On mobile phone also?
SA requiring the app to be downloaded to view articles on mobile phones.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
SA requiring the app to be downloaded to view articles on mobile phones.
Paracelsus
Active Member
"....... with solid support at the strike price of $187.50 which marked a double bottom today. A lift from here could induce much short covering and purchases from longs who have been holding back while awaiting the start of a rise."
Curt -agreed that this could be a point for the rise to occur. And hopefully the double bottom you pointed out today represents much more than that. When I was watching for another entry point to add to my long position almost a couple months ago, PapaFox suggested we might be heading to 180 if we fell through 200, and I wasn't sure why. But after looking at the chart I held out until I finally added yesterday (Thanks for saving me $11/share Papa!). If you take a look at the long term chart (I know....on a short term thread...sorry), and plot a line from the time of Tesla take off around March 15, 2013 at $35 through the low of $151 in Feb 16, 2016 you will see that it creates a support line for $185 on November 18th and the price of $187.5 that you suggested today. We can only wait and see, but it also speaks to the confidence that some have been willing to trade in and out of around this price as a potential new base, and for me (for the moment) it helps explain why the big players might have been willing to wait on the sidelines for so long despite all the good news we have had. Thanks for your insightful comments on this thread.
Curt -agreed that this could be a point for the rise to occur. And hopefully the double bottom you pointed out today represents much more than that. When I was watching for another entry point to add to my long position almost a couple months ago, PapaFox suggested we might be heading to 180 if we fell through 200, and I wasn't sure why. But after looking at the chart I held out until I finally added yesterday (Thanks for saving me $11/share Papa!). If you take a look at the long term chart (I know....on a short term thread...sorry), and plot a line from the time of Tesla take off around March 15, 2013 at $35 through the low of $151 in Feb 16, 2016 you will see that it creates a support line for $185 on November 18th and the price of $187.5 that you suggested today. We can only wait and see, but it also speaks to the confidence that some have been willing to trade in and out of around this price as a potential new base, and for me (for the moment) it helps explain why the big players might have been willing to wait on the sidelines for so long despite all the good news we have had. Thanks for your insightful comments on this thread.
Paracelsus
Active Member
When do you think this will happen, Curt? -- that the media will stop repeating outdated and inaccurate or already addressed FUD? In the three plus years, that I have followed Tesla, I have not seen signs of this stopping anytime soon. On the contrary, the resentful blizzard of FUD, misinfo, and vitriol seems to have been steadily growing, with an apparently coordinated increase in volume and intensity over the last few months. Anti-Tesla FUD-slingers are found in every major media outlet. They tend to echo each other, and have never corrected a single "error" in their statements, to my knowledge. What will cause it to stop? Perhaps, at some point the FUD echo simply becomes ineffective?
I'm surprised that so many people are complaining about the fact the stock is just bouncing around and going nowhere..... This is good trading material for the short term and the big stuff will happen in the long term!
Mike Smith
Active Member
Here's a pretty good Bloomberg piece about Tesla FUD. I think we're reaching a turning point where casual investors are becoming more aware of negative Tesla coverage and will be less affected by it.
The Fake Reporter Targeting Elon Musk
The Fake Reporter Targeting Elon Musk
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Tesla Wins Right to Operate Dealerships in Richmond, Va.
Virginia decision allows auto maker to expand sales locations ahead of Tesla Model 3 launch
By
TIM HIGGINS WSJ
Nov. 30, 2016 5:24 p.m. ET
Tesla Motors Inc., facing opposition from the owners of car dealerships, is now eligible to operate its own stores in Richmond, Va., the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner ruled on Wednesday.
That Virignia decision is supremely good news; go to this thread to learn the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am smackdown of the Commissioner against the VADA lobby's efforts: Tesla allowed to open Richmond VA location
Funny.
So his "reporting" is that he has suspicions and that "I am not able to connect all the dots" - but he didn't even mention two dots that he was trying to connect.
Question: are they making stuff up?
Answer: (long winded) they are expressing negative opinions and reposting negative articles (in other words, no evidence of making things up)
By the way, he uses the phrase "fake op-ed" Isn't an op-ed an opinion piece (vs. a news piece)?
How is he proving that it is a fake opinion?
This is so meta. A negative story about suspicions with no facts about a shadowy group of people who are negative but are not citing any incorrect facts.
This is like dividing by zero.
So their higher sticker price cars with fat margins make them the money to invest in a smaller electric car at accessible prices? Sounds like I heard that business plan before!
You mean it is the reverse of Teslas business plans - GM makes small econobox/electric cars at a loss in order to make gas guzzling high margin monsters.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Their fat margin cars make the money to buy BEV kits from LG to make the minimum required ZEV so they can continue to sell as many fat pollution cars as they can.
Perhaps what he had to say could upset Bloomberg's advertisers. Tesla does no media advertising. Advertising is the lifeblood of the media.
Tesla is going to make money on the smaller, lower priced car, and they are going to build the lower priced car at volume. They aren't just building their small efficient cars at the minimum required numbers to meet regulation, like other companies.
This is the problem -- GM is only building those cars to satisfy regulation. They don't appear to have a business model for actually transitioning away from polluting, low-efficiency ICE products. Their business model is dependent on selling low-efficiency vehicles.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Great to have someone from OZ, corals are very sensitive to fluctuations in temperature. A 1-2 degree difference can ultimately mean disaster. Although 25,000,000 Ozzies would equate to only .0025% of the world's population, this means Australia is absorbing coal at a very astounding pace. Given that the coral reef tourism industry makes up $5 billion of revenue per year for Australia, it can spell disaster to other businesses related to tourism. I hope your prime minister would reconsider as Australia has some of the world's most precious and highly sought after corals.
If Ozzies went 100% green, it would mean a reduction of about .05 - 1 degree to the rise of global temperature, as it stands, every little bit counts helps...
Tesla is not here to make changes overnight, we're hear making progress one car at a time.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Their problem is that the Bolt is not a compelling car.You'd need to be an idiot to choose a Bolt, instead of an M3. GM doesn't even appear to be able to comprehend that simple fact.
Tesla haas raised the bar (thank you Elon!), and a BEV version of a Prius isn't going to cut it now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
