Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[brian45011]

They'll remain hesitant till the Solar Roof product is revealed

Do you anticipate the product will be sold in builders' supply warehouses and home improvement stores or just exclusively by Tesla?

 

[esk8mw]

In this CNBC interview with James Albertine he discusses that "luxury sales broadly are weakening" and says that Tesla is not impervious to this downturn. The question is if this downturn for Audi, BMW, etc., is caused by Tesla or general market weakening.

Can Tesla continue to deliver?

Well, we can plainly see Tesla's sales are robust and accelerating. Each car sold steals a sale from the others--with many like myself never to return to another ICE vehicle. I'm thinking this CNBC guy buried the lede.

 

[GoTslaGo]

I think the SMAs are what arrested the initial move upward and it's the UBB currently holding it back at the current time. I like to think of the Bollinger bands like a rubber band. You can go past them but they like to resist further movement. I'm not a technical expert though so this is just what I'm seeing right now. Tomorrow the bollinger bands should be expanded and that will make getting past the SMAs easier, assuming we don't do that this afternoon.

Great analogy! Especially since the ranges are based on standard deviations (usually 2) so statistically they will get "tighter" on the ends. Like it! Great way of thinking about it!

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

In this CNBC interview with James Albertine he discusses that "luxury sales broadly are weakening" and says that Tesla is not impervious to this downturn. The question is if this downturn for Audi, BMW, etc., is caused by Tesla or general market weakening.

Can Tesla continue to deliver?

For most Automobile Manufacturers gasoline vehicle sales will peak in the very near future. In many cases they have already peaked. EV sales have just begun to take off and sales will continue to increase for next 10-20 years. Yes, Tesla is impervious to the broad slowdown.

 

[austinEV]

Connecting the dots . . .
When Elon said that 3Q16 might be Tesla's best quarter yet, there was ambiguity about whether he was referring to delivery numbers or financials. From the Q3 delivery numbers, we know now that he was talking about financials, because there was no question that the previous delivery numbers would be annihilated. So, if he felt that Q3 financials might be best ever, would he put the kibosh on discounting a week before the end of the quarter if he was unsure whether Telsa would reach profitabllity in Q3? Would he remove the non-gaap accounting if TSLA was going to be non-gaap profitable in Q3 but not gaap profitable in Q3? Would there have been 5500 vehicles in transit at end of Q3 with a note in delivery numbers release that vehicles aren't counted as sold until all paperwork is completed perfectly? To each of these questions, I see the answer as "no". Thus, I am assuming Telsa has profitability in Q3.

So, when do you let the cat out of the bag if Tesla is profitable in Q3? It's been done on delivery numbers day back in 2013. It could be done any day now via a tweet from Elon that basically says "Preliminary computations suggest that Tesla has achieved profitability in Q3", or the numbers can be released at the Q3 ER. Each has their advantages and tells us something about both the merger vote possibilities and the cap raise possibilities. If the merger vote is scheduled before the 3Q ER and Elon thinks he has the vote in the bag, then he might hold off on the profitability info until the Q3 ER. If Q3 was not quite profitable, then he would definitely not say anything until after the SCTY vote, but I don't think this is the case. The advantage of releasing the profitability info after the vote is that if TSLA SP sags after the vote, which is entirely possible, revealing Q3 profitability will bring it back rather quickly and help remove criticism of the merger.

For clues about profitability, look at timing of the vote and cap raise. If both take place after the 3Q16 ER, then I think that's a great sign that profitability is there. If the vote is scheduled before the Q3 ER, then there's the likelihood of Elon letting Q3 profitability out of the bag through a tweet ahead of the vote if he feels there's any question of it passing. We can indeed get clues about profitability, likelihood of SCTY merger success, and likelihood of capital raise success by using the scheduling of these events to read the tea leaves.

This is the only way to think of it. The record quarter was in the bag even if the results were pretty terrible (20k deliveries would be a record but terrible given the guidance). And the retiring of non-gaap means that they no longer need the "yeah but" crutch.

 

[brian45011]

Would he remove the non-gaap accounting if TSLA was going to be non-gaap profitable in Q3 but not gaap profitable in Q3?

Tesla has only announced it is discontinuing non-GAAP reporting for Resale/Residual Value Guaranteed Vehicles. All of the Revenue and GM for those vehicles have been recognized in non-GAAP in prior periods. It's a fortuitous time to discontinue that practice; and, in any event, the new FASB rules/guidelines will soon impose a different treatment.

If the merger vote is scheduled before the 3Q ER and Elon thinks he has the vote in the bag, then he might hold off on the profitability info until the Q3 ER. If Q3 was not quite profitable, then he would definitely not say anything until after the SCTY vote, but I don't think this is the case. The advantage of releasing the profitability info after the vote is that if TSLA SP sags after the vote, which is entirely possible, revealing Q3 profitability will bring it back rather quickly and help remove criticism of the merger.

For clues about profitability, look at timing of the vote and cap raise. If both take place after the 3Q16 ER, then I think that's a great sign that profitability is there. If the vote is scheduled before the Q3 ER, then there's the likelihood of Elon letting Q3 profitability out of the bag through a tweet ahead of the vote if he feels there's any question of it passing. We can indeed get clues about profitability, likelihood of SCTY merger success, and likelihood of capital raise success by using the scheduling of these events to read the tea leaves.

The timing on the vote would seem to depend on the SEC's sign off. They've had the S-4 for a month and the "go-shop" lapsed over 2 weeks ago. Reading tea leaves stinks less than chicken entrails, but putting credence in either or both can lead to misinterpretation.

 

[aznt1217]

Do you anticipate the product will be sold in builders' supply warehouses and home improvement stores or just exclusively by Tesla?

I can see it being a hybrid model. States where there are Tesla stores or Galleries they will be sold there (at least initially). States where there are no Tesla sales available, they'd be where Solarcity is currently (home depot, bestbuy, etc.)

 

[racer26]

Speaking of Porsche....I thought it would be worth pointing out a great milestone.

Porsche North America announced September sales today: News / Recent Press Releases

Q3 is now the first quarter in history where Tesla has outsold Porsche in North America (15,425 vs. 13,538, based on InsideEVs figures for Tesla)

Except that this is kind of a dumb metric - Porsche sells 6 models (in quite a few different trim levels) to Tesla's 2 models, with a grand total 6 major trims between them.

Model S has been soundly thrashing Panamera for quite some time. 3Q16, it outsold Panamera almost 9:1 (9,625 MS vs 1,143 Panamera)
Model X even outsold Cayenne around 1.5:1 in 3Q16 - Porsche sold 3,515 Cayennes and Tesla sold 5800 MX (InsideEVs)

All of Porsche's models are quite expensive. As are Tesla's for now, but by the time Tesla is shipping 6 distinct models, that won't be true.

 

[SPadival]

Montana @ Seeking Alpha throws in the towel. I guess he saw the writing on the wall and the losses due to his short position weren't getting smaller.

In November, I'll reach my first anniversary of writing about Tesla.

I'm thinking of hanging up my spikes. It's been fun and fascinating, and I like to think I wrote some pieces that are original, well-researched, and important. Most of my best stuff is thanks to the terrific help of the many great readers here at Seeking Alpha.

However, let's face it, Tesla can go broke just fine without me, and there are a number of other terrific Seeking Alpha writers putting up great stuff about Tesla and SolarCity.

And there are other things I want to write about. Tesla is a tiny sidelight, far off the main line of the aspects of finance about which I know most. And, as my son reminds me, my embryonic Great American Novel needs care and feeding.

Perhaps an intermediate solution may be to write fewer Tesla articles and to sharply restrict the time I spend responding to comments. (My critics will certainly welcome that!)

I'll miss the engagement with the bright readers here, but the time suck is simply too great.

So, if you notice my articles are thinner on the ground and my comments sparser as well, mostly focused on claims that I've erred in setting forth the facts (I always want to hear about that, and to correct any misstatements), you'll know why.

 

[Papafox]

I think the last half hour of trading today is going to be interesting to watch. My guess is that shorts will make a play to push the stock down to 212 or so. Volume has been steadily decreasing as we get further into the afternoon, so that time would be their best shot for such a dip. Unless there's bad news, there's really no point in longs selling during the last half hour, and so it would have to be shorts. If longs can either hold 213 during the last half hour or push the SP up further, then I would see this as a bullish indication of what is to come tomorrow and afterwards.

 

[dennis]

There's a video on cnbc.com of Robert McNamee claiming that someone is (probably) coming next year with 10X the unit volume of Tesla at a much lower cost. It's at 3:20 of the video. Is he suggesting 1 million Bolts in 2017? or 1 million Mercedes EQ Vodka Bars? Not sure where they find these guests - maybe Mark Spiegel was booked solid.

I've had contact with Roger McNamee in the past and found him to be pretty sharp. I just sent him the following in an email:

... I enjoyed your video piece on Tesla that came across my newsfeed this morning. I’m a real fan of Tesla (cars, company and stock) and follow it closely.

One thing you said that didn’t jibe with my research was about competition. You spoke of lower priced, higher volume (10x) real competition coming next year. As far as I know, the only 200 mile EV from Tesla competitors that will be delivered in 2017 is the Chevy Bolt, priced the same as the Model 3 at $35K. GM initially said they would produce 30K of these in 2017. The Audi Q6 is planned for 2018, the new Mercedes EQ crossover for 2019, and several new all electrics from VW and BMW in 2020 and 2021. I agree that competition is coming, but I believe it is farther away and will not be less expensive nor higher volume than the Tesla Model 3 and its crossover cousin the “Y”. Do you have other info?

I agree that Tesla has a lot of execution and potentially funding challenges, but I think the competitive challenge is currently overblown. New entrants will be competing not only with the Tesla cars but with the ecosystem of Superchargers, stores and service centers, tight feedback loop between sales/service/engineering/manufacturing that you don’t have when you insert dealers, fleet learning for autonomous driving features, etc. I have spoken to 2 CEOs of charging companies and it looks like GM and the others will be relying on public fast charging infrastructure to be developed by 3rd parties – i.e. no Supercharger equivalent. So if Tesla can execute and successfully fulfill the unprecedented demand they have for the Model 3 I believe they can stay ahead of their less focused and conflicted, albeit much larger, competition. Just my opinion.

 

[stealthology]

I don't think analyst price target upgrades are coming.

SCTY acquisition and pending capital raise making analysts hesitant.

For example, Adam Jonas came out with note this morning and here's the last paragraph:

"A welcome positive after a challenging summer. But we’re not convinced these results will make the skeptics give up the bear case view that the Tesla share count will continue to rise faster than the Tesla share price. Our $245 price target offers 20% upside to fair value. Given the combination of execution risk, SCTY deal risk and financing risk, we believe investors should be offered a higher reward as compensation. We are convinced Tesla is well positioned for what the auto/transportation industry is rapidly evolving into (shared, autonomous and electric mobility). It is the financing of the plan and the impact on the firm’s cost of capital following the announced SCTY transaction that give us pause."

There's no link is there? Surprised it's not on SeekingAlpha by now as a news item.

 

[sundaymorning]

Montana @ Seeking Alpha throws in the towel. I guess he saw the writing on the wall and the losses due to his short position weren't getting smaller.

In November, I'll reach my first anniversary of writing about Tesla.

I'm thinking of hanging up my spikes. It's been fun and fascinating, and I like to think I wrote some pieces that are original, well-researched, and important. Most of my best stuff is thanks to the terrific help of the many great readers here at Seeking Alpha.

However, let's face it, Tesla can go broke just fine without me, and there are a number of other terrific Seeking Alpha writers putting up great stuff about Tesla and SolarCity.

And there are other things I want to write about. Tesla is a tiny sidelight, far off the main line of the aspects of finance about which I know most. And, as my son reminds me, my embryonic Great American Novel needs care and feeding.

Perhaps an intermediate solution may be to write fewer Tesla articles and to sharply restrict the time I spend responding to comments. (My critics will certainly welcome that!)

I'll miss the engagement with the bright readers here, but the time suck is simply too great.

So, if you notice my articles are thinner on the ground and my comments sparser as well, mostly focused on claims that I've erred in setting forth the facts (I always want to hear about that, and to correct any misstatements), you'll know why.

One by one they will continue to capitulate. Only a matter of time..

 

[racer26]

I've had contact with Roger McNamee in the past and found him to be pretty sharp. I just sent him the following in an email:

... I enjoyed your video piece on Tesla that came across my newsfeed this morning. I’m a real fan of Tesla (cars, company and stock) and follow it closely.

One thing you said that didn’t jibe with my research was about competition. You spoke of lower priced, higher volume (10x) real competition coming next year. As far as I know, the only 200 mile EV from Tesla competitors that will be delivered in 2017 is the Chevy Bolt, priced the same as the Model 3 at $35K. GM initially said they would produce 30K of these in 2017. The Audi Q6 is planned for 2018, the new Mercedes EQ crossover for 2019, and several new all electrics from VW and BMW in 2020 and 2021. I agree that competition is coming, but I believe it is farther away and will not be less expensive nor higher volume than the Tesla Model 3 and its crossover cousin the “Y”. Do you have other info?

I agree that Tesla has a lot of execution and potentially funding challenges, but I think the competitive challenge is currently overblown. New entrants will be competing not only with the Tesla cars but with the ecosystem of Superchargers, stores and service centers, tight feedback loop between sales/service/engineering/manufacturing that you don’t have when you insert dealers, fleet learning for autonomous driving features, etc. I have spoken to 2 CEOs of charging companies and it looks like GM and the others will be relying on public fast charging infrastructure to be developed by 3rd parties – i.e. no Supercharger equivalent. So if Tesla can execute and successfully fulfill the unprecedented demand they have for the Model 3 I believe they can stay ahead of their less focused and conflicted, albeit much larger, competition. Just my opinion.

My guess is that he might be referring to Faraday Future.

Which, fine, but until I see something resembling a production vehicle and a factory that looks equipped to ship it in volume, its vaporware.

 

[larmor]

I think the last half hour of trading today is going to be interesting to watch. My guess is that shorts will make a play to push the stock down to 212 or so. Volume has been steadily decreasing as we get further into the afternoon, so that time would be their best shot for such a dip. Unless there's bad news, there's really no point in longs selling during the last half hour, and so it would have to be shorts. If longs can either hold 213 during the last half hour or push the SP up further, then I would see this as a bullish indication of what is to come tomorrow and afterwards.

And also smaller investors who regularly review or listen to daily recap of market news of the day, nasdaq and s&p as it would play out today at market close.... 'I wish you the best of good buys'

 

[sundaymorning]

Is 220 exciting? I feel like 220 or even 240 to be just very luke warm... This is supposed to be the best quarter ever (and for a while until model-3 rolls out in volume), if we don't creep into 280s now. Then when? maybe late 2017 (highly unlikely) or more like mid 2018...

I'm rather quite very underwhelmed. The price action today is great but we are starting off from a much lower base.

For some context, TSLA's latest secondary was done at 215 and EVERYONE bashed that it was a poor price to raise capital at. We are still under it or barely around it.

No, 220 is not at all exciting.

Give it some time. 220s, 240s and beyond are on the horizon. Seeking alpha can publish FUD this quarter, but the results are all the same, demand is rising!

 

[EinSV]

I've had contact with Roger McNamee in the past and found him to be pretty sharp. I just sent him the following in an email:

... I enjoyed your video piece on Tesla that came across my newsfeed this morning. I’m a real fan of Tesla (cars, company and stock) and follow it closely.

One thing you said that didn’t jibe with my research was about competition. You spoke of lower priced, higher volume (10x) real competition coming next year. As far as I know, the only 200 mile EV from Tesla competitors that will be delivered in 2017 is the Chevy Bolt, priced the same as the Model 3 at $35K. GM initially said they would produce 30K of these in 2017. The Audi Q6 is planned for 2018, the new Mercedes EQ crossover for 2019, and several new all electrics from VW and BMW in 2020 and 2021. I agree that competition is coming, but I believe it is farther away and will not be less expensive nor higher volume than the Tesla Model 3 and its crossover cousin the “Y”. Do you have other info?

I agree that Tesla has a lot of execution and potentially funding challenges, but I think the competitive challenge is currently overblown. New entrants will be competing not only with the Tesla cars but with the ecosystem of Superchargers, stores and service centers, tight feedback loop between sales/service/engineering/manufacturing that you don’t have when you insert dealers, fleet learning for autonomous driving features, etc. I have spoken to 2 CEOs of charging companies and it looks like GM and the others will be relying on public fast charging infrastructure to be developed by 3rd parties – i.e. no Supercharger equivalent. So if Tesla can execute and successfully fulfill the unprecedented demand they have for the Model 3 I believe they can stay ahead of their less focused and conflicted, albeit much larger, competition. Just my opinion.

Probably referring to BYD. Totally different market segments -- more of an issue for ICE manufacturers at the lower end of the market.

 

[esk8mw]

I've had contact with Roger McNamee in the past and found him to be pretty sharp. I just sent him the following in an email:

... I enjoyed your video piece on Tesla that came across my newsfeed this morning. I’m a real fan of Tesla (cars, company and stock) and follow it closely.

One thing you said that didn’t jibe with my research was about competition. You spoke of lower priced, higher volume (10x) real competition coming next year. As far as I know, the only 200 mile EV from Tesla competitors that will be delivered in 2017 is the Chevy Bolt, priced the same as the Model 3 at $35K. GM initially said they would produce 30K of these in 2017. The Audi Q6 is planned for 2018, the new Mercedes EQ crossover for 2019, and several new all electrics from VW and BMW in 2020 and 2021. I agree that competition is coming, but I believe it is farther away and will not be less expensive nor higher volume than the Tesla Model 3 and its crossover cousin the “Y”. Do you have other info?

I agree that Tesla has a lot of execution and potentially funding challenges, but I think the competitive challenge is currently overblown. New entrants will be competing not only with the Tesla cars but with the ecosystem of Superchargers, stores and service centers, tight feedback loop between sales/service/engineering/manufacturing that you don’t have when you insert dealers, fleet learning for autonomous driving features, etc. I have spoken to 2 CEOs of charging companies and it looks like GM and the others will be relying on public fast charging infrastructure to be developed by 3rd parties – i.e. no Supercharger equivalent. So if Tesla can execute and successfully fulfill the unprecedented demand they have for the Model 3 I believe they can stay ahead of their less focused and conflicted, albeit much larger, competition. Just my opinion.

Also, PS, where are these batteries coming from? Last I checked, Tesla was building the largest building in the world to try and satisfy the battery production needs to get to 10x current production.

Other automakers/batterymakers must have some pretty good construction crews if they can conceive, fund and build a GGF in under a year. Oh, and design and build a car actually capable of selling 1,000,000/year. Stupid talking heads.

 

[FredTMC]

Let's go TSLA. Push thru $215...

 

[Hogfighter]

It seems that there are 2 bear cases that hold any water at all: valuation and dilution.

The valuation argument we've beaten to death...you either think TSLA is just another car company you you think it's something more.

The dilution argument does concern me more as an investor. I'm all for rapid growth, but don't want to give away the store.