Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Union Rules?

You don't just tell 2k UAW members in Ohio and Michigan to report to work in Tennessee and Texas.

I didn't say 'tell them'. Logically you'd 'OFFER' them an opportunity to a) be laid off, at which point they could collect unemployment or find themselves another job) or b) be retrained and relocated to assist in the expansion of those other factories.

Most will likely be recalled to closer factories over the next few years.

Or not. Maybe most won't ever see another job in an ICE factory in the next few years as M3 demand decimates its segment and the one just below it.
 
Rather than discussing in the theoretical realm, let's look at a specific example. I'm not really addressing this rant towards vgrinshpun, because he understands what's going on. Rather this rant is for others. When the Q3 delivery numbers came out, TSLA traded horizontally for the better part of the day. Here's the chart:
View attachment 202001

Why? Short sellers saw that TSLA was in danger of climbing above the critical 215 level, just above which resided important technical points such as 50dma and 200dma. Technical experts were saying that if TSLA could climb above these numbers it would go a lot higher. What happened? Here are two choices: longs set sell prices right at the 214 and then later the 213 price points in order to get rid of their stock before it reached 215 and climbed much higher or 2) short sellers sold however much was needed to keep TSLA below 215. Of these choices, only the second one makes sense. So, the shorts sold at 214 and 213. They held the line. The next day's closings were 211, 208, 201, and 196. Why did TSLA descend? Longs were shocked that TSLA could not break 214 and then could not hold its value. Some thought "the people with inside knowledge know something we don't" or "it's that damn SCTY merger screwing up the stock price again." In fact it might have been a little of #1, but there's little evidence to support it was #2. The day after the shorts held the line at 214 and then at 213 they launched a ferocious bear attack right after opening bell. Check out this chart:
View attachment 202004

The short attack is classic. Look at the deep downward plunges followed by immediate near-recoveries. Shorts were selling large blocks, which made for big shares drops, but longs were bidding the stock back to nearly where it was before, shortly after each dip. After numerous deep dips, the longs grew wary and stopped bidding the price back up and the SP fell.

On Oct 5 we saw TSLA plunge in the final hour of trading, as if someone knew that something negative was coming, and the following day Goldman released its negative note on TSLA.
View attachment 202006

So, the patterns are:
* Cap the stock from rising above certain critical technical levels that could induce significant further climbing
* Induce a bear attack in the beginning of the day through large and frequent selling of blocks of stock, then once the downward momentum is rolling, let the run-of-the-mill shorts and the weak longs continue the selling
* Coordinate with FUD and FUD-like analyst recommendations, especially if you know they're coming
* buy back in once the SP is significantly below the selling point
* repeat

And so we saw lots of short selling by the big dog shorts, first in the 213-214 range (Oct 3) and then in the 213-209 range (Oct 4), and the 211-208 (Oct 5). Chances are that many of the big dog shorts reloaded by buying back in throughout this week at lower prices than they sold, but those who held to the end of the week could buy back in at only a bit above 196.

If you ask whether the buying back in negates the effect of the original sale, the answer is a clear no! Once the fear of falling is created, other sellers (small shorts and weak longs) continue the selling, which allows the big dog shorts to buy in at substantially lower prices than they sold. It's all about market psychology and getting the small shorts and the weak longs to join you in pushing the stock down. Do you really doubt that the shorts who held 213-214 on Oct 4 by selling could not slowly buy the needed shares back to cover at prices below their sell-in prices?

O
I don't know how you could fight that aside from setting up an algorithm to trade antagonistically to the constant shorting. One can hope for big news to finally break the 200 SMA, but it doesn't put an end to this behavior, they wont be underwater holding tons of shares short. Every time they're successful they have a little more buying power. It might not be effective in a time of positive sentiment but seems like this practice should be illegal if that is indeed what is going on. Love trading against robots ><
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
Loved him on the way up but now dismiss him, its a good thing "Tripin" Trip is still around.

Ever the optimist, Global Equities Research’s Trip Chowdhry calls Tesla a “Trump stock” thanks to its U.S. manufacturing:
Tesla Motors: Wait, Trump’s Election Win is Good News?

I've never loved either of them. I've been quite clear that my analyst of choice was the one that always did her homework before opening her mouth.
 
I didn't say 'tell them'. Logically you'd 'OFFER' them an opportunity to a) be laid off, at which point they could collect unemployment or find themselves another job) or b) be retrained and relocated to assist in the expansion of those other factories.

Or maybe GM has experience in these matters and knows virtually no one will accept the offer to move when they can collect unemployment and likely get a local job offers later on. The UAW will negotiate hard on their behalf with future expansion for Truck SUV and Crossover capacity. Rehire these guys or face a general strike GM always caves.


Or not. Maybe most won't ever see another job in an ICE factory in the next few years as M3 demand decimates its segment and the one just below it.

Or maybe they will. The Cruze/Sonic factory is not required to make compact and subcompact ICE sedans forever.

But it takes years to retool and reorganize.

Whatever happens Tesla will not have 90% global automotive market share. Or even 90% US automotive market share.

There will be room for others.
 
Trump insider: New administration won't attack renewable energy


Did this get posted yet? Hard to follow this thread lately.

Well, I am curious on timing of the first protest demonstration by Trump supporters:

"During his campaign Trump also promised bring back coal jobs. That could be a tougher task. Even the Trump insider admitted that the candidate might have “oversold what he can do” concerning coal jobs. The closure of coal-fired power plants and the decline in domestically consumed coal has more to do with low natural gas prices than it does with the Environmental Protection Agency, he said."
 
"During his campaign Trump also promised bring back coal jobs. That could be a tougher task. Even the Trump insider admitted that the candidate might have “oversold what he can do” concerning coal jobs. The closure of coal-fired power plants and the decline in domestically consumed coal has more to do with low natural gas prices than it does with the Environmental Protection Agency, he said."

I actually laughed when he first said that he was going to bring back the coal jobs lost to the EPA and clean power plan. Those coal jobs were doomed or long gone before the CPP, based on simple economics and competition from nat gas. What a baffoon I thought, learn a bit about what you're talking about. Then I thought a little more, and it was one of those things that sounds true/logical, but isn't actually true. Coal is declining, regulation often hampers profitability, so therefore, coals decline must be due to regulation. Who cares if that isn't what actually happened, it sounds true! Stephen Colbert would call it Truthiness I think. Then I thought, I wonder if he actually doesn't understand or he is just pandering to the coal states. WV vote for me! I think mostly the latter.
 
Or maybe GM has experience in these matters and knows virtually no one will accept the offer to move when they can collect unemployment and likely get a local job offers later on. The UAW will negotiate hard on their behalf with future expansion for Truck SUV and Crossover capacity. Rehire these guys or face a general strike GM always caves.

Such little faith in you fellow man. All those union workers entirely happy to collect unemployment or stick it to the company they work for via a union that oversteps its bounds and puts the company at risk to the level that nobody has a job. Good call.

Or maybe they will. The Cruze/Sonic factory is not required to make compact and subcompact ICE sedans forever.

But it takes years to retool and reorganize.

Whatever happens Tesla will not have 90% global automotive market share. Or even 90% US automotive market share.

There will be room for others.

Ahahaha! Tesla doesn't need to take 90% of the global automotive market share for GM to be in trouble. Let's remind ourselves just how little GM sales had to drop before they went bankrupt. I'll give you hint: not anywhere near 90%, way less than 50%, even less than 25%, and under 10%.
 
Such little faith in you fellow man. All those union workers entirely happy to collect unemployment or stick it to the company they work for via a union that oversteps its bounds and puts the company at risk to the level that nobody has a job. Good call.



Ahahaha! Tesla doesn't need to take 90% of the global automotive market share for GM to be in trouble. Let's remind ourselves just how little GM sales had to drop before they went bankrupt. I'll give you hint: not anywhere near 90%, way less than 50%, even less than 25%, and under 10%.

Well, if Tesla attracts lots of otherwise pick-up and SUV buyers I'm sure that GM will start worrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.