Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[darthy001]

The Norwegian Consumer Disputes Commission ruled against Tesla in the missing P85D HP-case • /r/teslamotors

Seems like the commision ruled against Tesla in all of the cases. Might get some media-coverage in Norway at least.

Interesting to see if this is even a blip on the price of TSLA.

Full disclosure, I am one of the people that got a ruling in my favor here.... But I have more invested in the stock than I might get from Tesla..

 

[Papafox]

Never claimed I'm just here purely out of the goodness of my heart, balancing the discussion a bit is just an added bonus. I'm obviously also enjoying myself. I haven't looked much into the Q2 deliveries so I don't really have an opinion on the outcome, but judging by the large misfire last quarter I'm not going to take you guys' word for it.

Since you're not here purely out of the goodness of your heart and you have no positions in either TSLA or SCTY, would you mind sharing with us how much you get paid for your posts? Better yet, who is funding your work?

 

[Perfectlogic]

Since you're not here purely out of the goodness of your heart and you have no positions in either TSLA or SCTY, would you mind sharing with us how much you get paid for your posts? Better yet, who is funding your work?

Why are you so confident I'm getting paid to write here? The amount of conspiracy theories in this place is crazy.

 

[electracity]

I may buy some SCTY just to lend it to the shorts.

I would like to know why most short sellers kept their position when the price dipped.

 

[Papafox]

Why are you so confident I'm getting paid to write here? The amount of conspiracy theories in this place is crazy.

I notice you didn't answer the question ; )

 

[Yggdrasill]

Seems like the commision ruled against Tesla in all of the cases. Might get some media-coverage in Norway at least.

Interesting to see if this is even a blip on the price of TSLA.

Full disclosure, I am one of the people that got a ruling in my favor here.... But I have more invested in the stock than I might get from Tesla..

I guess they'll appeal this one like all the others. Even if they are ruled against in a higher court, it probably won't affect the share price. If we're talking about 500 buyers who might get 6500 USD, that's three million USD. Assuming that equals the drop in market cap, you should expect the share price to go from say 210 to 209.98.

 

[EinSV]

<snip>

I would like to know why most short sellers kept their position when the price dipped.

Hubris

 

[Drax7]

this goodness of your heart stuff is very seductive

 

[darthy001]

I guess they'll appeal this one like all the others. Even if they are ruled against in a higher court, it probably won't affect the share price. If we're talking about 500 buyers who might get 6500 USD, that's three million USD. Assuming that equals the drop in market cap, you should expect the share price to go from say 210 to 209.98.

Hope you are correct on the share price. Its the "caught selling with wrong specs"-angle I worried about. Not the direct monetary loss.

Hope Tesla realize they risk paying much much more if they appeal. Most companies follow the rulings given by the commision according to the stats.

And yes I see the strange position I have put myself in if this ends up having a negative effect

PS! If I get the compensation I will most likely just get the L-upgrade. If they will let me.

 

[Johan]

Hope you are correct on the share price. Its the "caught selling with wrong specs"-angle I worried about. Not the direct monetary loss.

Hope Tesla realize they risk paying much much more if they appeal. Most companies follow the rulings given by the commision according to the stats.

And yes I see the strange position I have put myself in if this ends up having a negative effect

PS! If I get the compensation I will most likely just get the L-upgrade. If they will let me.

If you get the money you should buy TSLA to keep the stock price up!

I read the ruling and here's my view on the gist of it:
- The buyers feels misled, seeing how the car is "missing" >240 horsepowers.
- Tesla claim they never said the car as a whole could produce 691 horsepowers, but that the front motor rating + rear motor rating combined yields 691 hp. They also point to the fact that the car performs as advertised when it comes to acceleration and top speed.
- The commision concludes that the way Tesla marketed the car and presented the horsepower numbers was somewhat misleading and that it is probable that this has influenced a lot of buyers in their decision to pay the incremental cost of the Performance version (P85D) insted of the regular 85D.
- The buyer thought he was entitled to 130k NOK in compensation + Ludacris upgrade.
- The comitte ruled that he should recieve 50k NOK in compensation and in addition not get the L upgrade (partly since it's unclear how many more hp the car would get from this upgrade regardless of how much faster it would accelerate - it certainly wouldn't get anywhere near 240 more hp, and this case was all about the missing horsepowers).

 

[vgrinshpun]

I guess they'll appeal this one like all the others. Even if they are ruled against in a higher court, it probably won't affect the share price. If we're talking about 500 buyers who might get 6500 USD, that's three million USD. Assuming that equals the drop in market cap, you should expect the share price to go from say 210 to 209.98.

What I find interesting is that Norwegian Consumer Commission apparently ruled that although "motor power" is exactly the metric that is used in the Certificate of Conformance, a document required for car registration, but, somehow, can't be used for advertising the car by the manufacturer. In another words, when "motor power" is used in official documentation required for registering the car with authorities, there is no horsepower "missing". But when Tesla is using the same metric to advertise the car, somehow now the horsepower(s) go missing. The whole thing does not make sense..

I hope that they will appeal, but far from sure they will...

 

[Yggdrasill]

Hope you are correct on the share price. Its the "caught selling with wrong specs"-angle I worried about. Not the direct monetary loss.

Well, it's not that they were using the wrong specs, they just didn't communicate the implications of the specs clearly enough. Of course, the newspapers might not care to make that distinction.

Although, my impression is that there is little to no sympathy for the complaintants in the public perception. Mostly they have been viewed as spoiled brats. So the PR hit is likely negligible.

Hope Tesla realize they risk paying much much more if they appeal. Most companies follow the rulings given by the commision according to the stats.

The risk should be pretty low. The judges were split in determining the amount of money, one voted for 2200 USD and two voted for 6000 USD. So somewhere in that area should be fair, assuming Tesla would lose.

 

[darthy001]

What I find interesting is that Norwegian Consumer Commission apparently ruled that although "motor power" is exactly the metric that is used in the Certificate of Conformance, a document required for car registration, but, somehow, can't be used for advertising the car byu the manufacturer. In another words, when "motor power" is used in official documentation required for registering the car with authorities, there is no horsepower "missing". But when Tesla is using the same metric to advertise the car, somehow now the horsepower(s) go missing. The whole thing does not make sense..

I hope that they will appeal, but far from sure they will...

Wrong thread to discuss the details, but the ruling is more or less identical to my objections last year. The commision find it proven that Tesla on purpose used the 700hp-number for all it was worth without explaining that the car came nowhere near delivering it from the battery. Once again we have very consumer-biased laws here. All members of the commision agree even if there was a minority who wanted a lower compensation for the owners.

 

[darthy001]

Well, it's not that they were using the wrong specs, they just didn't communicate the implications of the specs clearly enough. Of course, the newspapers might not care to make that distinction.

Although, my impression is that there is little to no sympathy for the complaintants in the public perception. Mostly they have been viewed as spoiled brats. So the PR hit is likely negligible.
The risk should be pretty low. The judges were split in determining the amount of money, one voted for 2200 USD and two voted for 6000 USD. So somewhere in that area should be fair, assuming Tesla would lose.

Was referring to paying legal fees if they lose in court. In addition to the compensation.

PR-hit was mainly that the newspaper jump at every chance of producing a negative articla with Tesla in the heading...

But enough of me derailing here. Hope it has no effect at all and that I get an underline on my car

 

[darthy001]

If you get the money you should buy TSLA to keep the stock price up!

I read the ruling and here's my view on the gist of it:
- The buyers feels misled, seeing how the car is "missing" >240 horsepowers.
- Tesla claim they never said the car as a whole could produce 691 horsepowers, but that the front motor rating + rear motor rating combined yields 691 hp. They also point to the fact that the car performs as advertised when it comes to acceleration and top speed.
- The commision concludes that the way Tesla marketed the car and presented the horsepower numbers was somewhat misleading and that it is probable that this has influenced a lot of buyers in their decision to pay the incremental cost of the Performance version (P85D) insted of the regular 85D.
- The buyer thought he was entitled to 130k NOK in compensation + Ludacris upgrade.
- The comitte ruled that he should recieve 50k NOK in compensation and in addition not get the L upgrade (partly since it's unclear how many more hp the car would get from this upgrade regardless of how much faster it would accelerate - it certainly wouldn't get anywhere near 240 more hp, and this case was all about the missing horsepowers).

Hehe, the inner child in me really want the underline for my badge more than extra shares no matter what I have some cash ready to buy more stock, but brexxit has gotten me a bit hesitant to put more in any stock at the moment.

 

[Jayjs20]

We say that as the SP just lost 2 dollars as quickly as it gained it.

 

[Johann Koeber]

I didn't notice this posted here. Elon tweated this article:
‘Tesla Solar’ Wants to Be the Apple Store for Electricity

I was unhappy with Elon when he announced the SCTY deal. But when I asked myself why, it was because the SP went down. Had the market applauded and had the SP gone up, I would have been cheering and calling Elon a genius instead of doubting him. As others have said, Elon knows far more about SCTY than we do. If he thinks it can take Tesla from a $700 Billion company to a $1 Trillion company, then I have to trust him. Lord knows I can't wait to make so much money on TSLA that I can retire EARLY!

Regarding the SCTY deal. I have been reading and thinking a lot over this. Result:

We are a bit uncertain about SCTY, their finances and so on.

On the other hand many of us tend to trust Elon to do the right thing.

There are not always right or wrong decisions. A good leader can make good on a decision. He can make the outcome of a decision good (even if it seems bad at first). So the qualification 'good' or 'bad' will be made ex post. In my investment decisions integrity of the CEO is one of the #1 argumments (I am short VW). I trust Elon and his team.

I will vote for the merger.

I am long SCTY and ludicrously long TSLA (meaning > 100 % of my portfolio)

 

[Yggdrasill]

Back on topic:

I definitely don't think a delivery beat is priced in at this point. I think it's for the most part just following the market. If it goes up to say 230 while the markets are flat, then we can talk, but right now I would expect a very nice jump after the delivery numbers are released.

 

[FANGO]

The dumb thing about the horsepower complaint is that horsepower doesn't even really mean anything anyway. It's a pretty useless number and has very little effect on a car's performance except perhaps at very high speeds (and, as noted, the top speed was correctly advertised here).

Also, can we sue ICE manufacturers for delivering cars which only produce their peak horsepower under very specific conditions? At higher altitude they lose horsepower, any time they're not in the peak of the powerband they lose horsepower, etc. etc.

 

[Johan]