-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Yeah, but have the other companies he invested in been any better? Looking at his SPAC deals, chances are that is a no. Unless he left it all in cash (which considering inflation fears is unlikely), then he isn’t that much better off.Just a FYI -
Onetime big Tesla bull Chamath Palihapitiya says he sold his position
Chamath Palihapitiya revealed that he has sold his Tesla position for capital to invest in other investment ideas.www.cnbc.com
Chamath Palihapitiya was lambasted and laughed at on this forum and many places when he sold in late September of 2021.
thesmokingman
Active Member
Auntie Cathie on the move.
ARK Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, ARK Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
www.tesmanian.com
ARK Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, ARK Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
ARK Invest Adds More Tesla TSLA Shares, Taking Advantage of a Rare Opportunity
Ark Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, Ark Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
www.tesmanian.com
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You haven't stopped drinking, right?Auntie Cathie on the move.
ARK Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, ARK Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
ARK Invest Adds More Tesla TSLA Shares, Taking Advantage of a Rare Opportunity
Ark Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, Ark Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
The problem is in the assumption that, if Tesla's PR team responded, their message would be picked up and have the reach necessary to balance against the FUD. The FUD stories are run instantly and often by the decision makers that pick them up off the wire, or wherever their flavor of news comes from.
Anything Tesla released would not be selected to run nearly as often for any of a number of reasons. (if it bleeds, it leads; etc.) Or, if the Tesla release managed to make the cut it would be played down in frequency and in timing for reaching key audiences in comparison to the story it offers a counterpoint for.
Soon after, there would be another salvo or ten of FUD incoming from multiple writers bending every point the Tesla PR team responded on in their factual message.
Think it through. Consider the actual steps the story will take from writing, on out to dissemination of Tesla's facts to the public. Such a comprehensive study should quickly make obvious that Tesla's share of exposure will be equal to the amount of advertising they have purchased, when compared to that purchased by the purveyors of FUD with large advertising expenditures.
Every argument for rebuttal assumes the truth will be sung from the rooftops.
This expectation is complete fantasy and any person deluded enough to expect a level playing field is in denial of how the world actually works.
It is very, very smart for Tesla to avoid offering substantiation of FUD by never responding to it at all.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Wrong answer. Everything "Tesla" is picked up and repeated, including statements from Tesla, and especially statements from Elon, were he to make them. It is very, very stupid for Tesla not to aggressively counter every single bit of FUD put out there. Someone hits you, hit them harder, and twice as often, or more. Eye gouging is allowed, this is war.
We don't need the media to run anything for Tesla. They have a TWTR page. Just put something there. Let people read and decide for themselves.
Weekend OT: As a new Starlink user, I am happy with spacex progress, excited to ditch Comcast(latency is the same), and looking forward to the day when Starlink goes IPO
Excellent points worth bringing back uncle Jack Rickard may he rest in peace... to amplify this point , the numbers i am sure have changed since he wrote this but the motivation is still huge ...here is an excerpt from the following blog
The Tesla Conspiracy… or Am I a Dead Whistleblower? - EVTV LLC
I generally eschew conspiracy theories under the rubric that little explained by conspiracy cannot as well be explained by incompetence and that the occurrence of stupid is vastly more common than the occurrence of evil in the hearts and minds of men. But it is also true that it can only be a...
www.evtv.me
"Currently we are at 100 million barrels of oil used each day worldwide – 20 million here in the U.S. At $55 per barrel, that’s about $5.5 billion per day. That’s another $2 TRILLION world market business. As the percentage of all automobiles that are electric grows, the demand for oil will diminish. Fully 50% of all oil goes to road transport. That is $2.75 billion per day. And for every day that future is delayed, is another $2.75 billion. It would be a $2.75 billion win if the adoption of the electric car could be forestalled for ONE DAY. The incremental growth of the automotive market is as I stated, inevitable and unstoppable. But for every day it is delayed, there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake. Literally the clock is running at $1,909,722 per minute on just that part of oil used by automobiles. And it would be unlikely they would find that beneath them. "
so yeah there is great motivation and huge $$$ at stake to silence Tesla news and amplify FUD ... Elon and Tesla have been at this battle from the start ... I choose to trust they know what they are doing in this regard ... and comparing the facts I learn daily on TMC and what i see on MSM news channels supports what @2daMoon is suggesting.
Agree it is war and radio silence is warranted
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
Given how adamant the shareholders who think Elon is ruining Tesla are, we might have to split Tesla in half. I'll put 100% of my shares with the half Elon gets to run, all the complainers and bellyachers can allocate their shares with the other half! I'll take the current Board of Directors too, the others can elect a new board of their choosing. We will meet back here in 2030 and see how each half fared.
That is a 100% unfair test, according to my read (and remember: I read every last one of this thread's posts, and most all others in the rest of the Investor Sector) of those who decry Mr Musk's 2022 actions. YOU say you get the half that Elon runs....but THEY say Elon isn't running it. So for the test to be appropriate, they'd have to get the Elon-at-the-grindstone-as-it-used-to-be, and you'd get the current setup.Agreed.
Given how adamant the shareholders who think Elon is ruining Tesla are, we might have to split Tesla in half. I'll put 100% of my shares with the half Elon gets to run, all the complainers and bellyachers can allocate their shares with the other half! I'll take the current Board of Directors too, the others can elect a new board of their choosing. We will meet back here in 2030 and see how each half fared.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Agreed. Though some (many?) of the messages placed there will be picked up, twisted, and commented upon negatively, then those stories will be released over a much larger system of "news" channels offering their wider audience a subtle bias toward protecting their entrenched business interests. (at least until the disrupted run out of advertising budget, which will happen eventually)
I do believe that will be the channel of choice for Tesla once Elon develops it into a broad reaching multi-service company. When the time is right the info will be found there first.
Moderators frown on double-posting; the below, however, is not copying from a different thread; rather, it is a recapitulation of what I wrote earlier this week. Instead of stiting by and watching others continue down the Big Conspiracy Road that I have read among the last dozen or so posts directly above, I am going to present for a second time my reasons that a strong PR Department is precisely what Tesla needs - and has needed for some time. As follows, in answering another's question:
Reuters, NYTimes, Bloomberg and all other responsible or heretofore responsible news organizations are accustomed to and, in my strongly deliberated opinion, justified in desiring, a corporation possessing a Public Relations department from which they can receive official information and to which they both can ask questions and request confirmation, clarification or denial of reports they have gathered from other sources. The more public a company - ie, a publicly-owned and -traded one being at the top of the spectrum - and the larger the company, the more essential and valuable such a department is.
I assert one of Mr Musk’s greatest and unforced blunders was to dismiss any nascent PR department Tesla may once have had. He either explicitly or at the least implicitly announced that he personally could function as PR. Of course, for now quite some years he compounded, in my opinion, what already was a terrible misjudgment by shifting essentially all public statements away from what traditionally are called Releases, or even the Tesla blog to which I refer below, toward tweets. I have had to sit on my hands for most of the past ten minutes to refrain from voicing my opinon about that platform; I will say nothing more than that shift coincided with my acknowledgeably tiresome mantra “I Hate Twitter.”
If we revisit the first large public relations problems with which Tesla had to contend - the ”Stalled out on Tesla’s Electric Highway” of February 8, 2013 by John Broder - Tesla responded. At least one response was on Feb 11 from Mr Musk’s Twitter account, and, although a cringing harbinger of what shortly would become that platform’s most infamous words “Fake News” (no, he did not use that specific combination, but it was close enough), it nevertheless was a useless denial of the article and its conclusions. HOWEVER, Tesla did follow up on Feb 19 with a cogent, appropriate rebuttal…BY Mr Musk, ON Tesla’s then active, useful and lamentably long-gone blog. It was effective, to an extent, in that other articles referring to range anxiety did use that communication in their own articles. That response, as well as others Mr Musk provided in those early years, demonstrated conclusively that he can write effectively; that he is not somehow limited by some much-broadcasted developmental impediment about which this thread, especially, has so lamentably often contained responses like "He is who he is. Deal with it."
Now and for many years prior, every responsible article or radio/television news story of importance regarding Tesla has contained a concluding line, almost invariable across each such article, that is - for Tesla and for each of us who cares deeply about the company - a 160dB long whistle blast across the bow of your yacht warning of impending danger: "Tesla did not respond when we reached out for clarification."
Are the news organizations nefarious in disseminating misinformation? Are they complicit with short-sellers? With high-frequency traders? With market makers? With their extant or possible or imaginary advertisers: other automotive companies, the petroleum industry, Wall St? It may or may not be so, but it almost does not matter. Were Tesla to be forthright in responding to news organizations' requests for information, there would be virtually no room for even a nefarious news service to manipulate.
I do not think it overly naive, as it plays directly into answering one of the “What would I be promulgating were I to be sitting on Tesla’s BoD” questions with which I occupy a lot of my investment time.
Reuters, NYTimes, Bloomberg and all other responsible or heretofore responsible news organizations are accustomed to and, in my strongly deliberated opinion, justified in desiring, a corporation possessing a Public Relations department from which they can receive official information and to which they both can ask questions and request confirmation, clarification or denial of reports they have gathered from other sources. The more public a company - ie, a publicly-owned and -traded one being at the top of the spectrum - and the larger the company, the more essential and valuable such a department is.
I assert one of Mr Musk’s greatest and unforced blunders was to dismiss any nascent PR department Tesla may once have had. He either explicitly or at the least implicitly announced that he personally could function as PR. Of course, for now quite some years he compounded, in my opinion, what already was a terrible misjudgment by shifting essentially all public statements away from what traditionally are called Releases, or even the Tesla blog to which I refer below, toward tweets. I have had to sit on my hands for most of the past ten minutes to refrain from voicing my opinon about that platform; I will say nothing more than that shift coincided with my acknowledgeably tiresome mantra “I Hate Twitter.”
If we revisit the first large public relations problems with which Tesla had to contend - the ”Stalled out on Tesla’s Electric Highway” of February 8, 2013 by John Broder - Tesla responded. At least one response was on Feb 11 from Mr Musk’s Twitter account, and, although a cringing harbinger of what shortly would become that platform’s most infamous words “Fake News” (no, he did not use that specific combination, but it was close enough), it nevertheless was a useless denial of the article and its conclusions. HOWEVER, Tesla did follow up on Feb 19 with a cogent, appropriate rebuttal…BY Mr Musk, ON Tesla’s then active, useful and lamentably long-gone blog. It was effective, to an extent, in that other articles referring to range anxiety did use that communication in their own articles. That response, as well as others Mr Musk provided in those early years, demonstrated conclusively that he can write effectively; that he is not somehow limited by some much-broadcasted developmental impediment about which this thread, especially, has so lamentably often contained responses like "He is who he is. Deal with it."
Now and for many years prior, every responsible article or radio/television news story of importance regarding Tesla has contained a concluding line, almost invariable across each such article, that is - for Tesla and for each of us who cares deeply about the company - a 160dB long whistle blast across the bow of your yacht warning of impending danger: "Tesla did not respond when we reached out for clarification."
Are the news organizations nefarious in disseminating misinformation? Are they complicit with short-sellers? With high-frequency traders? With market makers? With their extant or possible or imaginary advertisers: other automotive companies, the petroleum industry, Wall St? It may or may not be so, but it almost does not matter. Were Tesla to be forthright in responding to news organizations' requests for information, there would be virtually no room for even a nefarious news service to manipulate.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Thx. I just wanted to highlight a percentage from one of the funds - so some more buying ahead?Auntie Cathie on the move.
ARK Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, ARK Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
ARK Invest Adds More Tesla TSLA Shares, Taking Advantage of a Rare Opportunity
Ark Invest adds more Tesla shares, taking advantage of a rare opportunity. After Friday's purchase, Ark Innovation ETF owns 3.203 million Tesla shares worth $505.09 million.
@JRP3: HERE is how you will start. You and @Krugerrand will not respond to any of the other's posts at least until after New Year's. Any violation of that earns all other thread participants, and especially the beleaguered Moderators, a vacation from both of you for the rest of the year.
Othermod edit: Audie and I crossed paths here; I just deleted 7 posts that were nothing but bickering, and since we're naming names, @StealthP3D is lower down on the list. --ggr
Othermod edit: Audie and I crossed paths here; I just deleted 7 posts that were nothing but bickering, and since we're naming names, @StealthP3D is lower down on the list. --ggr
Last edited by a moderator:
We can test that easily, is every statement from Tesla or about Tesla from Elon taken up by the media and repeated. Take the tweet:
which was retweeted by Elon. There have been exactly 3 mentions in the press, Clean Technica, Screen Rant and The Edge Markets, none of which would be classed as MSM.
News of the Holiday Update was more widely disseminated. TopGear french edition has a detailed article, but not the English. Yahoo Chinese (Taiwan?), but not in English. Mostly covered by specialist publications, not a single newspaper, general news organisation or broadcaster from what I can see.
I also cannot find much about the Texas powerwall grid service, Yahoo seems to have an article, all other mentions are on specialist sites.
So I don't think everything Tesla is picked up, just those things that support the current narrative
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
