Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[hobbes]

Your last paragraph is interesting. I'd assign a very high probability (over 90%) to the inclusion of the P100D data and images in the new firmware to laziness/routine and a low probability (less than 10%) to it being suggestive of them redoing a 40/60 thing (starting to put in 100 packs in 90 cars and then offering a "software" upgrade/unlock for a price). If they did redo a 40/60 "hidden" upgrade though it would be a strategy to mitigate Obourning effects way in to the future: create the story/notion that when you buy a Tesla you'll be getting what you're buying plus possibly whatever new stuff they're working on, and this stuff will be made avail to you later, either free or at a price.

I must admit the 10% case had crossed my mind. *IF* (big IF) the actual technology jump was really from 85 to 100 (and masked to look like "just 90"), wouldn´t that point to chemistry features they might want to reveal at a time they choose in the future? Not up to date on the battery tech just WAGing. But don´t want to start rumours based on hardly anything

 

[jesselivenomore]

halleluja!!!

Tesla Motors, Inc. (TSLA) Short Interest - NASDAQ.com

This confirms my posts the past week that the new segment of shorts(agnostic technical traders) and perhaps some long time fundamental shorts have been adding to their position on this bounce. That there has not been a short squeeze but rather an increase in their holdings. We also now know with certainty that at least 4M shares are underwater. If these 4M shares decide to take their loss, it would put pressure on the core 20M+ shares - and with enough pressure trigger an actual short squeeze. Like I have been saying, I estimate that pressure point to be around 220, but may require a catalyst to penetrate. Anyone know if any news is supposed to come out the next couple of weeks?

 

[Johan]

That is the nature of any type of prediction, technical or otherwise. I remember plenty who dismissed any chance of the stock going below 200 recently(bulls), and plenty who even more vehemently dismissed any chance that it would go above 40 before(bears). Both groups justifying their views with fundamental catalysts and value of the company.(many cases using the same metrics!)

The conclusion is not that fundamental analysis itself should either be believed or disbelieved, but rather the value lies in the interpreters. The same is the case for technicals.

Of course this is true, I was merely wondering since if the reasoning behind is technical or value-based. If it's technical it's all meta and not interesting to me as someone interested in the Tesla story. If it's value-based maybe there's some argument that could be interesting to me, if it's technically based the story will only be about the particular patterns being found and how to interpret these.

 

[Johan]

This confirms my posts the past week that the new segment of shorts(agnostic technical traders) and perhaps some long time fundamental shorts have been adding to their position on this bounce. That there has not been a short squeeze but rather an increase in their holdings. We also now know with certainty that at least 5M shares are underwater. If these 5M shares decide to take their loss, it would put pressure on the core 20M+ shares - and with enough pressure trigger an actual short squeeze. Like I have been saying, I estimate that pressure point to be around 220.

Yeah as long as the short interest is level or going up there's no short squeeze going on since that per definition is shorts covering (so short interest would be going down). Unless we're in a "slow rolling squeeze" where, like in a relay race, one short covers thus creating buy pressure pushing the stock higher but another short comes in due to the price increase without news (the part of the price increase created by the covering on the first short) which should make shorting TSLA more attractive. (The inverse of how a bullish investor might say that price falling on now news is a buying opportunity).

 

[Yggdrasill]

Yeah as long as the short interest is level or going up there's no short squeeze going on since that per definition is shorts covering (so short interest would be going down). Unless we're in a "slow rolling squeeze" where, like in a relay race, one short covers thus creating buy pressure pushing the stock higher but another short comes in due to the price increase without news (the part of the price increase created by the covering on the first short) which should make shorting TSLA more attractive. (The inverse of how a bullish investor might say that price falling on now news is a buying opportunity).

If the short interest is increasing, that is putting downward pressure on the share price. Regardless of how the shorts distribute the losses among themselves. In the period Feb 12th to Feb 29th, the share price increased more than $30, despite another 2.5 million "new" shares being dumped into the market. That is *strong*.

 

[TSLAopt]

+1 slow short squeeze from 140 to 208 today.

Anyone know what JB said at the keynote in Canada? Link?

Close, but the 34mm+ short shares measurement is technically from end of trading on Feb 24th when the share price closed at 179 (3 business days later is Feb 29th)...and THIS was BEFORE CITRON, wow! the short squeeze is either just beginning OR better yet it it has not commenced yet and is still loading up (like someone pulling back a slingshot further and further). We will have more info to figure out what's happening now come March 24th when NASDAQ publicizes how many shorts there are in TSLA as of settlement date March 15th (end of trading March 10th, tomorrow).

I will not comment on technicals other than I don't believe in it (I don't know many people who've made much money as a chart technician) to help with trading decisions. I'd rather flip a coin than try to rely on 'technicals' to decide what to do or not do going forward. I consider it financial astrology.
The trap I see for most novice investors/traders is that charts and technicals can SEEM very helpful when telling/illustrating stories of what happened to a stock in the past.
I think we have a more appropriate thread for that stuff (not this one) and prefer that stuff to stay in that thread as much as possible as this thread seems to be getting taken over more and more by so called 'technicians'...the reason is i feel bad for people who haven't traded on 'technicals' before and who may, become victims of poor decisions in my opinion by trying to trade on 'technicals' with TSLA going forward by using this thread for info on their trading decision when there is another thread specifically just for technicals.

 

[madodel]

This is an ALL TIME HIGH for TSLA short interest. I think we just witnessed the mother of all bear traps.

Is everyone going to be able to get one to mount one on their trophy wall? ;-)

 

[Julian Cox]

The computer can totally NOT see "every possible thing" that can happen in a Go game. It is physically impossible to do due to the very large state space. As I said, there are more positions in Go than there are atoms in the Universe. Good luck with that search.

Of course, you're right that Go and driving are different problems, but the significance of this win rests on the fact that the methods AlphaGo used to get to this level are not specific to Go playing. This is a proof-of-concept only, and DeepMind (owned by Google, for those who don't know who they are) will make a big push into domains that have nothing to do with strategy games.

Driving is also not anywhere as complicated as Go. The main differentiating aspect is its real-time nature, but let's remember that most people can drive, whereas only a handful play at Lee Sedol's level. I don't want to push this too far, since again, you're right that the problems are different, but the state-of-the-art in AI today is moving towards general methods, and today's AI win is proof that this is going much better than most people expected.

My trivial 2 cents on this point considering that the Short Term Price is going fine.

Go, Chess, Driving - While it may be true to say that a playing piece could be anywhere on the board or a Model X anywhere on any road or off-road in the world these kinds of problems are very much more bounded and manageable than hyperbole like this would imply owing to the fact that the arrangement of the playing board and the current disposition of the car each and every millisecond is a known starting condition. In the case of Chess there are exactly 18 possible opening moves dictated by the fact that all the pieces are lined at one edge of the board just so. Nothing like anything to the power of 50.

In the case of board game or the car, what move the AI chooses to play the next go (or millisecond) regardless of what happens in the outside world, is relatively limited compared with all the possible options in their respective universe. Just as the game of Go or Chess cannot rearrange the board entirely between moves. In the case of the car it can't hop from the 405 in CA to a dirt road in South Africa in a millisecond. In a millisecond it can just proceed some few centimeters at a maximum in the direction of travel - and then all it can do is pick a steering angle from either no-change to somewhere incrementally closer to fully left or fully right. Choose a torque setting that is either no change or incrementally closer to full acceleration or full regen. Apply a brake setting somewhere between the current setting and incrementally closer to idle or full stopping force. That's it. It does not matter if an asteroid flew past the windshield or nothing out of the ordinary happened at all.

 

[Johan]

My trivial 2 cents on this point considering that the Short Term Price is going fine.

Go, Chess, Driving - While it may be true to say that a playing piece could be anywhere on the board or a Model X anywhere on any road or off-road in the world these kinds of problems are very much more bounded and manageable than hyperbole like this would imply owing to the fact that the arrangement of the playing board and the current disposition of the car each and every millisecond is a known starting condition. In the case of Chess there are exactly 18 possible opening moves dictated by the fact that all the pieces are lined at one edge of the board just so. Nothing like anything to the power of 50.

In the case of board game or the car, what move the AI chooses to play the next go (or millisecond) regardless of what happens in the outside world, is relatively limited compared with all the possible options in their respective universe. Just as the game of Go or Chess cannot rearrange the board entirely between moves. In the case of the car it can't hop from the 405 in CA to a dirt road in South Africa in a millisecond. In a millisecond it can just proceed some few centimeters at a maximum in the direction of travel - and then all it can do is pick a steering angle from either no-change to somewhere incrementally closer to fully left or fully right. Choose a torque setting that is either no change or incrementally closer to full acceleration or full regen. Apply a brake setting somewhere between the current setting and incrementally closer to idle or full stopping force. That's it. It does not matter if an asteroid flew past the windshield or nothing out of the ordinary happened at all.

The problem with this though is that this way of framing it is like saying: human consciousness and high level of intelligence is an emerging phenomenon from basic neurophysiological reactions in the brain. In principle this physiology can be accurately understood and modelled - in principle "made simple". Thus creating consciousness should be simple enough. There's a fallacy in there somewhere.

 

[jesselivenomore]

There is also another thread for fundamentals if you've noticed. Although, I also would not recommend technical analysis in short term trading for novice investors. But that is because I would not recommend short term trading for novice investors, period. The vast majority would be much better off investing long term and would lose money over time doing anything otherwise.

For those who do make money, professionals who trade actively for a living or for a firm, the vast majority of them rely somewhere between moderately to heavily on technicals.

 

[The Blue Owl]

The problem with this though is that this way of framing it is like saying: human consciousness and high level of intelligence is an emerging phenomenon from basic neurophysiological reactions in the brain. In principle this physiology can be accurately understood and modelled - in principle "made simple". Thus creating consciousness should be simple enough. There's a fallacy in there somewhere.

It could be that the fallacy is the assumption that creating consciousness canNOT be simple (by which I mean doable in the next few decades).

(We're in the weeds now as far as this thread is concerned )

 

[jesselivenomore]

My trivial 2 cents on this point considering that the Short Term Price is going fine.

Go, Chess, Driving -

The number of legal positions on a Go board is roughly 2.08×10[SUP]170

[/SUP]There is not currently enough computing power or storage in the world to evaluate all of the possible next moves and simply choose the best path.

Go is perhaps one of, if not the most complex game known to man, not just some board game. It isn't comparable to tic tac toe, or even chess.

The only way an AI could beat a 9 dan master is by forming some of its own logic, there is currently no way for it to simply brute force its way to a win. That is what the excitement in the AI community is about.

 

[The Blue Owl]

The number of legal positions on a Go board is roughly 2.08×10[SUP]170

[/SUP]There is not currently enough computing power or storage in the world to evaluate all of the possible next moves and simply choose the best path.

No need to be so guarded The limitation is not one of technology, but one of thermodynamics. There is not enough energy in the whole universe to enumerate all values from 0 to 10[SUP]170[/SUP].

 

[Hogfighter]

Short interest at 25% of float. This stock is nothing if not polarizing! I wonder how high the price would be if bulls like me would buy the stock instead of options.

 

[jesselivenomore]

No need to be so guarded The limitation is not one of technology, but one of thermodynamics. There is not enough energy in the whole universe to enumerate all values from 0 to 10[SUP]170[/SUP].

Perhaps quantum computers through the power of multiple universes could solve that in the future?

 

[dha]

Short interest at 25% of float.

33% actually.

 

[TSLAopt]

Short interest at 25% of float. This stock is nothing if not polarizing! I wonder how high the price would be if bulls like me would buy the stock instead of options.

When you buy the call options you are indirectly causing the purchase of the delta-equivalent in TSLA shares as the market maker more than likely selling you the call options is hedging with the delta-equivalent of that option.

 

[dakh]

I must admit the 10% case had crossed my mind. *IF* (big IF) the actual technology jump was really from 85 to 100 (and masked to look like "just 90"), wouldn´t that point to chemistry features they might want to reveal at a time they choose in the future? Not up to date on the battery tech just WAGing. But don´t want to start rumours based on hardly anything

Yea technically there might be a case where they would allow more aggressive charge/discharge margins on the same pack after seeing them do well at 90, but most likely it's just that there's one distribution that is getting pushed to all vehicles that has things activated based on what hardware they're working with. Kinda like OS with drivers.

 

[Irishjugg]

There is also another thread for fundamentals if you've noticed. Although, I also would not recommend technical analysis in short term trading for novice investors. But that is because I would not recommend short term trading for novice investors, period. The vast majority would be much better off investing long term and would lose money over time doing anything otherwise.

For those who do make money, professionals who trade actively for a living or for a firm, the vast majority of them rely somewhere between moderately to heavily on technicals.

That's really firm dependant, the firm I work for consider technicals the silly ramblings of traders we make money from. Past performance has nothing to do with future results in the financial markets, so technicals will likely only ever be accurate to the degree that the percentage of market participants in that moment believe in them and act on them. Technicals have the capability of being a self fulfilling prophecy if enough people make the trades that are "suggested" and that's about it.
Note, since they can be self fulfilling, money can be made when they do play out correctly, but it's really a game of having them play out more often than not in order to profit, plus a degree of catching random chance correctly, or accidentally front running news due to consequential timing.

Either way, it's an interesting argument, but they certainly don't actually drive a security on their own in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

No need to be so guarded The limitation is not one of technology, but one of thermodynamics. There is not enough energy in the whole universe to enumerate all values from 0 to 10[SUP]170[/SUP].

I'm not sure, but wouldn't 361 cubits of quantum computer be able to solve for this trivially? I hate/don't really understand quantum mechanics and how they work as a computer, but I'm told they essentially commute everything all at once. (Still, this fits the "currently" test as we aren't capable of quantum computing on any useful scale yet)

 

[hockeythug]

If you guys want to play a little game, a stock market podcast I listen to, "DH Unplugged" with Andrew Horowitz and John C Dvorak, started up their "closest to the pin" contest again recently and the new stock is TSLA. I think you just might win a t-shirt or something like that but it's still fun. Entires close on the 11th and the target price you are guessing is for the 18th.

You have to register but it's free and they don't send spam. I am not affiliated with the podcast.

http://www.dhunplugged.com/dhunplugged-closest-to-the-pin-contest/