a step back and think again.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

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

Please explain to me how I'm talking my book. I don't own any stock in SeekingAlpha. 99% of SeekingAlpha readers don't read TMC. My subscribers don't care whether you believe that SeekingAlpha has good or bad intentions.

My comments on this topic have only gained me hundreds of "disagrees," countless hours of wasted time, for zero money.

How in the world am I talking my book? I wish you knew how disappointing this conversation has been to me.

 

[Electroman]

ValueAnalyst - explain to me how this guy 'Drewfster' is allowed to comment at all? he repeats the same things over and over, without any regard to the actual topic and content of the article in question..

 

[ValueAnalyst]

ValueAnalyst - explain to me how this guy 'Drewfster' is allowed to comment at all? he repeats the same things over and over, without any regard to the actual topic and content of the article in question..

I don't know... probably the same reason why the two FUDsters at TMC are allowed to still comment.

You may want to send an e-mail to SeekingAlpha moderation and see what they say. I know repeated offenses are penalized by temporary or permanent suspension, so maybe if enough people "report" his posts that have nothing to do with the article (which is the case majority of the time), then he may be permanently banned, one would hope.

Honestly I don't even hang around in the comments sections to Tesla articles anymore. I can't possibly deal with all the noise from dozens of bears (FUDsters and genuine bears), and write free articles, and attend to the subscription service, and run my business all at the same time. This is why I really appreciate it when TMC members help out in the comments sections, which I know @JRP3 and @winfield100 and a handful of others do. Just make sure you're playing by the rules, don't offend the editors/moderators, and I really think this situation has a chance to get better.

 

[Electroman]

Appreciate your patient reasoned responses here in this topic.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Appreciate your patient reasoned responses here in this topic.

Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words.

 

[SteveG3]

Thank you for clarifying this.



I, too, have had many instances of "real head shaker" comment removals. I think it's just because of the sheer volume of moderation that needs to happen on Tesla articles. If the removal of my comment makes zero sense, then sometimes I respond and it's restated, but usually I don't bother.

"Allegation of bad faith" is usually the one that gets most commenters. Discussions get so heated that comments get personal. Once that happens, it's easy to find a reason to report a comment to moderators.

VA, thanks for taking the time to go through those comments and offer your feedback yesterday. During the time I was frequenting SA, I hardly used the option of making the case for a review/reversal of a mod removal of one of my comments, if at all. Reading about your experience of some effective use of that option was helpful. I also understood the case you were making for being scrupulously polite and even toned, but persisting with one's point in the comments section, despite the food fight atmosphere there. If I find myself ever back on SA to comment, I will try to give both of these approaches you've suggested a try (as needed... if I do well enough with the latter, hopefully the former will be unnecessary ; ).

So, while I may not agree with every detail of your responses yesterday to the emails from SA I that I shared here, I do appreciate your responses, and with them you've persuaded me a fair amount on a couple of core aspects of my concern regarding comment moderation. I'll add that, though I've said all along that I am not making any assertion as to whether the occurrence of so much gibberish mud slinging by SA members in the Tesla blogs and comments involve intent or not on the part of the people behind SA the platform, you've moved me somewhat in your direction on the spectrum of my undecided view on that point.

Finally, as I said a couple of days ago, I'm inclined to move on to other matters than this SA discussion, and you've indicated similarly. As far as my other basic concern re SA (blog vs. news coverage, no fact checking policy but, at least to many the appearance of being presented as a source of news coverage), the details on that remain upthread for anyone to consider if they care to... I think you and I have written plenty on the subject already. So, we're probably in agreement to now get back to our regular TMC programming, : )

 

[GoTslaGo]

Thanks everyone for their insight and experience with SA! Very helpful!

 

[beachbum77]

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.

I am currently a "bear" on Tesla stock, and some of Musk's decisions. I for one just began writing articles on Tesla but began commenting on the stock back last year when the SCTY merger was announced. Yes, I am one of those awful SA contributors. Not all of my articles get published. SA editors are tough as nails to get through. Every article must have solid factual information referenced in the article to back up my conclusions, not always easy to do. There are certainly no "golden boys" at SA.

Readers on this forum need to understand that being bearish on the stock does not automatically equate to a bearish position on the company itself. I personally like the Model S, and may be inclined to pick up a lease return once the facelift models start coming back in. But as I repeat in my articles, I feel the stock is WAY above a reasonable valuation. My articles focus on reasons and issues I think are overlooked by investors that lead me to believe the stock is overvalued. Does everyone agree? Of course not. But that is what makes a market and SA prove themselves daily to be willing to print both sides (or more) of every story). Tesla owners need to be willing to listen to both sides as well especially for those of you who also own the stock.

ValueAnalyst, who some of you have been attacking in this thread, is one of the last perma-bulls on SA. If anything you should be supporting him in his efforts to defend Tesla. But, IMHO he is facing a losing battle. Wall Street is increasingly bearish on Tesla. Tesla's failure to execute on an admittedly much simpler car is troubling to many investors. Which could prove to be a good thing for Tesla car owners. I for one, am predicting a BK reorg that would cleanse the balance sheet and make it simpler for Tesla to raise new capital and grow from here. (think a snake shedding its old skin). If owners got a revitalized manufacturer, that could only lead to better new models, more charging locations, and growth of service facilities. What would be wrong with that?