First of all thanks guys. I'm glad to be back.
Ok so it seems like the general consensus I've been reading here is that we have topped out for the time being with few upcoming positive catalysts now that the Model 3 unveil is over, and an underwhelming Q1 report. The general feel seems to be we are in a lull period and many are waiting for price to pull back(220, 200, 180?) to buy. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but this seems accurate?
This view certainly may prove to be true, and it would be the safe call after such a steep run with no pullback. However, I am seeing some signs that point to an alternate outcome. Before I go any further, I'd like to emphasize that whatever evidence I may present, the conclusion is still probabilistic in nature - there is no sure thing when it comes to trading. Back in January when we first approached 200, I presented a contrarian view that saw risk to the downside due to macro conditions. That does not mean I knew we would go to 140, or even that I knew we would go down at all. Just that there was high enough of risk that was not being discounted by the consensus here at the time. Similarly, I see risk that is not being articulated currently - except this time it is to the upside.
Technicals
Let me first say that through my years of trading which have been heavily reliant on technical analysis, the best setups were the seemingly obvious chart patterns that were piled in on by unsuspecting traders, only to result in counter-intuitive outcomes that defy consensus, which leads to a violent reaction. An example would be on 12/29-12/31* when TSLA traded above the 200 day SMA. To many this signaled a breakout to the upside. However, the low volume was the warning sign that hinted otherwise. Around that time I posted in the TA thread that a breakout and all clear signal needs to be accompanied by above average heavy volume for confirmation- which I defined as >5M shares then. This false breakout did not meet that requirement, and on 1/4 when slightly worse than expected deliveries were reported, the reaction to the downside was exacerbated over the following weeks. Obviously there were many other factors that came into play, primarily fearful macro conditions that led to the majority of the decline, but the first red flag was this false breakout that tricked many longs.
*
Back to now, similar false setups have occurred and are currently occurring, but this time for the shorts.
False setup 1
The major breakdown through 180 in early Feb signaled a long-term trend reversal to the downside that caused many shorts to pile in(and some longs to exit). 180 was a significant support level for over 2 years dating to early 2014. Once we traded below that, shorts increased their positions all the way to the bottom at 140 as indicated by short interest reports. As price started to bounce after Q4 ER, I speculated at the time that the rise was not due to short covering, and that indeed shorts would further increase their positions:
It is only natural to do so(and later confirmed by short interest reports). From a long's perspective you do not like chasing a stock high and would rather wait for a dip to buy or add. Similarly, shorts looking to enter or add after the major breakdown through 180 were waiting for a bounce after such a steep decline. The only problem was, this entire setup was a huge false signal.
Forget technicals for a moment and examine what actually happened in the real world. This entire "breakdown" was not due to the stock losing momentum over the years, or company-specific issues(Model X non-launch contributed only slightly- we are still having some issues yet price is 250 now). Rather, it was because the credit environment dried up due to fears over oil related debt defaults. TSLA was particularly affected due to the view that it is dependent on access to the capital markets in order to expand, or perhaps even survive(cash levels were decreasing at $400-600M a quarter at the time). These fears were the primary driving force for the crash to 140. But then came a double-whammy.
First, during Q4 ER Tesla directly addressed these fears by stating a capital raise was not necessary in 2016. This was hugely important and I outlined it as the reason why I reentered my long position at 150 after selling at 220. You have to understand the reason for the fall to appreciate what would make it rise. Now, perhaps Musk was bluffing at the time, but that is irrelevant now. Because what happened next was the oil markets stabilized and have since rallied - which means the credit environment loosening back up and everything went back to normal.(Yellen has also been highly dovish in her statements since then) It was as if the crash was a giant "oops" and none of the fears materialized. Technically it is visualized as a giant hammer reversal candle on the monthly chart** which I also talked about in the TA thread.
**
I know some are averse to TA so I'll just briefly describe what it meant here. Price temporarily spiked down to a certain level, but recovered completely within that same timeframe(monthly) - this usually represents capitulation, but in this case it actually was the visualization of an error in market expectations. Once rectified, It was as if nothing even happened in that month as it closed where it opened.
Except something did happen. The false breakdown sucked in an increase of 5M shares short from 12/31 to 3/31. In fact, even compared to the lows around 2/12 there was still an increase in short interest in the 3/31 update(perhaps it has decreased since the Model 3 launch). This is the reason why it is still relevant now, even though the false setup occurred in the past. It has yet to resolve itself as it's participants are still stuck holding the bag. Compared to the 12/31 example of the false breakout when longs were tricked and exacerbated the ensuing decline, not only has this entire rally not been exacerbated by a short squeeze, short interest has actually increased compared to the lows.
False setup 2
A common technique in TA is something called an analog. This is not some specific chart pattern, but rather when a period of current price action closely resembles some past price action. The idea is that price action is caused/affected by the psyche of buyers and sellers - so similar price action represents a similar state of mind. And since on a broad enough scale human behavior follows certain patterns, this has predictive value. Analogs can occur not just within one stock, but across equities or even cross asset classes. Let's say the price of corn is behaving now identically to how INTC traded in Feb of 1983. That may sound ridiculous. But, consider that the price of both assets are driven by humans looking to make a profit and experiencing gain and loss in real time. If indeed the price action was identical, perhaps the state of the psyche for the buyers/sellers in these two different time periods and assets was similar as well. If so, then there is predictive value in seeing what INTC did in Mar 1983 to gauge what the price of corn will do next. (just a made up example, pls don't trade corn based on this)
So with that said, TSLA is currently in an analog of its own prior price action. Consider these two charts, particularly the shape of the last 4 candles in each chart:
These are not cut and paste, but rather TSLA during two completely separate time periods. They are both weekly charts, the first one from 7/21/14 to 9/8/14 and the second one from 2/15/16 to last week. And this following chart is a full view of the price action after the week of 9/8/14, which yes was the all time high:
Well, that certainly seems ominous.
And since it has yet to play out, it very well might still turn out to be. We will find out very soon. However, I have a theory about how this may be a major false setup, and some possible proof to back it up.
When it comes to TA, it is not black and white when it comes to right or wrong. In fact, what is most important is the logic used in the interpretation. So while there is no argument that the price action in these two periods are damn near identical, my view is that the circumstances and thus the psyche behind the buyers/sellers in these two periods are completely different. Exhibit A:
Short interest throughout TSLA's history has generally ran inverse to price, which makes sense. If you examine the 9/8/14 peak(all time high), you will notice that short interest was at the lows of its historical range. This was also the case during the July 2015 highs. However, look at what is happening now. Short interest is at the top of its historical range while price is also near highs. This runs counter to the past two rallies to this area, and it tells me that the current state of the psyche of the market is vastly different than those prior peaks, including the 9/8/14 analog in question.
Low short interest during the all time highs represents complacency in the market. While current historically high short interest certainly makes a different market dynamic. We've had this discussion in the past regarding a potential short squeeze. I have stated many times during the initial rally off 140 lows that there was no squeeze because most shorts at that time were still profitable on their position. There was no pressure or urgency or pain to force anyone to cover, therefore no squeeze. That is not quite the case anymore at current levels. To tie in a bit with what we just talked about before, the high short interest currently is not even random or premeditated. They were tricked into it by a massive false breakdown highlighted in false setup 1. There are no shorts who entered or added at or near 140-180 who now feel comfortable with their position. This is the key difference in the analog we are looking at.
But of course that is still somewhat speculative. Is there proof to this difference in market psyche? Let us go deeper:
This is the daily chart around the week of 9/8/14 in question. The top of the market and subsequent multi-month decline was triggered 7 trading days following the day of the all time high, on 9/15/14 with a massive day of distribution on heavy volume. What the heck happened to cause this $25(over 9%) fall? A massive earnings miss? A slew of car fires? (if you're wondering, the SPX was down 1 single point on this day, or less than 0.1%)
This was the big news: Caution from a fan sends Tesla shares tumbling
Our friend Adam Jonas who at the time still had a $320 target and 25% implied upside simply expressed some caution over China growth and how much the Gigafactory can cut costs. There was also some good news with a favorable court ruling in MA. That's it.
6 trading days prior to this(the day after all time highs), Elon Musk also mentioned that the stock was "kind of high."
Tesla sinks after Musk's 'kind of high' comment
What does this mean? It highlights the high level of complacency and fragility in share price at the time. There is actually an intraday chart in the first link where you can see how it declined relentlessly without a buyer in sight. The longs were exhausted, and as we know the short interest was at lows so there was no one to come in and cover.
Going back to our ominous looking analog, how does this compare to market psyche now? I have expressed my views on it, but is there anything concrete?
Well, funny thing is that precisely 8 trading days after hitting the recent highs, the Consumer Report's falcon-wing-gate hit, and the stock started to sell off precipitously. You can be sure that this raised my eyebrows yesterday. Was a repeat about to happen? The analog was actually going to playing out?
But then, a curious thing started happening midday - buyers stepped in. This is in stark contrast to how we reacted to bad news during the week of 9/8/14. As a matter of fact, since last night through today, no less than two other publications -WSJ and Forbes- published their own falcon-wing-gate pieces curiously with their own separate anecdotal owners to interview. Almost as if it was.. coordinated or something. I won't go there. But no less, as hard as the market tried to sell TSLA off, we once again found buyers and bounced.
It is very early and perhaps we do still crack eventually. But, from what I have seen so far it is fair evidence that confirms my suspicions. The current market psyche is vastly different compared to 9/8/14. The short interest is on an opposite spectrum, and market reaction to negative news has been night and day. For these reasons this analog is voided in my eyes. Which means, yes, potentially it is a massive false setup.
Just for good measure, Elon Musk also commented on the stock price recently to complete this false analog. Two days prior to the recent high, he cautioned that shorting would be "probably unwise."
Fundamentals
I will keep this brief since there are many here more knowledgeable than me in this area. Just a couple observations.
- The expected capital raise that many are talking about would be a major positive catalyst in my opinion. There are some who fear this because the potential need for raising capital was the primary reason for the crash to 140. The two situations are not at all analogous. The fear at the time was that Tesla may need to raise capital if they run out of cash. In a distressed environment with capital markets closed, it puts Tesla in a very tough bind. The fact that we are discussing a capital raise now is because demand for Model 3 is so high that Tesla needs to grow faster to satisfy it. It is an incredibly enviable position to be in!
As bulls you should know by heart now that TSLA's market capitalization is driven by discounted future cash flows as oppose to current fundamentals. Raising capital to accelerate production ramp increases the future part of the equation, which greatly drives TSLA's valuation. "Dilution" that the bears are hoping for will not(imo), and has never before affected share price in any prior capital raise. In fact every prior raise triggered either temporary or longterm share appreciation. The market understands that the capital is put back into the company to increase future earnings, it is not dumb.
A massive capital raise either through secondary or debt, maybe with partners/investors, would greatly de-risk the company from any future macro disruption, and set up a new and higher benchmark for future cash flow, which would cause current share price to recalibrate.
- The massive Model 3 preorder amount has resulted in a $20 appreciation based on current share price. I get the impression that some feel this "catalyst" is over now, so on to waiting for the next one. IMO this misrepresents how big of a deal it was. As much as we always talk about being "supply constrained", after any quarterly/yearly delivery miss doubts over demand seem to creep into the back of the market's mind. With the Model 3 preorders, while not yet revenue in the bank, it gives tangible evidence for future demand. In fact the narrative has already moved entirely over to questions over production.
One more thing about Model 3 orders is that I have read in many places how this signaled Tesla's arrival to the "mass market" consumer. This is a misnomer IMO. When I stood in line to preorder on the 31st, I did not see any mainstream buyers. Heck, "mainstream" buyers do not preorder anything, much less stand in line for it.
Truth is, the Model S initially didn't just sell to early adopters - specifically, they sold to wealthy early adopters. The Model 3 preorders were a result of a much broader range of everyday early adopters. The mainstream buyer is only now waking up to the concept of an EV or Tesla. Heck he is still half asleep. Wait until 6 months to 1 year after the Model 3 hits the streets before you see mainstream buyers en masse.
This is an important distinction because it further illustrates how big a deal 400k early adopters in the first 2 weeks really is. And is a hint of the eventual total market size. I am not quite sure if share price has totally grasped all that yet in this $20 move up. But it may start to after each passing day.
Conclusion
Wow that was long. So originally I was going to put this post in the short term thread, but it may be too much of a tl;dr for that. So I will start a new thread for this, not because I think my views are so important, but just not to clog things up. I guess this is 2 months worth of my posts put into one to make up for lost time
I do not suggest anyone to trade solely based on this. It is just some things to think about as you form your own decisions. Perhaps we pullback as many suspect, I am not suggesting we won't. However, there is a non-negligible risk to the upside right now based on what I've talked about above that seems under-represented in the current consensus.(believe it or not) So it is a possibility worth considering.
Ok so it seems like the general consensus I've been reading here is that we have topped out for the time being with few upcoming positive catalysts now that the Model 3 unveil is over, and an underwhelming Q1 report. The general feel seems to be we are in a lull period and many are waiting for price to pull back(220, 200, 180?) to buy. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but this seems accurate?
This view certainly may prove to be true, and it would be the safe call after such a steep run with no pullback. However, I am seeing some signs that point to an alternate outcome. Before I go any further, I'd like to emphasize that whatever evidence I may present, the conclusion is still probabilistic in nature - there is no sure thing when it comes to trading. Back in January when we first approached 200, I presented a contrarian view that saw risk to the downside due to macro conditions. That does not mean I knew we would go to 140, or even that I knew we would go down at all. Just that there was high enough of risk that was not being discounted by the consensus here at the time. Similarly, I see risk that is not being articulated currently - except this time it is to the upside.
Technicals
Let me first say that through my years of trading which have been heavily reliant on technical analysis, the best setups were the seemingly obvious chart patterns that were piled in on by unsuspecting traders, only to result in counter-intuitive outcomes that defy consensus, which leads to a violent reaction. An example would be on 12/29-12/31* when TSLA traded above the 200 day SMA. To many this signaled a breakout to the upside. However, the low volume was the warning sign that hinted otherwise. Around that time I posted in the TA thread that a breakout and all clear signal needs to be accompanied by above average heavy volume for confirmation- which I defined as >5M shares then. This false breakout did not meet that requirement, and on 1/4 when slightly worse than expected deliveries were reported, the reaction to the downside was exacerbated over the following weeks. Obviously there were many other factors that came into play, primarily fearful macro conditions that led to the majority of the decline, but the first red flag was this false breakout that tricked many longs.
*
Back to now, similar false setups have occurred and are currently occurring, but this time for the shorts.
False setup 1
The major breakdown through 180 in early Feb signaled a long-term trend reversal to the downside that caused many shorts to pile in(and some longs to exit). 180 was a significant support level for over 2 years dating to early 2014. Once we traded below that, shorts increased their positions all the way to the bottom at 140 as indicated by short interest reports. As price started to bounce after Q4 ER, I speculated at the time that the rise was not due to short covering, and that indeed shorts would further increase their positions:
It is only natural to do so(and later confirmed by short interest reports). From a long's perspective you do not like chasing a stock high and would rather wait for a dip to buy or add. Similarly, shorts looking to enter or add after the major breakdown through 180 were waiting for a bounce after such a steep decline. The only problem was, this entire setup was a huge false signal.
Forget technicals for a moment and examine what actually happened in the real world. This entire "breakdown" was not due to the stock losing momentum over the years, or company-specific issues(Model X non-launch contributed only slightly- we are still having some issues yet price is 250 now). Rather, it was because the credit environment dried up due to fears over oil related debt defaults. TSLA was particularly affected due to the view that it is dependent on access to the capital markets in order to expand, or perhaps even survive(cash levels were decreasing at $400-600M a quarter at the time). These fears were the primary driving force for the crash to 140. But then came a double-whammy.
First, during Q4 ER Tesla directly addressed these fears by stating a capital raise was not necessary in 2016. This was hugely important and I outlined it as the reason why I reentered my long position at 150 after selling at 220. You have to understand the reason for the fall to appreciate what would make it rise. Now, perhaps Musk was bluffing at the time, but that is irrelevant now. Because what happened next was the oil markets stabilized and have since rallied - which means the credit environment loosening back up and everything went back to normal.(Yellen has also been highly dovish in her statements since then) It was as if the crash was a giant "oops" and none of the fears materialized. Technically it is visualized as a giant hammer reversal candle on the monthly chart** which I also talked about in the TA thread.
**
I know some are averse to TA so I'll just briefly describe what it meant here. Price temporarily spiked down to a certain level, but recovered completely within that same timeframe(monthly) - this usually represents capitulation, but in this case it actually was the visualization of an error in market expectations. Once rectified, It was as if nothing even happened in that month as it closed where it opened.
Except something did happen. The false breakdown sucked in an increase of 5M shares short from 12/31 to 3/31. In fact, even compared to the lows around 2/12 there was still an increase in short interest in the 3/31 update(perhaps it has decreased since the Model 3 launch). This is the reason why it is still relevant now, even though the false setup occurred in the past. It has yet to resolve itself as it's participants are still stuck holding the bag. Compared to the 12/31 example of the false breakout when longs were tricked and exacerbated the ensuing decline, not only has this entire rally not been exacerbated by a short squeeze, short interest has actually increased compared to the lows.
False setup 2
A common technique in TA is something called an analog. This is not some specific chart pattern, but rather when a period of current price action closely resembles some past price action. The idea is that price action is caused/affected by the psyche of buyers and sellers - so similar price action represents a similar state of mind. And since on a broad enough scale human behavior follows certain patterns, this has predictive value. Analogs can occur not just within one stock, but across equities or even cross asset classes. Let's say the price of corn is behaving now identically to how INTC traded in Feb of 1983. That may sound ridiculous. But, consider that the price of both assets are driven by humans looking to make a profit and experiencing gain and loss in real time. If indeed the price action was identical, perhaps the state of the psyche for the buyers/sellers in these two different time periods and assets was similar as well. If so, then there is predictive value in seeing what INTC did in Mar 1983 to gauge what the price of corn will do next. (just a made up example, pls don't trade corn based on this)
So with that said, TSLA is currently in an analog of its own prior price action. Consider these two charts, particularly the shape of the last 4 candles in each chart:
These are not cut and paste, but rather TSLA during two completely separate time periods. They are both weekly charts, the first one from 7/21/14 to 9/8/14 and the second one from 2/15/16 to last week. And this following chart is a full view of the price action after the week of 9/8/14, which yes was the all time high:
Well, that certainly seems ominous.
And since it has yet to play out, it very well might still turn out to be. We will find out very soon. However, I have a theory about how this may be a major false setup, and some possible proof to back it up.
When it comes to TA, it is not black and white when it comes to right or wrong. In fact, what is most important is the logic used in the interpretation. So while there is no argument that the price action in these two periods are damn near identical, my view is that the circumstances and thus the psyche behind the buyers/sellers in these two periods are completely different. Exhibit A:
Short interest throughout TSLA's history has generally ran inverse to price, which makes sense. If you examine the 9/8/14 peak(all time high), you will notice that short interest was at the lows of its historical range. This was also the case during the July 2015 highs. However, look at what is happening now. Short interest is at the top of its historical range while price is also near highs. This runs counter to the past two rallies to this area, and it tells me that the current state of the psyche of the market is vastly different than those prior peaks, including the 9/8/14 analog in question.
Low short interest during the all time highs represents complacency in the market. While current historically high short interest certainly makes a different market dynamic. We've had this discussion in the past regarding a potential short squeeze. I have stated many times during the initial rally off 140 lows that there was no squeeze because most shorts at that time were still profitable on their position. There was no pressure or urgency or pain to force anyone to cover, therefore no squeeze. That is not quite the case anymore at current levels. To tie in a bit with what we just talked about before, the high short interest currently is not even random or premeditated. They were tricked into it by a massive false breakdown highlighted in false setup 1. There are no shorts who entered or added at or near 140-180 who now feel comfortable with their position. This is the key difference in the analog we are looking at.
But of course that is still somewhat speculative. Is there proof to this difference in market psyche? Let us go deeper:
This is the daily chart around the week of 9/8/14 in question. The top of the market and subsequent multi-month decline was triggered 7 trading days following the day of the all time high, on 9/15/14 with a massive day of distribution on heavy volume. What the heck happened to cause this $25(over 9%) fall? A massive earnings miss? A slew of car fires? (if you're wondering, the SPX was down 1 single point on this day, or less than 0.1%)
This was the big news: Caution from a fan sends Tesla shares tumbling
Our friend Adam Jonas who at the time still had a $320 target and 25% implied upside simply expressed some caution over China growth and how much the Gigafactory can cut costs. There was also some good news with a favorable court ruling in MA. That's it.
6 trading days prior to this(the day after all time highs), Elon Musk also mentioned that the stock was "kind of high."
Tesla sinks after Musk's 'kind of high' comment
What does this mean? It highlights the high level of complacency and fragility in share price at the time. There is actually an intraday chart in the first link where you can see how it declined relentlessly without a buyer in sight. The longs were exhausted, and as we know the short interest was at lows so there was no one to come in and cover.
Going back to our ominous looking analog, how does this compare to market psyche now? I have expressed my views on it, but is there anything concrete?
Well, funny thing is that precisely 8 trading days after hitting the recent highs, the Consumer Report's falcon-wing-gate hit, and the stock started to sell off precipitously. You can be sure that this raised my eyebrows yesterday. Was a repeat about to happen? The analog was actually going to playing out?
But then, a curious thing started happening midday - buyers stepped in. This is in stark contrast to how we reacted to bad news during the week of 9/8/14. As a matter of fact, since last night through today, no less than two other publications -WSJ and Forbes- published their own falcon-wing-gate pieces curiously with their own separate anecdotal owners to interview. Almost as if it was.. coordinated or something. I won't go there. But no less, as hard as the market tried to sell TSLA off, we once again found buyers and bounced.
It is very early and perhaps we do still crack eventually. But, from what I have seen so far it is fair evidence that confirms my suspicions. The current market psyche is vastly different compared to 9/8/14. The short interest is on an opposite spectrum, and market reaction to negative news has been night and day. For these reasons this analog is voided in my eyes. Which means, yes, potentially it is a massive false setup.
Just for good measure, Elon Musk also commented on the stock price recently to complete this false analog. Two days prior to the recent high, he cautioned that shorting would be "probably unwise."
Fundamentals
I will keep this brief since there are many here more knowledgeable than me in this area. Just a couple observations.
- The expected capital raise that many are talking about would be a major positive catalyst in my opinion. There are some who fear this because the potential need for raising capital was the primary reason for the crash to 140. The two situations are not at all analogous. The fear at the time was that Tesla may need to raise capital if they run out of cash. In a distressed environment with capital markets closed, it puts Tesla in a very tough bind. The fact that we are discussing a capital raise now is because demand for Model 3 is so high that Tesla needs to grow faster to satisfy it. It is an incredibly enviable position to be in!
As bulls you should know by heart now that TSLA's market capitalization is driven by discounted future cash flows as oppose to current fundamentals. Raising capital to accelerate production ramp increases the future part of the equation, which greatly drives TSLA's valuation. "Dilution" that the bears are hoping for will not(imo), and has never before affected share price in any prior capital raise. In fact every prior raise triggered either temporary or longterm share appreciation. The market understands that the capital is put back into the company to increase future earnings, it is not dumb.
A massive capital raise either through secondary or debt, maybe with partners/investors, would greatly de-risk the company from any future macro disruption, and set up a new and higher benchmark for future cash flow, which would cause current share price to recalibrate.
- The massive Model 3 preorder amount has resulted in a $20 appreciation based on current share price. I get the impression that some feel this "catalyst" is over now, so on to waiting for the next one. IMO this misrepresents how big of a deal it was. As much as we always talk about being "supply constrained", after any quarterly/yearly delivery miss doubts over demand seem to creep into the back of the market's mind. With the Model 3 preorders, while not yet revenue in the bank, it gives tangible evidence for future demand. In fact the narrative has already moved entirely over to questions over production.
One more thing about Model 3 orders is that I have read in many places how this signaled Tesla's arrival to the "mass market" consumer. This is a misnomer IMO. When I stood in line to preorder on the 31st, I did not see any mainstream buyers. Heck, "mainstream" buyers do not preorder anything, much less stand in line for it.
Truth is, the Model S initially didn't just sell to early adopters - specifically, they sold to wealthy early adopters. The Model 3 preorders were a result of a much broader range of everyday early adopters. The mainstream buyer is only now waking up to the concept of an EV or Tesla. Heck he is still half asleep. Wait until 6 months to 1 year after the Model 3 hits the streets before you see mainstream buyers en masse.
This is an important distinction because it further illustrates how big a deal 400k early adopters in the first 2 weeks really is. And is a hint of the eventual total market size. I am not quite sure if share price has totally grasped all that yet in this $20 move up. But it may start to after each passing day.
Conclusion
Wow that was long. So originally I was going to put this post in the short term thread, but it may be too much of a tl;dr for that. So I will start a new thread for this, not because I think my views are so important, but just not to clog things up. I guess this is 2 months worth of my posts put into one to make up for lost time
I do not suggest anyone to trade solely based on this. It is just some things to think about as you form your own decisions. Perhaps we pullback as many suspect, I am not suggesting we won't. However, there is a non-negligible risk to the upside right now based on what I've talked about above that seems under-represented in the current consensus.(believe it or not) So it is a possibility worth considering.
Last edited:
