Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Gerardf]

snippiness

FWIW, I think that was a very balanced post and relevant to this thread.
You did a great job in putting, what are also my thoughts, into a post.

 

[dandurston]

I think the "fake Ron Baron rally" comment referred to the fact that the stock did not sustain that price for long. It was more of a blip than a proper rally.

 

[Jayjs20]

I always thought 'last' was better than 'first'

 

[Crowded Mind]

Gotta take a shot!

Edit: Nailed it!

 

[Hogfighter]

If you ain't first, you're last!

 

[Tenable]

First I've heard of this, seems like a great partnership.

CNNMoney Article

 

[mrdoubleb]

Fun fact: same time last year we ended June 15th (per my timezone settings) on page 398, post 7955. Safe to say this was a busy year so far. Oh, and we closed at $250.

Ahh... good times

 

[neroden]

Edit: I think the thesis the shorts are now trying to sell is that TSLA is stuck trading sideways, and we all know that TSLA eventually falls if it can't climb out of sideways trading. Fortunately, I don't think that thesis will prove correct this time.

As a long-termer, my current wild guess is that TSLA trades in a fairly narrow band until they prove that they are actually delivering 400,000 Model 3 per year, at which point the shorts give up and leave.

 

[sub]

Has anyone paid attention and or/tracked when the FUD attacks pick up in intensity? Is it a coincidence that TSLA broke above the 200 and 50 dma and the all out assault started almost immediately? That suspension BS wasn't new, they clearly had been sitting on it waiting to drop it at the right time and it seems other FUD is also "released" anytime TSLA starts to get some upward momentum.

 

[Svetlin]

As a long-termer, my current wild guess is that TSLA trades in a fairly narrow band until they prove that they are actually delivering 400,000 Model 3 per year, at which point the shorts give up and leave.

How narrow of a band are you thinking?

I think there is no way that they remain in the same narrow band (say 200-260, or whatever) until actually delivering 400k a year. There is no good reason why this stock should not trade at least at 5x revenues (currently at 7.75x). They look poised to make $8+ billion in revenue this year, which means $40B market cap, which means new ATH by next February, unless something goes terribly wrong.

 

[JamesTSLA]

page 1000th, yeah!

 

[Papafox]

Sorry I forgot that. I meant it's push up failure rally. It was very bullish for just two days, broke 200ma/50ma with volume, but soon broke down 200ma/50ma/20ma and 215 support since secondary. Technically it's a very disappointed price action. Frankly speaking I was almost fooled by this rally and add calls and shares (@222/218), but I just out of call position this morning with a bit of margin.

As most of us are aware, the big drop from the 235 range happened when the suspension FUD hit the media. While the FUD was successful at causing TSLA to drop, and the drop was complimented with negative macros associated with Brexit, the rally was indeed real in that it raised the TSLA SP substantially. What happened after the run-up was an entirely different issue. If the rally had fizzled without any external help, that would be a fake rally. Such was not the case with the Baron rally, because substantial forces were at work to pull the SP down after the very substantial runup.

 

[JamesTSLA]

As most of us are aware, the big drop from the 235 range happened when the suspension FUD hit the media. While the FUD was successful at causing TSLA to drop, and the drop was complimented with negative macros associated with Brexit, the rally was indeed real in that it raised the TSLA SP substantially. What happened after the run-up was an entirely different issue.

You'd better call two days pop as bull trap instead of rally. There was many sustainable rallies in history which was very profitable for LONGs . If the trend is really strong, TSLA will dismiss negative news and macros. The most recent one is 140-270 run-up, last August-September had 195-270 run-up too regardless the volatile macros.

 

[Papafox]

You'd better call two days pop as bull trap instead of rally. There was many sustainable rallies in history which was very profitable for LONGs . If the trend is really strong, TSLA will dismiss negative news and macros. The most recent one is 140-270 run-up, last August-September had 195-270 run-up too regardless the volatile macros.

Obviously, surprisingly good economic performances from a company will propel it further than a prediction of surprisingly good economic performances. To call a rally a fake because it was later undone by a severe FUD attack and substantial fear with macros would be just as incorrect as calling a paycheck a "fake paycheck" if it was squandered days later and you had nothing to show for it.

 

[madodel]

First I've heard of this, seems like a great partnership.

CNNMoney Article

I guess "Tesla desperate to boost demand. First Nordstrom next the Dollar Store." Looks like tomorrow's Daily Kanban headline. ;-)

 

[neroden]

How narrow of a band are you thinking?

I think there is no way that they remain in the same narrow band (say 200-260, or whatever) until actually delivering 400k a year. There is no good reason why this stock should not trade at least at 5x revenues (currently at 7.75x). They look poised to make $8+ billion in revenue this year, which means $40B market cap, which means new ATH by next February, unless something goes terribly wrong.

Maybe you're right. I've been assuming that revenues will be ignored by the short-sellers and bears, who will say "Tesla is losing $XXX on each car argle-bargle". I figure expenditures will be increasing as fast as revenues for this year and most of the next (more service centers, more superchargers, factory construction, final R&D for Model 3, Tesla Energy R&D, etc. etc.) and so the revenues will be ignored by the market. But I could be wrong.

I really am expecting TSLA to trade in the 200-260 band for a long time. Once it becomes clear to everyone that they really are shipping 500,000 cars per year, profitably, I expect it to *skyrocket* in a fairly short timeframe. But it's possible I'm wrong and that the markets will recognize part of the value before then.

I think we have a bimodal distribution of traders in the market for Tesla. We have people who think Tesla will do very well, and people who think Tesla will do really badly, and both groups are quite sure of themselves. There is basically nobody who thinks Tesla will have *middling* results. The stock will only be pulled one way or the other if there is a significant decrease or increase in the number of people (or amount of money) who are on one side or the other. I don't see most of the bears capitulating until Tesla proves its success by selling ~500,000 cars a year and reporting a profit. Though I suppose they could give up earlier, or a new wave of bulls could enter the stock.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Has anyone paid attention and or/tracked when the FUD attacks pick up in intensity? Is it a coincidence that TSLA broke above the 200 and 50 dma and the all out assault started almost immediately? That suspension BS wasn't new, they clearly had been sitting on it waiting to drop it at the right time and it seems other FUD is also "released" anytime TSLA starts to get some upward momentum.

The first principle of "Fear of loss is felt 2x as happiness from gain" also applies to people who are against Tesla Motors.

FUD intensity picks up when there's a hint of good news, and with good reason: plenty of people are terrified of what might happen if Tesla eventually wins big. Only a few years ago, it was a "sure thing" that Tesla Motors would go out of business. Except that didn't happen. Now nervous shorts, some government officials, and certain elements in the auto industry are pulling out all the dirty tricks they can muster.

In the long run, it won't work for the FUDsters.

 

[MitchJi]

This is either hilarious or sad or both:
Wall Street Journal Runs Ad Trashing WSJ’s Climate Science Denial

Editors at Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ) are about as anti-science they come, but they aren’t anti-money. So for a few extra Hamiltons more than their usual ad rate, the climate science deniers at the WSJ are running an ad calling them out for their denial.

The Partnership for Responsible Growth (PRG), a bipartisan D.C.-based nonprofit that promotes a price on carbon, says that when they originally approached the Journal to run a 12-part ad series, the paper rejected this first ad criticizing the Journal itself. The Washington Post reports, “Journal spokesperson Colleen Schwartz denied that the paper initially rejected the first ad.”

In any case, the Journal ultimately agreed to run all the ads, but charged PRG $36,528 for this first ad, and only $27,309 apiece for the next eight ads. The Journal threw in the last three ads for free. Because.

The ad points out, “If the CEO of the world’s largest oil company accepts the basic physics that humans are heating the climate with excess CO2, why won’t the editorial board of this newspaper? Isn’t it about time?”

The source for the WSJ critique is a new study by Climate Nexus, “How The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section Presents Climate Change,” which concludes:

An analysis of 20 years of the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages on climate shows a consistent pattern that overwhelmingly ignores the science, champions doubt and denial of both the science and effectiveness of action, and leaves readers misinformed about the consensus of science and of the risks of the threat.

The study examined the 201 editorials on the subject of climate change over the past two decades and found “none explicitly acknowledge that fossil fuels cause climate change” and that they generally “echo industry talking points and rhetoric that minimize climate risk and cast doubt on climate science.”

The WSJ opinion pages are so willfully anti-scientific that they not only discredit every single piece published on those pages, they raise questions about the credibility of pretty much everything the journal publishes on any page. If the editors can’t be bothered to fact-check their own work, why would anyone think they are fact-checking anyone else’s?

Indeed a 2015 study of the WSJ’s “news” reporting on climate found “the Journal was less likely than the other newspapers to discuss the threats or impacts of climate change and more likely to frame climate action as ineffective or even harmful.”
<Snip>

 

[MitchJi]

Maybe you're right. I've been assuming that revenues will be ignored by the short-sellers and bears, who will say "Tesla is losing $XXX on each car argle-bargle". I figure expenditures will be increasing as fast as revenues for this year and most of the next (more service centers, more superchargers, factory construction, final R&D for Model 3, Tesla Energy R&D, etc. etc.) and so the revenues will be ignored by the market. But I could be wrong.

Remember that Elon said (bracketed with highly speculative) that TE will be as big in terms of revenues and margins as cars? Even if TE is 25% as big as he thinks cars will be in 2017-2018 , about 250-350k and 500k that will be huge. That's equal to something like 65k-125k cars!

I think that soon that TE will be a better hedge for TM than oil.

The sad thing is that the shorts and trolls are completely clueless, this couldn't happen to a nicer group of people

 

[dmckinstry]

The sad thing is that the shorts and trolls are completely clueless, this couldn't happen to a nicer group of people

Not nicer, more deserving.