Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[ZsoZso]

Why is he saying to her to close the fund? What is he implying she should do?

Because her performance is devastating* to Jim's role..

* reference to the movie Liar Liar

 

[larmor]

This would be true only if the market for car insurance was not competitive.

An example: I called 6 insurance companies for homeowners insurance and 4 for auto, and none in Texas could give rates anywhere near what i was getting in SoCal, including coverage of the MX.

 

[Artful Dodger]

You keep repeating the mistake that "Short Exempt" means "Naked Shorting". It does not. "Short Exempt" is just a trick to violate the uptick rule while pretending not to. I've explained this to you in great detail here and here and other posts too. You really should try to get this right going forward.

I think you're wrong. I think the 'short exempt' justifcation is used to imply that the Market Maker in question does not NEED to check to see if shares are available to borrow before selling short, and that they therefore just mark all their short sales as 'exempt' when the Uptrick Rule is in effect.

The problem with that theory is that they don't mark all short sales as exempt, only 5.8% of them today. And that's volume is enough to knock down the last sale price in the order book enough so that they can then pour in with 20x the number of shorts which would not have been allowable milleseconds before under the uptick rule. Look what happened before 2 pm today. Unexplicable drops, macros steady throughout.

Regarding your 2,000 word essays attempting to lawyer the language of the short exempt reporting, explain in simple terms why FINRA says on their own website regsho.finra.org that if you have questions about short exempt reporting, that you are supposed to call them on the telephone?

Why not explain it on the website? Do they need to know who's asking before they pick an answer? Congress needs to act to fix this, and the millenials on Wall St. Bets aren't waiting until they're too old to fight. This SEC exemption rule has been broken since it was created in 2009 and invites hiding while collar crime. Lot's of lawyering work there.

Next, explain how Tesla's 5:1 stock dividend caused a 100% gain in 14 days without naked short covering. Especially the part about how many brokers of members on this site did not deliver the shares owed to their beneficial owners for 2 days AFTER Tesla rescued those naked short selling brokers with a $5B share offering (as I predicted on Aug 16 that exactly that would happen).

I'll wait. Take your time. But no need for more lawyering language. Straight talk, please.

 

[Singuy]

Model 3 production cut down to 800 a day? If that's true, dosen't sound too bad.

That sounds almost like full capacity given how battery cells are shared between m3 and Y. What kind of a chip shortage that can still keep cars pumping out if Samsung is making zero fsd computers right now?

 

[Tim S]

No, it's not. He's insinuating that the Samsung Fab power outage is having downstream effects. And he's already walking that back. And telling you to take what he's tweeting with a grain of salt. A grain of drama is more what he's pumping.

Agreed. Edited my post.

 

[hacer]

For information purposes: I go all cash every December to force a kinetic decision to choose each and every investment. Yesterday gave me a chance to get back into Tesla and only miss $26 of the presumed future value increase. Out at $675 in December. In at average of $701 for yesterday's buys.

I am where I want to be until next November - December.

If you did that in a taxable account you would guarantee to always have all gains taxed at ordinary income rates. That is a very serious mistake.

 

[MC3OZ]

That sounds almost like full capacity given how battery cells are shared between m3 and Y. What kind of a chip shortage that can still keep cars pumping out if Samsung is making zero fsd computers right now?

I'm also hazy on the situation with Fremont paint shops.

At one stage Model 3/Y/S//X all shared a paint shop.

Model S/X were supposed to move to having their own paint shop?

Sometimes a shutdown in some models might allow Tesla to paint more cars for other models.

Tesla is probably managing their inventory of FSD chips, when the inventory gets lower, higher margin cars get priority.

In the meantime, send Samsung a Megapack pamphlet.

 

[hacer]

Oh really?

So a decade after Tesla showed people how to design and make a modern, desirable EV that appeals to the mainstream, Lucid is going to ramp more quickly in 2022?

Profound insight there.
/s

Actually @RobStark didn't even commit that would be in 2022. What he wrote just said Lucid's first and second years of deliveries would beat Tesla's first and second years. So maybe this will be the case if they slip until 2023 or later. /s

 

[WattsHappening]

thanks guys, so that makes sense, And of fund is closed, she could then leverage the fund and borrow against it. they are sort of annoyed with her for not doing that, or are they annoyed because she can’t be crushed or punished in effect squeezing powerful shorts by stopping a slide on a stock like Tesla? Simply by buying more in public fashion?

if I understand correctly, why the hell would she ever want to become levered and then crushable?

I don't recall hearing anything about suggesting she increase leverage or borrow against the fund. I'm not even sure she CAN do that.

And Cramer is annoyed because she is kicking their butts and announcing her trades daily. She's laying bare all the 'secret' stuff that fund managers like to claim as the reasons why they are so awesome and deserve to be paid millions per year. Basically he is being a whiny b***h.

 

[Big Time]

As the sun rises
I raise a cup
Of coffee to you
Tomorrows green, yup

namaste

 

[heltok]

Bears jumping over rumors of a shutdown. Which is strange given that number of vehicles in the parking lot increased yesterday:
https://twitter.com/davidzhao365/status/1364776307792310277

But it seems Tesla took some downtime on some lines to do maintainance/upgrade that might have been forced due to production stop for Samsung in Texas. And maybe they decided to cut out Model Y SR brecause of this. But it’s not the end of the world to schedule maintenance/upgrades a few weeks earlier than expected and mostly we have heard this one so many times in the past and it didn’t matter back then so why should it matter now.

 

[PeterJA]

Lol, 'Jimmy Chill': Cathie Wood gets the best of these two dino-sours, and she didn't even say a word... Enjoy!

"Jim Cramer on Cathie Wood's latest stock purchases" | CNBC Feb 24, 2021

I'm confused.

1) The 10-year Treasury rate is up by a whopping 0.1%... to yield a gargantuan 1.4%... and this means fund managers should sell stocks growing at hundreds of percent? Because they're risky and the "risk-off" T-bills are so much more attractive at 1.4% than at 1.3%?

2) "Rising interest rates mean inflation." But doesn't that make growth stocks more attractive than investments that get destroyed by inflation, such as fixed-rate bonds?

3) "Inflation could slow the economy." Enough to stop the industrial disruptions that ARK invests in? When such disruptions are accelerated by recessions, according to ARK?

Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I'm thinking these practitioners of the dismal science are emperors with no clothes.

 

[EVWatcher]

I'm confused.

1) The 10-year Treasury rate is up by a whopping 0.1%... to yield a gargantuan 1.4%... and this means fund managers should sell stocks growing at hundreds of percent? Because they're risky and the "risk-off" T-bills are so much more attractive at 1.4% than at 1.3%?

2) "Rising interest rates mean inflation." But doesn't that make growth stocks more attractive than investments that get destroyed by inflation, such as fixed-rate bonds?

3) "Inflation could slow the economy." Enough to stop the industrial disruptions that ARK invests in? When such disruptions are accelerated by recessions, according to ARK?

Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I'm thinking these practitioners of the dismal science are emperors with no clothes.

Cramer is throwing a tantrum because he's rapidly becoming irrelevant AND Cathie is 100x better at her job than he ever pretended to do at his

 

[buttershrimp]

I don't recall hearing anything about suggesting she increase leverage or borrow against the fund. I'm not even sure she CAN do that.

And Cramer is annoyed because she is kicking their butts and announcing her trades daily. She's laying bare all the 'secret' stuff that fund managers like to claim as the reasons why they are so awesome and deserve to be paid millions per year. Basically he is being a whiny b***h.

Ah I meant to clarify that he wanted her to close the fund to investors, but it appears a key advantage of doing so is ability to leverage the fund. Which lead to him musing that she’s not levered and so hard to crush . So I’m thinking, “well duh”.

 

[EVWatcher]

It does pose an interesting question. If the ARK style of investment replaces hedge funds what would the larger effect on the markets be? Is it possible by not be leveraged that this new investing paradigm would reduce the size of market crashes?

 

[buttershrimp]

I'm confused.

1) The 10-year Treasury rate is up by a whopping 0.1%... to yield a gargantuan 1.4%... and this means fund managers should sell stocks growing at hundreds of percent? Because they're risky and the "risk-off" T-bills are so much more attractive at 1.4% than at 1.3%?

2) "Rising interest rates mean inflation." But doesn't that make growth stocks more attractive than investments that get destroyed by inflation, such as fixed-rate bonds?

3) "Inflation could slow the economy." Enough to stop the industrial disruptions that ARK invests in? When such disruptions are accelerated by recessions, according to ARK?

Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I'm thinking these practitioners of the dismal science are emperors with no clothes.

Well I was asking myself same thing and came to conclusion that the 10 yr bond does siphon some money away from stock even the high growth ones, sort of similar to people moving money out of tech and into healing sectors like when carnival cruise starts their new “now with less COVID cruises. Not sure if that’s right but it made sense to me

 

[Singuy]

I'm confused.

1) The 10-year Treasury rate is up by a whopping 0.1%... to yield a gargantuan 1.4%... and this means fund managers should sell stocks growing at hundreds of percent? Because they're risky and the "risk-off" T-bills are so much more attractive at 1.4% than at 1.3%?

2) "Rising interest rates mean inflation." But doesn't that make growth stocks more attractive than investments that get destroyed by inflation, such as fixed-rate bonds?

3) "Inflation could slow the economy." Enough to stop the industrial disruptions that ARK invests in? When such disruptions are accelerated by recessions, according to ARK?

Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I'm thinking these practitioners of the dismal science are emperors with no clothes.

So my thoughts on Ark is conflicted.

So Ark gained most if not all their credibility through their conviction on Tesla, plain and simple. This brings all sorts of problems the market is dealing with currently.

Tesla's rise to fame has caused not only an stock bubble of any company that has the word EVs in any of their description, but also caused all sorts of other stock bubbles ARK decided to invest in that's not Tesla.

So Nano Dimensions is probably a good example that my friend went super bull on after Ark invested in it. I still don't see the appeal, it being a 2-3 billion dollar company now with revenue that's less than some of the people in this forum/year, dropping massively YOY. And also this company had money laundered before..so there are all sorts of red flags. But because Ark invested in it, the stock has done nothing but went to the sky prior to recent pull back.

There was a time when people laughed at Ark, but because of their bet on Tesla paid off big time, people are blindly following Cathie's every call and I can see how this can be a problem...just like all EV related start ups getting multiple billion dollar valuation as if all of a sudden new car companies no longer having less than 10% chance of succeeding. In fact there are EV related companies having multiple billion dollar valuation after uncovered fraud..it's crazy town all thanks to Tesla.

I still think how Ark valuated Tesla is completely speculative because it's based on human ride hailing program Elon is not even enthusiastic about. I see Rob Mauer's model mention it at about never.

 

[S3XY]

Cramer is throwing a tantrum because he's rapidly becoming irrelevant AND Cathie is 100x better at her job than he ever pretended to do at his

And without having to spew FUD to manipulate the market.

 

[buttershrimp]

It does pose an interesting question. If the ARK style of investment replaces hedge funds what would the larger effect on the markets be? Is it possible by not be leveraged that this new investing paradigm would reduce the size of market crashes?

Her type of fund is different and wouldn’t replace hedge funds because they are a different thing altogether. What she does is like running a mutual fund, but when successful, they also can get too big if they don’t close fund to new investors they keep having to buy more and more stock with new investor money, which isn’t a good reason to buy sometimes.

Also, she is hot right now, and popular, and can really screw up a powerful hedge fund firms’s big short of Tesla with her clout and simply by loudly purchasing more. Think of what she’s doing as a smarter more sophisticated way of squeezing shorts than Elon tweeting something in order to celebrity to piss off powerful short sellers. What Cathie is doing is legal and awesome and how it should be. Large hedge funds betting against companies just seems wrong.
Does that sound about right guys?

 

[Buckminster]

The Senate's got a version of the EV tax credit renewal now as well: Merkley introduces bill to extend electric vehicle tax credit for 10 years - KTVZ

This one lifts the per-manufacturer cap entirely and just sunsets after 10 years, and makes the credit available as an upfront discount off the cost of the vehicle. I wonder if we'll ultimately end up somewhere in-between the House GREEN act and this one.

I gave this post a "Love". However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it might not all be good:

1. In 10 years, prices maybe so low that the credit distorts the market in weird ways. Possible race to the bottom where manufacturers chase customers at the expense of quality?
2. Encourages multiple cars per family which is not good for the planet.
3. Will Tesla receive the credit if they keep the vehicle as a robotaxi without ever selling? Again, Tesla should be incentivised to do the best thing for the climate which is a Tesla owned robotaxi imo.
4. Creates a cliff edge in 10 years
5. 10 years is a long time, could the money be better spent elsewhere? I doubt many will be wanting to purchase a gas car in 2031.

None of this changes my overall love for this game changing bill however.