-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
"I think we all owe SteveG3 a beer."
vgrin, DaveT, those posts literally put a smile on my face... it's nice to be appreciated.
perhaps at the earnings call we'll get the hat trick, and Tesla will touch on their rationale for not releasing those numbers, to somewhat further close this as an opening for bear FUD.
UPDATE: A few posts down I put a much simplified walk through of why Ward's YTD estimate (which they are now trying to hang their hat on) can be shown to be meaningless using actual Tesla numbers. Simple enough to tweet if you like.
----
I tweeted CNBC's Phil Lebeau earlier today about how David Zoia from Ward's tried to reassert the validity of Ward's numbers and the WSJ's thesis, by looking at worldwide YTD which Ward's says is up 8% for Tesla year over year, YET, simple math and very public numbers show that 8% Ward's number is actually far off, the real number almost certainly over 33% (public numbers: last year's 22K+ vehicle deliveries, this year's Q1, Q2 number, and Q3 will be certainly within a few hundred of guidance; simple math: YTD 2014 through September ~22K, if last year's deliveries were spread evenly among it's four quarters 2013 YTD would have been 16.5K+, finally, 22K is ~33% more than 16.5K+, and if Q4 last year had more deliveries than Q1-Q3 had, which it almost certainly did and can easily be checked, this year's YTD is 33%+).
Lebeau 1) is a credible journalist who actually looks into facts, 2) works for the very network where new meaningless numbers from Ward's were thrown out today to suggest Musk was playing a numbers game and that the WSJ point stands.
perhaps there's other people here interested in tweeting Phil Lebeau that YTD can easily be researched to be 33%+ not the 8% Ward's claimed on his network. Ward's wide miscalculation of what is so easily researchable does not merit the implied endorsement of CNBC.
Phil LeBeau (@Lebeaucarnews) | Twitter
Last edited:
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure they were unwitting pawns. Guess where their revenues come from? Hint: it's not Greenpeace.
Also, here's a nice Motley Fool write-up of this sham journalism episode and its aftermath:
Why Tesla Motors Inc. Stock (TSLA) Rebounded Today (TSLA)
Looks like we are at an interesting point on the TSLA chart. TSLA encountered resistance at 244-245 (green line). If TSLA breaches this resistance tomorrow am, it will also break out of the downward regression channel AND could fill the gap that was formed after the "D" announcement.
I would expect bears will try to master whatever they have to prevent TSLA breaking through the 244-245 resistance level.
I would expect bears will try to master whatever they have to prevent TSLA breaking through the 244-245 resistance level.
hockeythug
Active Member
A simplified message if anyone does care to tweet CNBC's Phil Lebeau,
Phil LeBeau on Twitter:
or CNBC customer service (pretty sure, but will confirm during business hours, that they take viewer feedback on what's been aired) 877-280-4548
On CNBC, Ward's editorial director said Tesla's YTD deliveries are up 8%. Simply adding up deliveries from Shareholder newsletters, that means Ward's estimates under 2,800 Q3 2014 deliveries. If Tesla meets its Q3 guidance, (7,800) YTD will be up 40%.
sending 3 tweets I just got all of that across, and the fact that Ward's website showcases two publications, one of which is for those in the dealership field.
fwiw, here are the delivery numbers from shareholder letter:
2013 Q1 4,900 Q2 5,150 Q3 5,500
2014 Q1 6,457 Q2 7,579 Q3 Guidance 7,800
Phil LeBeau on Twitter:
or CNBC customer service (pretty sure, but will confirm during business hours, that they take viewer feedback on what's been aired) 877-280-4548
On CNBC, Ward's editorial director said Tesla's YTD deliveries are up 8%. Simply adding up deliveries from Shareholder newsletters, that means Ward's estimates under 2,800 Q3 2014 deliveries. If Tesla meets its Q3 guidance, (7,800) YTD will be up 40%.
sending 3 tweets I just got all of that across, and the fact that Ward's website showcases two publications, one of which is for those in the dealership field.
fwiw, here are the delivery numbers from shareholder letter:
2013 Q1 4,900 Q2 5,150 Q3 5,500
2014 Q1 6,457 Q2 7,579 Q3 Guidance 7,800
Last edited:
USAToday questions the sales numbers of Elon (who should know exactly what they are) because Autodata's estimated numbers are lower. The genius journalists write:
Hmm, Elon says up 65%, AutoData says down 15%. Whom to believe?
Apparently USAToday doesn't remember that last year Autodata said Tesla's Q2 sales were 4181 units, but they were actually 5,150.
June auto sales led by pickups
Hmm, Elon says up 65%, AutoData says down 15%. Whom to believe?
Apparently USAToday doesn't remember that last year Autodata said Tesla's Q2 sales were 4181 units, but they were actually 5,150.
June auto sales led by pickups
Citizen-T
Active Member
That's fine, let's keep them talking about US delivery numbers. It keeps the expectations low and creates a blind spot for the bears around ZEV credit income.
pz1975
Active Member
If the bears run out of actual valid arguments, is this what they stoop to? I'm trying to figure out if this is the case.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
We'll see, but I wouldn't read too much into the aftermarket. Too thin, easily manipulated.
Easy for someone caught the wrong side of the trade today to push it down after hours with a relatively small number of trades to try to shake out lose hands and spook a selloff. Doesn't usually work. The impact of margin calls, short covering, and closing puts are typically felt for three days and are far greater. Baring any major news, I think we'll end the week even higher.
Well, there is *some* truth to it. The US, and California in particular, has a good number of compliance cars, that you can't get outside the US. The Rav4 EV is one example. And often you can get quite good deals on these compliance cars, because the car companies aren't trying to make a profit on them, they merely want to get them out the door to be in compliance with regulation.
The thing about looking at the market as above is that you look try to look at the EV market as separate from the car market as a whole. This is of course not very accurate. The primary competitors to Tesla are fossil cars from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. And when it comes to this competition, no market is harder to win over than Germany. Yet Tesla is growing there, however slowly.
There is an odd set of tweets ongoing between john stoll t the WSJ, James Cobb at the NYT, and Nick Bunkley at Automotive News. From what I can gather the WSJ is saying that the Wards report is true and Elon is parsing his words carefully. Automotive News says that their numbers do not match the WSJ report and NYt seems to be wondering if the WSJ doesn't care for the truth.
Clearly WSJ doesn't care much for the truth. For starters NA deliveries in a given quarter are not a direct reflection on demand in NA. This has been made very clear on the last earnings calls where tesla 1. Specifically said that NA demand (per orders) was higher than expected and growing and 2. Deliveries have been shifted to try to balance customer wait times in different regions.
If if the gist of the WSJ article is that Model S will soon be demand constrained rather than production constrained and that the US demand data supports this then we can look to NA demand. But, of course, even if US demand is down what matters to the company is WW demand. Plus tesla could also try radical ideas like "advertising" and supplying new models!
Clearly WSJ doesn't care much for the truth. For starters NA deliveries in a given quarter are not a direct reflection on demand in NA. This has been made very clear on the last earnings calls where tesla 1. Specifically said that NA demand (per orders) was higher than expected and growing and 2. Deliveries have been shifted to try to balance customer wait times in different regions.
If if the gist of the WSJ article is that Model S will soon be demand constrained rather than production constrained and that the US demand data supports this then we can look to NA demand. But, of course, even if US demand is down what matters to the company is WW demand. Plus tesla could also try radical ideas like "advertising" and supplying new models!
EldestOyster
Member
Since we're watching the decline of journalistic integrity, I thought I'd ask if Morningstar still has any respect. It sure had a lot in the old days. My wife's phone has this app on it; "Google Now", which brings news feeds among other things. In the financial section are "news stories" which greet you as you awaken--same sort of thing as the "News" that accompanies to bottom of each page here--targeted to the stocks you are watching (those you have selected on the phone). You can imagine the desire for each outlet to be the story you are going to read each time you look.
So, this morning, there's a story, Tesla sales in trouble blah blah blah, and it's not Wards, and it's not the Street, it's Morningstar. OK, we'll read that one. Jump to the site, there's the headline, underneath which it says, "Click to read the rest of the story...on Seeking Alpha".
Hence my question.
So, this morning, there's a story, Tesla sales in trouble blah blah blah, and it's not Wards, and it's not the Street, it's Morningstar. OK, we'll read that one. Jump to the site, there's the headline, underneath which it says, "Click to read the rest of the story...on Seeking Alpha".
Hence my question.
That may indeed be the case. Typically on Tuesdays we see what appears to be a bear raid by hedge fund bots between 10:00 and 10:30 ET as they trigger a cascade of retail stop loss limits being hit. Elon's Monday night tweet may have delayed that this week. It seems to have occurred this morning instead. Now the funds appear to be covering their shorts and/or straight buying at the bargain prices they engineered.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked