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

[UncaNed]

Any guesses what the MMD might be this morning?

Asking for a friend.

 

[SteveG3]

Reminds me of when everyone was downgrading Apple stock a few months ago, and now they’re upgrading

When the 20+ analysts covering Tesla tripled their avg 2019 earnings forecast in the span of a couple of months last fall, that remarkable (possibly unprecedented for a $50 billion market cap company) massive increase got zero, 0, media coverage as far as I am aware of... and somewhere between 0 and 3 upgrades among those 20+ analysts.

I don’t think it’s about reacting on defense to every move in this game so much as realizing how broad, far reaching, and polluting this game is and helping raise a similar scale of public awareness of the game as the scale of the game itself. We don’t have the capacity to rebut all the specific falsehoods everywhere the FUD firehose reaches, but, it may well be able to reach out that widely with the awareness that there is a massive FUD fountain firehosing at all of us.

 

[brian45011]

...The parties agreed to language but have vastly different interpretations of what that language requires. Since a CD is a contract and there must be a "meeting of the minds" for a valid contract, it creates not only a likelihood that the court will have to state what the contract actually requires...

If contra proferentem applies, which side does it work against?

 

[SteveG3]

I pointed out the inconsistencies in his deliveries estimate here:

But the additional numbers you quoted are even more crazy:

• Spak is assuming 21,000 deliveries in Europe, 6,000-7,000 in China and the rest, 24,500-25,500 in North America.
• Alpha Hat has reported (S/3/X) 11,500 deliveries in the U.S. only for January. Let's assume that 9,500 of that are Model 3's. Canada has reported an estimated 4,700 units for January and February - let's assume 4,000 of that are Model 3's.
• This leaves only 11,000-12,000 deliveries in the U.S. in February and March - which period by seasonal pattern carries about 80% of Q1's volume... That's nonsensical.

He appears to be off by about 20k units, which is quite a feat.

(snip...)

Dozens of us here could with lazer precision walk through how extremely improbable that statement is and how widely contrary to what is near ‘certain’ to occur.

Guess that makes us feel a little better.

However, is that an effective response?

Wont we have far more of a constructive impact by raising awareness of the enormous fountain of misinformation polluting public perception of Tesla/TSLA/Musk/TeslaProducts so the public doesn’t unknowingly drinkup/swim in that misinfo sludge rather than trying to chase down and towel off every puddle of polluted rubbish coming out of that fountain?

 

[Fact Checking]

This is a rare post from @Fact Checking that completely misunderstands the facts. China is most definitely considering motor vehicle exports and global vehicle markets as fundamental.

I'm talking about the status quo mainly: China is making a lot of cars, but has exported less than 1 million cars in 2017, most of them with low ASP, while:

• Germany: 5.1 million - most of them exported
• Japan: 8.3 million, most of them exported.

To put it differently, look at the dollar value of Chinese car exports:

Car Exports by Country​

Oops, China isn't even on the top 10 list and car exports by Slovakia, Turkey and Thailand are larger than that of China! China is #20 on the list with just $7b of exports.

If we further look at how huge the Chinese economy is: 12,000 billion dollars, then Chinese car exports are 0.05% of their economy only (!).

Yes, I'm sure they want to change that and want to rise up the ladder of high margin high-tech products, but the point I was trying to make is that China does not have a large legacy ICE car-making export industry at the moment, and is thus much more flexible about restructuring it.

China is perfectly positioned to spearhead the EV transition, without too much collateral damage to their ICE export industries - because they barely have any.

 

[KarenRei]

Still no response from Elon's legal team about an evidentiary hearing.

I love the fact that the SEC wants a chance to prove that, in the negotiations, Elon was required to submit material information for pre-approval. As opposed to all information related to the company, as Musk's attorney was pointing out. Are they on the same planet here? Nobody was disputing the fact that he's required to get material information approved.

 

[anthonyj]

Any guesses what the MMD might be this morning?

Asking for a friend.

No idea, stock is cursed until we hear #s from Tesla. I’ll buy some more at $250

(Guessing bottom today is $254 then we bounce)

Tesla likes to trade in a range of $9-$10 every day. Unless we quickly go green I think $254 would be today’s bottom

 

[xhawk101]

Time for a Pravda update number four!

179 Tesla Headlines: 120 Negative & 28 Positive — #Pravduh About #Tesla | CleanTechnica

 

[MP3Mike]

Next Tuesday will always confuse somebody, it’s clear as mud. Say “Tuesday” or “Tuesday week” or “Tuesday fortnight”.

Well that isn't any clearer than mud. As a native English speaker "Tuesday week" means nothing to me. It is just two random words put together. And "Tuesday fortnight" means Tuesday "14 days from now", but 14 days from now isn't a Tuesday.

As a native English speaker, I actually say next Tuesday to mean 26/3, but I have occasionally heard people give your interpretation too. I'm curious what other people think about this, as it can sometimes cause confusion and I'd like to get a better idea of the consensus. It may be one of those things that's different even in different parts of the UK, let alone other English-speaking countries.

Tuesday and "this Tuesday" mean 3/26, next Tuesday means 4/2...

 

[Pras]

I think a few missteps this quarter is hurting, mostly because we have added more critics as a result of which. First was the price change and resulting erratic response to change back. Then was the store closures and again change back. The whole FSD upgrade pricing change also created confusion for old . Tesla can’t afford to make decisions on the fly.

The issue over misrepresenting demand and delivery numbers is the major FUD but the above points could be avoided.

The biggest elephant in the room is SEC, which is unfortunate. The point is, Tesla and Musk, should avoid fighting unnecessary battles as much as possible. Already you are fighting with SEC and big shorts. You can all disagree but I am fighting some battles for Tesla on Twitter by crossing and neutralizing as much FUD as possible.

Another 6 days to go before we clear the doubts about demand and put this quarter behind us.

 

[Curt Renz]

Electrek - 47 minutes ago: Tesla Model 3 drivers reach over 1 billion electric miles in record time

 

[SteveG3]

No idea, stock is cursed until we hear #s from Tesla. I’ll buy some more at $250

(Guessing bottom today is $254 then we bounce)

It’s not ‘cursed,’ lols.

The stock, the company, Musk, and their products have just seen public perception of them hosed with an enormous fountain of misinformation designed to erode confidence in them for years.

We’re not going to be able to turn the spigot off on that massive misinformation fountain, or counter each molecule of water it shoots out to each person it is directed towards (the whole public!). We can, however, raise awareness of this polluting fountain so people are aware not to bathe in it or drink it up.

Okay, I’ll stop (for now, lols). Maybe there are more of us here who see it similarly and have something to say and/or suggest.

 

[humbaba]

​

As a native English speaker, I actually say next Tuesday to mean 26/3, but I have occasionally heard people give your interpretation too. I'm curious what other people think about this, as it can sometimes cause confusion and I'd like to get a better idea of the consensus. It may be one of those things that's different even in different parts of the UK, let alone other English-speaking countries.

How I learned it was that "next" referred to a day in the following week unless at the week transition boundary. For example, "next Friday" on a Monday would definitely mean the Friday of the following week. That's because "this Friday" is shortened to "Friday".

Where it becomes ambiguous is on week boundaries so on Saturday "next Sunday" is definitely not tomorrow, but "next Monday" probably means a week after the coming Monday.

That said, the usage can definitely be a source of ambiguity and IMO should be avoided. But I, like other native speakers, use the phrase out of habit and so the ambiguity continues.

 

[anthonyj]

It’s not ‘cursed,’ lols.

The stock, the company, Musk, and their products have just seen public perception of them hosed with an enormous fountain of misinformation designed to erode confidence in them for years.

We’re not going to be able to turn the spigot off on that massive misinformation fountain, or counter each molecule of water it shoots out to each person it is directed towards (the whole public!). We can, however, raise awareness of this polluting fountain so people are aware not to bathe in it or drink it up.

Okay, I’ll stop (for now, lols). Maybe there are more of us here who see it similarly and have something to say and/or suggest.

That’s what I mean by cursed, so much FUD.

The misinformation isn’t swaying retail investors though, since Robintrack data is showing that they are buying the dip big time, which means tutes and shorts are causing the downward momentum.

Can someone find out current short interest? Ihor stopped posting

 

[elasalle]

I think a few missteps this quarter is hurting, mostly because we have added more critics as a result of which. First was the price change and resulting erratic response to change back. Then was the store closures and again change back. The whole FSD upgrade pricing change also created confusion for old . Tesla can’t afford to make decisions on the fly.

The issue over misrepresenting demand and delivery numbers is the major FUD but the above points could be avoided.

The biggest elephant in the room is SEC, which is unfortunate. The point is, Tesla and Musk, should avoid fighting unnecessary battles as much as possible. Already you are fighting with SEC and big shorts. You can all disagree but I am fighting some battles for Tesla on Twitter by crossing and neutralizing as much FUD as possible.

Another 6 days to go before we clear the doubts about demand and put this quarter behind us.

TSLA FUD never needed any excuses if Q1 numbers are good, we will hear Q2 will not be and so forth ..
Yup one more week based on distortion, next week back to reality (& we can live with it)

 

[SteveG3]

That’s what I mean by cursed, so much FUD.

The misinformation isn’t swaying retail investors though, since Robintrack data is showing that they are buying the dip big time, which means tutes and shorts are causing the downward momentum

‘cursed’ implies something we have no agency to respond to.

I think we can continue to respond, but far more effectively (details stated several times in the past few pages).

 

[SteveG3]

It’s not ‘cursed,’ lols.

The stock, the company, Musk, and their products have just seen public perception of them hosed with an enormous fountain of misinformation designed to erode confidence in them for years.

We’re not going to be able to turn the spigot off on that massive misinformation fountain, or counter each molecule of water it shoots out to each person it is directed towards (the whole public!). We can, however, raise awareness of this polluting fountain so people are aware not to bathe in it or drink it up.

Okay, I’ll stop (for now, lols). Maybe there are more of us here who see it similarly and have something to say and/or suggest.

@MSMike, curious as to what you disagree with in that post.

 

[sundaymorning]

Tesla analyst cuts Model 3 forecast, now sees bear market in stock ahead

"The brokerage cut its first-quarter Model 3 delivery forecast to 52,500 from 57,000 and slashed its price target to $210 from $245, a 14 percent reduction that implies more than 20 percent downside over the next year.

"We see both 2019 and 2020 revenue as down vs. the 4Q18 run-rate and, given Tesla is priced for growth, believe the valuation will come in," analyst Joseph Spak wrote in a note to clients. "Overall, for 2019 we now forecast about 261,000 Model 3 [deliveries], down from 268,000 prior. Our 2020 forecast of 347,500 remains unchanged."


Spak, who has an underperform rating on Tesla shares, predicts the electric car maker will post an adjusted loss of 64 cents per share, down from a prior estimate of a profit of 68 cents per share.

"Regionally, we assume 21,000 units in Europe, 6,000 to 7,000 in China and the remainder in North America," Spak wrote. "In China, some deliveries were delayed because of a customs issue."

The analyst cited recent price cuts to its popular Model 3 as evidence both of diminished demand and in reducing his earnings outlook.

"Our 2019 Model 3 average selling price is now $53,600, down from $55,500 prior – still stronger in the first half as Tesla fulfills higher-end demand internationally before lower priced models (which carry lower gross margin) kick in," Spak said."

Expectations are quite low.

The NYT doesn’t it again with another hit piece. Most Model 3s were shipped to europe and China in January & Feb., which explains the “low registration” for those two months. They cited a drop in 22 states, well guess what NYT 30,000 are being delivered starting last week in the USA alone, anyone here working for the NYT care to comment?

 

[Fact Checking]

View attachment 390036

Still no response from Elon's legal team about an evidentiary hearing.

I love the fact that the SEC wants a chance to prove that, in the negotiations, Elon was required to submit material information for pre-approval. As opposed to all information, as Musk's attorney was pointing out. Are they on the same planet here? Nobody was disputing the fact that he's required to get material information approved.

Yeah, that's my reading too.

Here's the text form of Crump's letter:

"After reviewing Defendant Elon Musk’s sur-reply memorandum, the SEC maintains that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary because there are no material issues of disputed fact."

"lt is also unnecessary for the Court to consider settlement communications to interpret the clear and unambiguous language of its order. See Red Ball ]nterior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 173 F.3d 481, 484 (Zd Cir. 1999) (plain language of settlement agreement controls absent ambiguity, and “a party cannot create an ambiguity in an otherwise plain agreement merely by urging different interpretations in the litigation.” (internal quotation omitted))."

"However, Musk’s selective omission of certain settlement communications from his submission results in a misleading depiction of the parties’ negotiation of the pre-approval requirement. For that reason, if the Court considers settlement communications to resolve the pending motion, the SEC requests leave to provide the Court with additional written settlement communications that specifically address the clause that requires Musk to submit for pre-approval all written communications that reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or its shareholders"

"The SEC is happy to provide any additional briefing or argument requested by the Court."

"Respectfully submitted,"

"Cheryl Crumpton"​

A couple of notes:

• As I expected the SEC still doesn't want an evidentiary hearing.
• But if the judge relies on Elon's evidence regarding negotiation emails between the SEC and Tesla lawyers, they want to provide more emails.
  
• But ... exactly that is what evidentiary hearings are supposed to sort out. So the SEC's position is, in short: "we want an evidentiary hearing only if we are losing". LOL.
• The exact phrase the SEC uses matters: "the clause that requires Musk to submit for pre-approval all written communications that reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or its shareholders". The actual settlement consent decree contains this phrase: "comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by Tesla, Inc. (the “Company”) regarding (i) the oversight of communications relating to the Company made in any format, including, but not limited to, posts on social media (e.g., Twitter), the Company’s website (e.g., the Company’s blog), press releases, and investor calls, and (ii)the pre-approval of any such written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the Company or its shareholders;"
• I.e. the SEC is again, rather stubbornly, leaving out the part that calls for Tesla to specify what it considers the policy, not the SEC.
• More tellingly the SEC does not dispute that the emails modified the settlement in the direction Elon's team is arguing. Unless they can show other emails that modify it back to the original wording I don't know what "more context" could provide: the final settlement contract did contain the phrasing from Elon's lawyers, so such emails cannot exist ...

To me the SEC's letter seems rather passive-aggressive towards the judge, despite the jovial and seemingly cooperative tone:

• for example if it was helpful to the SEC's case they could have submitted those emails in this letter already ... but didn't,
• the SEC is silent about what it thinks about all the other pieces of evidence Elon's team submitted.

Not in such a hurry the SEC is anymore to resolve this case, is it?

I have the feeling that the SEC is now playing for time and trying to let the market pressure Elon into settling/caving.

I'm curious what Elon's team is going to answer. They'd obviously want all their evidence recognized by the court. They have until midnight tomorrow to file a response.

 

[TrendTrader007]

$tsla analysts+shorts+gullible longs have created a perfect storm of sellers causing not only a triple bottom but a potential SnapBack rally of 70 to 90% off lows similar to 2012 and 2016