Aren't short sale orders still allowed while the circuit breaker is in effect as long they are above the best national bid price? i.e. it's a modified uptick rule https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-26.htm
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
In theory it's true. But in reality most don't really do it because it's tough to prove the nbbo and isn't worth the SEC crawling up your butt
stealthology
Member
Absolutely^^. The risks in LNKD are now much less that it is down about 45% in a day. I am not saying that TSLA will follow the same pattern. I do think that some of the negative market perception on the Q4 ER and CC guidance for 2016 has been priced in but none of us know how much.
Again..'devil's advocate'; Why would the market believe EM's forward guidance? Eventually what he predicts usually comes to fruition but slower than he gives with his guidance. The past two years especially.
When do we get big ER bumps/short squeezes? When something concrete happens that is unexpected. Jerome at the 2014NAIAS and 'reckless growth/CFpositive/25% more deliveries than guided'.. In other words: When a win really being a win.
Since this is the short term thread I am cautious about this ER/CC and Q1ER/CC. I believe the second half of the year will be excellent and we will see positive price action.
Now, having said that. What could cause this ER/CC to be significant and cause a short term surge?
1. Free cash flow positive (unlikely, but possible...I'd say 20%)..WAG
2. GF is producing significant batteries for Powerwalls AND delivering them ( about 50:50 WAG)
3. Combination X and S production for the week ending today of 1,400+ with 400+ being model X ( possible: WAG 40%)
4. A partnership or agreement in principle with a European or US automaker to build a common Supercharger system (Volvo?) ( I actually put this at 50:50)
5. Agreement (in principle) with a Chinese partner to establish a manufacturing facility in China ( WAG I put this at 60%)
Here's a little suggestion from someone who does short stocks. Shorts have already sold and are likely the predominant buyers at this point. A ban doesn't prevent anyone from "buying". Just can't sell short more. Go look at the 200 dma and you will see where many short sellers sold. The sellers now are the folks who actually own shares long. This thread is filled with misleading information re: "short sellers". They are not the enemy. In fact when they decide to cover they may be the only buyers for your shares.
sundaymorning
Active Member
I don't blame you for being "cautious". Base on Elon's forward looking statement, I would deduct 5% off guidance. Conservatively speaking if Tesla guides 72k - 5% = $6.84 billion WITHOUT counting a single power-pack/wall delivered for 2016.
In 2014 the risk of Model X being delayed were high, that risk was slowly but surely mitigated Q by Q as Tesla kept delaying leading to the present. With that said, we are down to perhaps 1-2 components that need extra attention (a minimal risk IMO). Additionally, there has been some activities in the X forums of late, which may or may not be enough to sway anyone's investment strategy, but it's a nice start to "show me the money" but more importantly, the moneyball for 2016 looks too delicious at these levels. I have some dried powder to deploy in case of a drop, but still 95% in TSLA, the other 5% is in SCTY.
- - - Updated - - -
Its likely the combination of both longs and shorts. Shorts and longs do accumulate shares and dispose them when bearishness sets in; this in turn creates the hysteria and confusion we are experiencing. Also, this is how institutions profit, from the plunders of newbies... when prices are low they slowly buy back in. Unless you have a crystal ball of how many shorts are left before the actual information is publicly released, I am betting that the short interest is still high and you are right, they'll have to cover! This is when we'll get a reversal.. Whether this happens soon is anyone's guess. But if you are making claims about the short interest numbers without factual information, then you may be the one spreading misinformation. But hey, don't tell me to look at the charts, post the link of the short interest here by replying to my post and I'll thank you for it.
Last edited:
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Other stocks are getting hit pretty hard, not just TSLA.
AMZN got pummeled today, down 6.36% and then another 0.4% in aftermarket.
The market herd is panicking. The same thing happened in 2000 and 2008. Under such conditions, market price may not reflect true value or potential. Look at AAPL in 2008/9 as an example. Even with huge iPhone growth AAPL stayed depressed along with much of the market. Don't follow the herd.
AMZN got pummeled today, down 6.36% and then another 0.4% in aftermarket.
The market herd is panicking. The same thing happened in 2000 and 2008. Under such conditions, market price may not reflect true value or potential. Look at AAPL in 2008/9 as an example. Even with huge iPhone growth AAPL stayed depressed along with much of the market. Don't follow the herd.
sundaymorning
Active Member
2008/9 maybe a bad example as that was in the midst of the Great Recession. I see fear all around and this when people like Warren Buffet's words come to mind. Of course, accumulate a little at a time to be safe..
You may want to refer to my explanation of LNKDIn post earlier as comparison to Tesla's market trajectory. Amazon has been at $625 the past 30 days, it has since dropped 25% compared to today's price of about $500. Tesla has traded around $210, at the same discount as Amazon, it would be at $157 after a 25% sale. Of course there is still room to drop, but the same probability would also apply to a rise as Tesla has been in a freefall. The reason for the fall, I assume is in part to the macros and misleading press.. Tesla has already revealed half its cards in regards to the 50k number. It was taken as a negative. What will markets think of 40% growth for 2016? Did Amazon or LNKDin project 40%? No, LNKDin only projected 15% FYI. The 40% growth btw does not account for any powerwall or powerpack deliveries.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't know which analyst would predict 70% growth when Elon has stated 50% yoy. Perhaps this analyst is doing it with an altering motive, or the individual just needs some extra training in analytics.
Last edited:
Well 50% yoy was EM's annualized estimate. With the recent introduction of the X, I personally is expecting more than 50% this year. Next year I'm not optimistic for 50% growth because the Model 3 doesn't have a very good chance to contribute significantly to the revenue for a 8 billion base.
stealthology
Member
sundaymorning
Active Member
Here are my conservative estimates for 2016.
50k S at $90k = $4.5 billion in revenues.
20k X at $110k =$2.2 billion in revenues for a total of $6.7 billion without a single powerwall or pack delivered. How many packs and walls do you think they'll deliver? Personally, if you guided for more than 75k you were very optimistic, not everyone shares that optimism. I personally said 75k back to last August of 2014 or 2015.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you may have misunderstood our moderator. He means very few will buy the base model without extra options that would add to the ASP of M3...
They guided the 2016 weekly production rate for 2k max, 16-18k more realistic for almost a year. If they really delivered anything less than 80k this year, the bears would have quite a strong argument for demand issues.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Tesla missed their guidance by about 5k due to X delays. Elon has always stated 50% growth yoy. Again I don't know where bears are pulling their numbers out from, but 80k would indicate 60% growth. Sure I would love to see 60% but I'll go with what my CEO has stated previously. If 40%-50% growth at 70k -75k guidance makes for a strong bear case I challenge you to find another company with such growth trajectory being punished like Tesla has? LNKDin only predicted 15% growth, followed by 10% for the year after. Tesla is 40% minimum yoy till 2020 and beyond..
I did extra research for those of us who hasn't bothered to look, but yet has brought up the LNKDin and Amazon falling sharply after earnings comparison. FYI if I am reading the news correctly, Amazon projected $1.58 per share, however, they only produced $1 per share from its cloud service. See link below by USA Today:
Amazon stock dives as sales, earnings disappoint
Amazon's first Q growth is projected to be at 17-28%. Now compare that to Tesla's projected growth please.
I did extra research for those of us who hasn't bothered to look, but yet has brought up the LNKDin and Amazon falling sharply after earnings comparison. FYI if I am reading the news correctly, Amazon projected $1.58 per share, however, they only produced $1 per share from its cloud service. See link below by USA Today:
Amazon stock dives as sales, earnings disappoint
Amazon's first Q growth is projected to be at 17-28%. Now compare that to Tesla's projected growth please.
Last edited:
Elon always stated ANNUALIZED 50% yoy. That means sometime you get over 50% sometime you get under 50%. The 80k is from their guidance of their own production for this year, and it's the lower bound of that guidance. I'm not saying 40% yoy growth is slow, its very impressive. But failing to meet 80k deliveries means demand<production by Tesla's own forecast of their production. And anyone can say this is a demand issue because you produced more than the demand. Sure you can excuse it by saying production problems with the X, but that is neither a good thing as it indicates execution is poor (which has been already for half a year).
stealthology
Member
From a longer term perspective, if Tesla doesn't make the non 80K+ Model 3 compelling... they need to, if they want to sell a lot of cars.
sundaymorning
Active Member
My point here is that your 80k was projected in early 2015, it's been clear for a long time now that Tesla missed by 5k, so the 2015 deliveries came in at 50k. If you project 50% growth, this will take us to 75k for 2016. 40% of that will be 70k... the poor execution you've mentioned most likely has also been priced in as it is not a secret that X ramp is slow. But my belief is that the market being forward looking will see 72-75k (40-50%) growth as a positive and alleviate much of the panic mode of late. While having said that, I also do accept another 10 point fall after earnings if the market takes your angle. But as soon as X ramps up again, it'll likely bounce. Now, you didn't answer my previous question about Powerwall/Pack and M3 being on time for a physical reveal. I believe this will be a bonus and bring shock to investors who have completely forgotten this little piece of important information. After all the media has brushed M3 aside as a mere "picture" while no one is talking about Powerwall/pack contribution to guidance. Perhaps this is the surprise we bulls are betting on. The fact that many have glossed over this is definitely ammo for Bulls.
Last edited:
No, it was projected just three months ago in their Q3 CC
"Elon Reeve Musk - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yeah, I think it's likely that we could be in that 1,600 vehicles to 1,800 vehicles range, per week range, in Q1. I mean, I'm guessing we'll probably be towards the lower-end of that range, but then maybe exceed that, the high-end of that range, towards the end of next year if things go well. I mean, there are some caveats there, depends on what macroeconomic conditions are like around the world next year. But right now, we do see that 1,600 vehicles to 1,800 vehicles per week on average as occurring in Q1."
What I am saying here is, if they guided their production to be at least 16k a week, and they only delivered less than 80k, wouldn't this be them overestimating demand? Of course, less than 80k delivered could be caused by a number of factors like a possible global economy recession that limits people's purchasing power ("some caveats"). But still, based on their latest forecast of their own business, less than 80k deliveries this year is not a win for them.
Oh and for the other stuff (powerpack/wall, M3, etc.), I replied in the other thread... Sorry for the mess up as I thought I answered it. I do think those are all positive news.
"Elon Reeve Musk - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yeah, I think it's likely that we could be in that 1,600 vehicles to 1,800 vehicles range, per week range, in Q1. I mean, I'm guessing we'll probably be towards the lower-end of that range, but then maybe exceed that, the high-end of that range, towards the end of next year if things go well. I mean, there are some caveats there, depends on what macroeconomic conditions are like around the world next year. But right now, we do see that 1,600 vehicles to 1,800 vehicles per week on average as occurring in Q1."
What I am saying here is, if they guided their production to be at least 16k a week, and they only delivered less than 80k, wouldn't this be them overestimating demand? Of course, less than 80k delivered could be caused by a number of factors like a possible global economy recession that limits people's purchasing power ("some caveats"). But still, based on their latest forecast of their own business, less than 80k deliveries this year is not a win for them.
Oh and for the other stuff (powerpack/wall, M3, etc.), I replied in the other thread... Sorry for the mess up as I thought I answered it. I do think those are all positive news.
sundaymorning
Active Member
It depends on how you interpret this bit of data as it was mentioned 3rd Q when X ramp difficulties may not have materialized. With X ramp being slower than expected I don't think we can reasonably assume what Elon stated during Q3 could stick in 2016. But I can see why you are stuck on that number. Tesla has dropped 23% so far, this most likely is indicative of lowered expectations that would yield worse than my now lowered expectation. I cannot reasonably expect more than 40-50%. However, your model of 80k for 2016 equates to 60% based on 2015 sales.. but I now understand what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to pull up the info instead of calling a bull "cheerleading". It's a matter of perspective here and I can see why some may be disappointed if it's under 80k or 60% growth.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
