CorneliusXX
Active Member
Apologies to @Artful Dodger - I was way behind on the thread when I saw @CorneliusXX 's post and did not know you had demolished it so well already. His post was so bad I immediately hit reply which trying to catch up on the thread. Truth is I work for a living and have a life so if I always waited to catch up before replying to something I would never be able to reply. While your post had everything necessary for @CorneliusXX to understand is error, he doesn't get it so I'm giving it another go:
Points in time reference are NOT arbitrary. You happened to choose a point in time that was basically the end of a very long range-bound trading period filled with many significant but underappreciated events and shortly before a number of new significant events. Corporate events such as earnings, new products, acquisitions, patents, new factories coming on line etc. are a thing which is why time reference points are not arbitrary.
I think we can all agree that market prices will fluctuate, even doubling or halving over short periods of time. The question is really whether those fluctuations represent mispricing or not. On that matter you chose to say:
Your analysis above assumes that the price was fairly valued 12 months ago because (you think) Tesla increased in value only 3 to 4 times but the stock price grew much more so you argued that the stock must be mispriced. You were clearly arguing for a massively overpriced stock. Many probably could agree with a much smaller level of overpricing (myself included) but very few on this board could or should agree with your view of massive overpricing. Most of us think TSLA has been dramatically under priced for a very long time and that's why we disagree with you.
I made no claim to whether the stock was mispriced one way or another, only that it is difficult to believe the fundamental value of the company moved the same amount as the stock price over the last year. My argument is that sentiment can drive the stock price wildly in the short term (as seen in the last year) and that should be considered. Regardless of whether it was mispriced last year - the market decided it was worth 10x more from one year to another when it's a hard argument that the fundamentals of the company changed 10x within that same 1 year. If it was wildly undervalued last year due to market sentiment it can be wildly undervalued again due to sentiment. The only reason I used the last year is because it is the most recent contrast between movements in stock price and moves in fundamental valuation. I could have used the prior 5 years and said Tesla 10x revenue while the stock price remained flat. Either case works for the comment on sentiment.
Sadly my comment on the impacts of sentiment seem to have been morphed in misprinting arguments. Congrats on demolishing an argument I didn't make.