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

[StealthP3D]

A few rules I follow:
1. Diversification, have at least 5 positions, preferably 10
2. Don't use margin
3. In general don't throw good money after bad, the stock that looks cheap could go lower
4. For value investment, give adequate safety margin, assume things could go wrong
5. Use trading profits or dividend to start speculative positions
6. Make plans and follow through, don't invest based on "hope"

Some good rules except for #5 which I strongly disagree with based on the fact that money is money, regardless of how it was acquired. The wisdom of entering highly speculative positions will differ with each investor, their current constraints and other things. But not where the money came from in the first place.

Another common investing misconception:

Whether you sell or not has to do with what you paid for it to begin with. I strongly believe what you paid for an investment is completely irrelevant to the decision and timing of the sale (with the exception of tax implications). But people commonly make up rules that they can only sell once it's worth at least what they paid for it or other such nonsense. Once you own a stock, what you paid for it is not important to you or anyone else, only the likelihood of it going up or down from its present value (and other considerations). What you paid for it and whether it's "in the money" is only meaningful in terms of tax implications.

 

[dqd88]

even mentioned elon’s interest in SpaceX isn’t relevant to bailing out tesla (scty bailout nod)

My takeaway was that Elon could borrow against his substaintial SpaceX equity and pull together another 5-10B to buyout the company. Jonas seemed to think that was a possibiltiy, albeit a small one

 

[Maitri982]

Did anyone see all this TSLAQ drama on twitter?

Bonnie Norman on Twitter

I'm not necessarily one to buy into media bias, but that one sure does look damning. Why would any sane journalist only want input from TSLAQ?

Ross Gerber‏Verified account @GerberKawasaki 3h3 hours ago
Replying to @bonnienorman @BlakeLinton @latimes
I talk to Russ all the time. He wants to write good stories. Tesla doesn’t give reporters the time of day. It’s Teslas fault the narrative has turned so negative.

 

[Fact Checking]

Tesla doesn’t give reporters the time of day. It’s Teslas fault the narrative has turned so negative.

So because Tesla doesn't give reporters the kind of access they expect the narrative has turned negative, and it's Tesla's fault that they refuse to "dance" with the press which betrayed them countless times in the past.

Wow...

 

[KSilver2000]

I think the wink is important. I think there's going to be either a confirmation of guidance (or some positive comment) from Tesla or an Elon stock purchase announcement tomorrow.

Really? C’mon.
Curious to know what you thought when he had similar tweets, such as his duck and goat emoji only tweets? (Did he have a fist emoji at one point? For some reason, I’m thinking it was EM, but could be completely wrong).

If the wink does mean anything, it could only mean either updated guidance or Elon buying shares. I doubt he would know beforehand if someone was going to take a stake in the company and there's definitely no buyout or incoming deal where a company makes a cash infusion into the company since they just raised money on their own.

In yesterday’s news, it was reported Elon added 175,000 shares. But, that’s from options being exercised at $31. So, not really the same commitment/risk as someone buying on the open market at $200.

Smoke signals .. Q1 EM's seemed all calm and confident in twitter and then ...we all know what happened

From the perspective of a TSLA investor, I find it more comforting that he keeps it quiet on the social sphere. (Although, I benefited immensely after his $420 tweet).

 

[ZeApelido]

[Elon winks]

12 hours later:

Russ Mitchell: "Elon promises you will be able to close your eyes safely while driving by end of 2019. He said it. Verbatim quote"

TSLAQ: "Increased Elon twitching, probable undiagnosed neurological condition. Will have to step down from CEO role soon."

 

[Carl Raymond]

This is a clusterfuck circle that WS has created. Damnit. Tesla needs to be private so they can focus on growth.

To repeat. Not one rivet at GF3 has been delayed by the stock slide. Growth continues apace.

 

[Singuy]

If the wink does mean anything, it could only mean either updated guidance or Elon buying shares. I doubt he would know beforehand if someone was going to take a stake in the company and there's definitely no buyout or incoming deal where a company makes a cash infusion into the company since they just raised money on their own.

The overselling of Tesla is causing the elastic band to stretch too thin. Now all the manipulators are sniffing the internet for any possible short squeeze event. Guaranteed next bit of good news and the bounce will be extremely exaggerated. These big fish love super polarizing stocks. The bigger the bull/short thesis, the more money they make. While we squabble between ourselves about how Tesla should be zero or 5000, the manipulators are making money off the backs of weak longs and shorts all day every day.

 

[JohnDinger]

This is a clusterfuck circle that WS has created. Damnit. Tesla needs to be private so they can focus on growth.

How, exactly, has Wall Street created this?

Wall Street is what has funded them with billions so far... 2.8B this month, over 2B in August 2017...

Without Wall Street, the Model 3 wouldn't have existed in 2018.

I'm so sick of seeing people blame Wall Street. This is how capitalism works.

Tesla could end all of this with more transparency. Create a perpetual counter with cars produced, in transit, and delivered.

Tesla's credibility took a serious beating in Q1 after guiding for a profit and cash flow positive at the end of January.

They can regain credibility with more transparency.

Wow, I just checked, anf this guy has blocked me too! I've never interacted with him AFAIK...

Kind of proves the MSM campaign against Tesla...

TSLAQ Twitter has some master block list to make it so that bulls can't report their tweets and get them banned.

Not a bad idea for bulls, either...

 

[Prunesquallor]

So because Tesla doesn't give reporters the kind of access they expect the narrative has turned negative, and it's Tesla's fault that they refuse to "dance" with the press which betrayed them countless times in the past.

Wow...

I think it’s in the Ten Commandments -Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless thou hast been ignored. Then thou canst lie to thy heart’s content.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I agree not advice. However I find myself thinking that he can't be *that* autistic in communicating with the stock market. So I find myself thinking/hoping that he's lying a giant bear trap... we'll see, the only constant is that there's never a dull day with $TSLA

We would know for sure if Tesla 'declines' to provide a Q2 production report in early July. That would send shorts throught the roof. Even though such a report is not legally required, I'm conflicted...

Nope, I'm over it. "Go short'em, boyz! Let the bludz flow in da Street".

3 related points to conclude:

1. We may finally be able to PROVE naked short selling by MMs when short interest EXCEEDS the float in July under that scenario. Bonus point: SEC shook all over.
   
2. I have yet to see an adequate explanation für Telsa taking a $500M write-down on Auto 'buy-back' guarantees. Is that for this program that ended on July 1st, 2016? Tesla-model-s-resale-value-guarantee-ending
   
3. How hypothetical is this write-down? Has Tesla ever taked this charge before? Does Tesla's total exposure to buy-back guarantees even amount to $500M? Could this write down be revised to affect the P/L statement? Would this be retroactive? And would this burn?

Inquiring minds want to know. Help a brother out.

Cheers!

 

[Maitri982]

So because Tesla doesn't give reporters the kind of access they expect the narrative has turned negative, and it's Tesla's fault that they refuse to "dance" with the press which betrayed them countless times in the past.

Wow...

It is what it is. Reporters (and analysts) can be like pouting, whiny babies who when they don't get their way will throw a tantrum.

So you can choose to ignore that or play the game that everyone else plays. Up to you, but them there are the rules for better or worse.

 

[Driver Dave]

A best example of the worst type of journalism today:

Report: Tesla’s new Autopilot feature is dumber than human drivers

Regurgitate a poorly researched article from another magazine and slap a click bait headline on it.


I have yet to see any media source actually go out and report on what's going on.

More and more Teslas on the road.

More and more drivers moving from gas cars to EVs, and never looking back.

The actual real story is actually really amazing, happening right now, yet you read and see nothing about it.

 

[Mike Smith]

Really? C’mon.
Curious to know what you thought when he had similar tweets, such as his duck and goat emoji only tweets? (Did he have a fist emoji at one point? For some reason, I’m thinking it was EM, but could be completely wrong).

I don't know about the duck and goat emojis, but TSLA wasn't tanking at that time anyway. He knows his investors are hurting badly right now and that they're all looking at his twitter feed. I think he's smart enough to know how a wink would be taken right now.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

TSLAQ Twitter has some master block list to make it so that bulls can't report their tweets and get them banned.

Not a bad idea for bulls, either...

Sure, just kinda weird to see an LA Times journalist covering Tesla using it

 

[JohnDinger]

Sure, just kinda weird to see an LA Times journalist covering Tesla using it

Twitter algorithms autobanned him a few months ago. He thought it was a coordinated attack by bulls in retaliation for his repair times story.

 

[StealthP3D]

The market doesn’t really care whether a company is saving the planet. It only cares whether the company is making money.

That's not correct, there are plenty of examples of the market rewarding companies that were not making money (TSLA for one). Even at ~$200/share, the market is rewarding TSLA (not for making money but for the potential future profits). $200/share is 7X-8X what it was a few years ago and they still haven't made a sustainable profit.

Tesla is not a non-profit.

Well, it's not a non-profit by design...

Tesla doesn't need big profits to have a high valuation, they just need to be mostly self-sustaining and to keep the growth story alive (by continually growing and expanding, in a similar way to what we have seen over the previous 8 years). With a story like this, $200/share is not much different from $400/share. Everyone is simply guessing. It's an approximation. It could go back to $150 before it goes back to $400. This is the nature of disruption, it's never smooth and predictable.

 

[N5329K]

Maybe if you're completely relying on NoA to do all the driving for you. But both Tesla and the maker of this video state that this is only an advanced driver assistance system.

Rather, than allowing NoA to completely drive for you, NoA is simply an assistant to help the driver to be more vigilant in maintaining situational awareness of everything going on while driving. The driver should be prepared to take over at any given moment.

OK, but (and with apologies for being way OT), good design means (to me) understanding and being tolerant of how people will actually use your product (sometimes imperfectly). Bad design is saying "Use only as directed and if you don't, tough." This is even more important when your misuse of a product can harm someone else.
Now, back to the bloodbath,
Robin

 

[StealthP3D]

If this doesn't happen right away, many shareholders will suffer permanently, especially those who used margin at much higher level.

The last thing we need is for TSLA to plan their business moves based upon someone who unwisely used margin to buy shares they couldn't afford!

 

[TradingInvest]

Some good rules except for #5 which I strongly disagree with based on the fact that money is money, regardless of how it was acquired. The wisdom of entering highly speculative positions will differ with each investor, their current constraints and other things. But not where the money came from in the first place.

Another common investing misconception:

Whether you sell or not has to do with what you paid for it to begin with. I strongly believe what you paid for an investment is completely irrelevant to the decision and timing of the sale (with the exception of tax implications). But people commonly make up rules that they can only sell once it's worth at least what they paid for it or other such nonsense. Once you own a stock, what you paid for it is not important to you or anyone else, only the likelihood of it going up or down from its present value (and other considerations). What you paid for it and whether it's "in the money" is only meaningful in terms of tax implications.

The most important rule is actually "Don't lose money". My rule #5 is designed to force me to obey this rule. It's automatically limiting the speculation size. Otherwise it's easy to think XYZ is a sure thing, many fold coming... then I invest heavily into this "sure thing", turns out there is no sure thing especially for speculative investment.