Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Jayjs20]

First trade in AH, 100k went at 196.41.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Well if you consider the fact that EM talked with his cousins and the TSLA board in Feb about the merger, but never mentioned about this until the recent S-4, I doubt everyone feels OK with this and trust him as before.

He was discussing this merger long before this conversation with institutional SH, Fidelity being one of them - it is not what you are making of it.

 

[Calvin.K]

Pre-Owned Model S | Tesla
Tesla has these pre-owned model s's with 14 Day delivery... hmm end of quarter rush delivery?

 

[TMSE]

Well if you consider the fact that EM talked with his cousins and the TSLA board in Feb about the merger, but never mentioned about this until the recent S-4, I doubt everyone feels OK with this and trust him as before.

Is that the only thing that is new in S-4? All other risk factors must have been covered already in the latest 10Qs of each companies.

 

[Papafox]

Tesla to rally 72% on autopilot update, other catalysts: Baird

Ben Kallo has taken the role previously held by Andrea James as lead respected analyst with bullish view of Tesla. Normally, a statement such as his would be spread fairly widely in the broader media, but because we're still wrapping up a down cycle the media is likely to refrain from giving Kallo's words wide dissemination.

Today's short covering was offset by the media replaying of the Chanos warnings and the introduction of the China accident, yet TSLA still closed up slightly. What's needed is for TSLA to close in the green for a few days in a row, recapture 200, and TSLA longs will then have the resolve to not part so easily with their shares when the shorts seek to purchase. The sooner TSLA turns the corner with a streak of positive daily performances, the better.

 

[esk8mw]

Well if you consider the fact that EM talked with his cousins and the TSLA board in Feb about the merger, but never mentioned about this until the recent S-4, I doubt everyone feels OK with this and trust him as before.

I disagree with this. I've sat in on and participated in a lot of public company board meetings. They consider and discuss many scenarios, including buying major competitors, going private, firing half the company's workforce, etc. and the potential impact of doing these things. These types of things should not have to be disclosed to anyone. Boards need to be able to run their business and consider all scenarios without fear of everything becoming public knowledge. Institutions have no right to those early discussions.

 

[Fallenone]

He was discussing this merger long before this conversation with institutional SH, Fidelity being one of them - it is not what you are making of it.

Before Feb this year? Source?

And did he discussed with all institutional holders?

 

[Fallenone]

I disagree with this. I've sat in on and participated in a lot of public company board meetings. They consider and discuss many scenarios, including buying major competitors, going private, firing half the company's workforce, etc. and the potential impact of doing these things. These types of things should not have to be disclosed to anyone. Boards need to be able to run their business and consider all scenarios without fear of everything becoming public knowledge. Institutions have no right to those early discussions.

Yes I understand this. And the process IMO is perfect in any legal way. But imagine you are a big institution holder and bought in the secondary and only learned about they were thinking of this merger way before and not letting you know about it. How do you feel?

 

[esk8mw]

Ben Kallo has taken the role previously held by Andrea James as lead respected analyst with bullish view of Tesla. Normally, a statement such as his would be spread fairly widely in the broader media, but because we're still wrapping up a down cycle the media is likely to refrain from giving Kallo's words wide dissemination.

Today's short covering was offset by the media replaying of the Chanos warnings and the introduction of the China accident, yet TSLA still closed up slightly. What's needed is for TSLA to close in the green for a few days in a row, recapture 200, and TSLA longs will then have the resolve to not part so easily with their shares when the shorts seek to purchase. The sooner TSLA turns the corner to a streak of positive trading, the better.

Yep, all the headlines in my IB news feed are Chanos warning investors that Tesla could be BK soon. If he really believed that he would STFU and let it happen, not have to bleat about it on CNBC. I hope he is the last to cover once this thing heads north.

 

[Fallenone]

Yep, all the headlines in my IB news feed are Chanos warning investors that Tesla could be BK soon. If he really believed that he would STFU and let it happen, not have to bleat about it on CNBC. I hope he is the last to cover once this thing heads north.

I don't know why people even cares about Chanos. Didn't he under-perform the market by about 100% in the past few years?

 

[dha]

Today's volume was the lowest for a September trading session since 2012.

Everybody is a deer in headlights with this stock right now. Meanwhile, there are two tractor-trailers on a collision course:

1) Share recalls / forced covering in advance of SCTY merger vote.

2) Q3 delivery numbers. Don't be surprised if a strong result triggers a cascade of analyst upgrades and upward revisions for Q3 earnings estimates.

 

[esk8mw]

Yes I understand this. And the process IMO is perfect in any legal way. But imagine you are a big institution holder and bought in the secondary and only learned about they were thinking of this merger way before and not letting you know about it. How do you feel?

Being someone that understands how businesses must be run in a public company, I would be totally OK with that. Like I said - if companies had to disclose every scenario it was considering (especially in a FUD target like TSLA) there would be so much volatility in the market it would be crazy. That's why there is a materiality threshold for disclosures.

I would bet a large sum that Tesla considers the following scenarios when developing it's strategic 5 year plan in the boardroom: (i) what if we sold to AAPL/GOOG? 2. what if we merged with GM? 3. what if we scrapped/scaled back future growth plans and focused on luxury autos only? 4. what if we went private? 5. Should we buy Volvo? 6. What if we scrap autos and go full into ride sharing? 7. Should we pull out of China? etc. etc.

All of these things are absolutely prudent to consider and should be done on an annual basis at a minimum. Now, imagine this had to be disclosed to institutions as a part of an equity raise. Could you even IMAGINE the headlines? TSLA would probably hit double digits off the headlines, all because the Board was doing proper diligence. I think investors should be kept even more in the dark given the effect of media and the 24 hour news cycle.

 

[Fallenone]

Being someone that understands how businesses must be run in a public company, I would be totally OK with that. Like I said - if companies had to disclose every scenario it was considering (especially in a FUD target like TSLA) there would be so much volatility in the market it would be crazy. That's why there is a materiality threshold for disclosures.

I would bet a large sum that Tesla considers the following scenarios when developing it's strategic 5 year plan in the boardroom: (i) what if we sold to AAPL/GOOG? 2. what if we merged with GM? 3. what if we scrapped/scaled back future growth plans and focused on luxury autos only? 4. what if we went private? 5. Should we buy Volvo? 6. What if we scrap autos and go full into ride sharing? 7. Should we pull out of China? etc. etc.

All of these things are absolutely prudent to consider and should be done on an annual basis at a minimum. Now, imagine this had to be disclosed to institutions as a part of an equity raise. Could you even IMAGINE the headlines? TSLA would probably hit double digits off the headlines, all because the Board was doing proper diligence. I think investors should be kept even more in the dark given the effect of media and the 24 hour news cycle.

Again, I agree with what you say here. The process is clean and nothing wrong with that. But this doesn't mean everyone would feel OK about it.

 

[BornToFly]

The bias in the Financial articles on Tesla continues to be staggering. No mention of the recent data that shows how much better Tesla vehicles retain their value compared to ICE cars from Mercedes and others. Also a FUD article on Forbes saying that Tesla has 1/10th the number of chargers that are available to Chevy Bolt and others. Never mind that Tesla drivers can use Chargepoint charges too. The reason Superchargers were needed is because Chargepoint chargers are SLOW, are not along Interstates, and often don't work. Who Has The World's Biggest EV Charging Network? Trigger Warning: It Ain't Tesla

Idiots.

 

[stealthology]

I disagree with this. I've sat in on and participated in a lot of public company board meetings. They consider and discuss many scenarios, including buying major competitors, going private, firing half the company's workforce, etc. and the potential impact of doing these things. These types of things should not have to be disclosed to anyone. Boards need to be able to run their business and consider all scenarios without fear of everything becoming public knowledge. Institutions have no right to those early discussions.

It seems as though the board did not even meet in February if this NYT article is to be trusted:
Lawyers Burnish Tesla’s Deal for SolarCity

..this claim of nondisclosure, though, is unlikely to go far. A singular discussion about an acquisition among chief executives without the board being involved is not likely to be enough to establish a disclosure requirement. The securities laws adopt a materiality test to determine whether disclosure is mandated about takeover negotiations. The test looks at the probability of the transaction and the magnitude to determine whether disclosure is necessary.

In this case, although this was a big transaction, the probability of it happening was highly uncertain at that time, with only one discussion having occurred. Tesla’s lawyers sought to highlight this fact by noting in the filing that “this discussion never progressed beyond a high-level, conceptual stage, and no proposal was made at such time” — an important caveat...

 

[Quesder]

The bias in the Financial articles on Tesla continues to be staggering. No mention of the recent data that shows how much better Tesla vehicles retain their value compared to ICE cars from Mercedes and others. Also a FUD article on Forbes saying that Tesla has 1/10th the number of chargers that are available to Chevy Bolt and others. Never mind that Tesla drivers can use Chargepoint charges too. The reason Superchargers were needed is because Chargepoint chargers are SLOW, are not along Interstates, and often don't work. Who Has The World's Biggest EV Charging Network? Trigger Warning: It Ain't Tesla

Idiots.

Let's not be silent anymore. Put comment on this kind of article and tell the other readers that it is a lie.
Wow, especially when the article mentioned TMC in the first paragraph and was kind of judging us.

 

[esk8mw]

It seems as though the board did not even meet in February if this NYT article is to be trusted:
Lawyers Burnish Tesla’s Deal for SolarCity

See, I can't read this stuff without my blood pressure going through the roof. It's infuriating to me how 95% of the media portrays Tesla in the most negative light possible at all times. Total intentional ignorance designed to stoke fear and anger among those who do not understand SEC disclosure rules (that's like 99.9% of people). Anyone with knowledge of how this stuff works knows that a private conversation like this does not require disclosure. Everyone with a tiny bit of knowledge realizes that 10-Q risk factors are 100% bullsugar legalese that every company uses.

And yet, there are plenty of mainstream media sources salivating at the thought of publishing articles questioning these things because it's guaranteed clicks/money. Those writing the articles know that there's nothing underhanded going on but it's very easy to create that appearance.

 

[dirtyofries]

The bias in the Financial articles on Tesla continues to be staggering. No mention of the recent data that shows how much better Tesla vehicles retain their value compared to ICE cars from Mercedes and others. Also a FUD article on Forbes saying that Tesla has 1/10th the number of chargers that are available to Chevy Bolt and others. Never mind that Tesla drivers can use Chargepoint charges too. The reason Superchargers were needed is because Chargepoint chargers are SLOW, are not along Interstates, and often don't work. Who Has The World's Biggest EV Charging Network? Trigger Warning: It Ain't Tesla

Idiots.

Bertel Schmitt - of Daily Kanban.

Usually writes anti-Tesla tripe.

 

[stealthology]

So is it safe to say the Tesla board did not meet in February to discuss this deal? Or maybe I'll just dive into the S-4 and F the media..

This Fortune article makes it sound like the board did in fact meet at the end of Feb to discuss the merger (not my intent to raise anyone's blood pressure :/):
5 Things We Just Learned About the Tesla-SolarCity Deal

 

[Stoneymonster]

Bertel Schmitt - of Daily Kanban.

Usually writes anti-Tesla tripe.

Let's redo the numbers by kiloWatt capacity shall we? That's like saying AOL is the biggest ISP because look at all these 56k modem lines.