I have you read the book 'Dark Pools'? It's all about that. Fascinating book, check it out.
Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market: Scott Patterson: 9780307887184: Amazon.com: Books
-
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 have you read the book 'Dark Pools'? It's all about that. Fascinating book, check it out.
Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market: Scott Patterson: 9780307887184: Amazon.com: Books
Thanks. Haven't read it. But have read articles about it and Michael Lewis has written about this, too. No time now as I'm behind with El-Erian's book that I promised to give a bird's eye review for this thread, although it will probably better fit the long term.
Best.
- - - Updated - - -
Not only is there a problem about markets because of "bots" but nearly half of the states have machine tabulation of ballots with no independent paper trail! A recent article recounts (pun intended) fraud associated with recent primary elections in a variety of states (cf. Victoria Collier, and Ben Psashnik,”Will the 2016 Primaries be Electronically Rigged?, Truthout (28 January 2016 12:18), web. Will the 2016 Primaries Be Electronically Rigged?). They include actual primaries where the outcome was appealed successfully (Santorum won the Iowa primary over the first-reported Romney who gained momentum), and an example where a palpably fraudulent Democratic opponent (who was clearly unqualified), won the Democratic primary but lost the final election in the South Carolina race for the Senate in 2010. In the 2008 and 2012 New Hampshire primaries Rand Paul claimed there were election irregularities in the Republican primary, while Hillary Clinton “miraculously” won over Barack Obama in 2008. I fear that may have happened in the case of Massachusetts recently where Sanders was leading slightly according to exit polls. Shades of Lyndon Johnson who won in Texas by 89 votes; a number were cast by the dead.
Best.
- - - Updated - - -
Not only is there a problem about markets because of "bots" but nearly half of the states have machine tabulation of ballots with no independent paper trail! A recent article recounts (pun intended) fraud associated with recent primary elections in a variety of states (cf. Victoria Collier, and Ben Psashnik,”Will the 2016 Primaries be Electronically Rigged?, Truthout (28 January 2016 12:18), web. Will the 2016 Primaries Be Electronically Rigged?). They include actual primaries where the outcome was appealed successfully (Santorum won the Iowa primary over the first-reported Romney who gained momentum), and an example where a palpably fraudulent Democratic opponent (who was clearly unqualified), won the Democratic primary but lost the final election in the South Carolina race for the Senate in 2010. In the 2008 and 2012 New Hampshire primaries Rand Paul claimed there were election irregularities in the Republican primary, while Hillary Clinton “miraculously” won over Barack Obama in 2008. I fear that may have happened in the case of Massachusetts recently where Sanders was leading slightly according to exit polls. Shades of Lyndon Johnson who won in Texas by 89 votes; a number were cast by the dead.
Last edited:
I agree with Krugerrand that the leap up in value we saw today for TSLA was not directly caused by reaction to Citron's failed short attack, but I do believe that, indirectly, it was greatly facilitated by Citron's failure. Whatever upward push TSLA received today was amplified by the perceived downside vs. upside potential of TSLA after Citron's failed short attack. Shorts and longs alike must recognize that if the market is so quick to shrug off Citron's prediction of TSLA at $100 and resume its upward hike, the downside must be pretty tame for TSLA at the moment while the upside could be immensely lucrative.
Bottom line: we all look at risk vs. reward when making a decision, and Citron's failed short dramatically indicated that the downside doesn't look too bad right now.
Correct. Citron simply disproved its own thesis on sentiment. The short thesis no longer has traction.
$200 today, possible gap-up to $220 on the cards.
Extreme unlikelihood of effective bear action - that theory has been tested, abused and now blunted by Citron.
Background: Model X ramp-fretting losing traction with every delivery, it is now received wisdom that the car is phenomenal (i.e. Tesla is 2 for 2 in launching a massively desirable vehicle product). Broad 'competition' is now conceding Tesla has focused its energies and resources correctly this past decade on the product of the future, nebulous claims of being able to compete on product lacking credibility. Mercedes scrambling to catch up with battery investments 1/10th the target scale of Gigafactory 1 only going to show how far ahead Tesla is with asset allocation of direct relevance to the way the vehicle market will evolve, that plus the incomparable lead with live AutoPilot actually on the roads and gathering millions of miles of resiliency daily. Mass consumer excitement for Model 3 palpable, so-called competitive 'threat' from Bolt faded into irrelevance, Toyota's Hydrogen stuff - just a joke, failed strategy and a 20-year distraction garnering no public interest at all while for the past 13 years Tesla has just sailed past both in technology and brand building.
All anecdotal signs on the Model X thread is that they are accelerating. 90Ds are getting delivery dates in California while P90Ds are humming. European reservation holders are configuring with mid-2106 deliveries. I think we're moving through the fun part of the S-curve.
Gerardf
Active Member
With all the discussion about the number of shares shorted, I had a quick look at the Share ownership. Most of you are very aware of these numbers, but wanted to list them here anyway. :smile:
- Shares held by Institutional holders (Dec 31st 2015) 87,6 M (source Nasdaq site)
- Shares held By Elon Musk 29,6 M (recent SEC filings)
Subtotal owned by these 117 M shares.
Total available TSLA shares on the market: 132M
That leaves 132M -/- 117M = 15M shares for all other share holders.
Currently shares sold Short: 31M.
Maybe some institutional holders decreased their position in Jan / Feb, however the number of shares sold short on Dec 31st was already 27,6M.
So a very significant number of these must be shares borrowed from institutional holders. These institutional holders will be aware of that fact and "not very interested" to sell them before March 31st. At least not at anywhere near the current share price.
Next to that, many weak-longs probably stepped out last month, leaving long-term holders like many here who will not sell before late 2018 (at the earliest) plus also approx. 400k shares held by other Tesla employees. Hmm, that leaves new weak-longs and day-traders. I wonder how many shares they hold and might be willing to sell.
I am relatively new in holding / trading shares, but as I understand this, these shorts are thus basically held hostage by the institutional shareholders and at their mercy during the Model-3 reveal and the few trading days left to it.
Of course, as long as those holding a short position are not on margin or have lots of cash at hand, they might hold their short position a long time betting on some market or TSLA crash, however that is not exactly a nice position to be in with a 20% yearly interest as I see mentioned in this thread.
Other nice & relevant numbers :
Typical days-to-cover short position in 2015: 5 to 9 days.
Trading days left to Model-3 reveal : 17.
- Shares held by Institutional holders (Dec 31st 2015) 87,6 M (source Nasdaq site)
- Shares held By Elon Musk 29,6 M (recent SEC filings)
Subtotal owned by these 117 M shares.
Total available TSLA shares on the market: 132M
That leaves 132M -/- 117M = 15M shares for all other share holders.
Currently shares sold Short: 31M.
Maybe some institutional holders decreased their position in Jan / Feb, however the number of shares sold short on Dec 31st was already 27,6M.
So a very significant number of these must be shares borrowed from institutional holders. These institutional holders will be aware of that fact and "not very interested" to sell them before March 31st. At least not at anywhere near the current share price.
Next to that, many weak-longs probably stepped out last month, leaving long-term holders like many here who will not sell before late 2018 (at the earliest) plus also approx. 400k shares held by other Tesla employees. Hmm, that leaves new weak-longs and day-traders. I wonder how many shares they hold and might be willing to sell.
I am relatively new in holding / trading shares, but as I understand this, these shorts are thus basically held hostage by the institutional shareholders and at their mercy during the Model-3 reveal and the few trading days left to it.
Of course, as long as those holding a short position are not on margin or have lots of cash at hand, they might hold their short position a long time betting on some market or TSLA crash, however that is not exactly a nice position to be in with a 20% yearly interest as I see mentioned in this thread.
Other nice & relevant numbers :
Typical days-to-cover short position in 2015: 5 to 9 days.
Trading days left to Model-3 reveal : 17.
dreamingof3
Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
dreamingof3
Member
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
That would likely increase volatility by attracting more weak hands.
- - - Updated - - -
Now the battle for $200 commences
dreamingof3
Member
My statement was based on more liquidity from an increased base of investors and more shares.
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
More shares for half the price changes nothing. You go from jumps of $10-$20, to jumps of $5-$10. Percentage-wise it will be the same.
I can't wait for TSLA's turn.Just relax. Everything is going exactly as it should.
@Gerardf
Absolutely. The shares in play are a fraction of the shorts in play. Long thesis (batteries, solar, wind and EVs especially EVs augmented with networked intelligence will cross the consumer value for money tipping point attainable by legacy fossil and ICE technology and TSLA is radically the best prepared and positioned to capitalize these unstoppable macro technology trends) is more sound than ever and at the same time proportionately irrelevant. This stock makes gains in the here and now predominantly on the visible collapse of the prevailing short thesis, not directly on cheerful news for the longs. The short thesis has been running on fumes for many months and now it is crumbling into absurdity. Holding this stock short is untenable - can't even hope to justify it on macro concerns, not on Model X concerns, not on competitive concerns, not on fundamental concerns, not on oil price vs demand concerns, not on Gigafactory concerns. Nothing - and these facts are becoming increasingly clear. That is why the stock is gaining - the shorts are losing faith in their own FUD.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
