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

[LN1_Casey]

Tesla price target raised to $370 from $270 at Wedbush TSLA - The Fly

About $100-$200 short there.

 

[skivi]

The bullcase is way higher, wait and see approach.

 

[humbaba]

@humbaba
Are you sure? Could there be a way to force their hand?
(Does this need it’s own investment thread?)
The “going private” upset a lot of folks, as everyone would be ?”cashed?” Out but longs might get some kind of restricted shares with minimal trading possibilities in non margin accounts

Could the be (a real “pain in the arse to do and irritating to all) forced “ conversion” of one kind of TSLA shares to another kind, “non shortable”, to sweep out those pesky shorts.

This seems to be discussed from time to time, but brainiacs somewhere have done decision trees of “if this then that” and pruned the bad branches.
Put some AI’s to thinking about it, present results, recurse the results to eliminate “oopsies”, some simulations and present.
Is this doable or a 420 pipe dream?
(Got another 2 shares, 1 at a time Monday and Tuesday at $420.soixante-neuf)

Another short manipulated stock, Overstock, tried to force the shorts out by introducing a "digital dividend" -- results were mixed: it did appear to trigger a short squeeze but it also attracted the attention of the Shortseller Enrichment Commission. However, I remain unconvinced that any instrument of that nature will not be circumvented. It is hard to imagine the SEC sitting idly by while "investors" were being forced out of a stock. Indeed, Overstock ended up changing the rules to allow shorts -- I mean investors -- to trade in the originally untradeable digital dividend.

If it weren't for the Shortseller Enrichment Commission at least one of the shadowy "investors" would have to come out into the light in order to file a lawsuit, but the SEC is fulfilling its purpose.

Overstock founder tried to squeeze short sellers, then sold out when the SEC cracked down

 

[Unpilot]

About $100-$200 short there.

I had little respect for most "analyst's" before ....but man these guy's are either slow, dim-witted, or just trying to do an impossible job.

 

[Unpilot]

I had little respect for most "analyst's" before ....but man these guy's are either slow, dim-witted, or just trying to do an impossible job.

From that article linked:
"However, he's still taking a "wait and see approach to see how sustainable this level of demand/profitability is going forward" before becoming more constructive on Tesla shares."

Yep a sure fire way to make your client's money.

 

[LN1_Casey]

From that article linked:
"However, he's still taking a "wait and see approach to see how sustainable this level of demand/profitability is going forward" before becoming more constructive on Tesla shares."

Yep a sure fire way to make your client's money.

They’ll probably be still saying that as the SP hits $800.

 

[winfield100]

Another short manipulated stock, Overstock, tried to force the shorts out by introducing a "digital dividend" -- results were mixed: it did appear to trigger a short squeeze but it also attracted the attention of the Shortseller Enrichment Commission. However, I remain unconvinced that any instrument of that nature will not be circumvented. It is hard to imagine the SEC sitting idly by while "investors" were being forced out of a stock. Indeed, Overstock ended up changing the rules to allow shorts -- I mean investors -- to trade in the originally untradeable digital dividend.

If it weren't for the Shortseller Enrichment Commission at least one of the shadowy "investors" would have to come out into the light in order to file a lawsuit, but the SEC is fulfilling its purpose.

Overstock founder tried to squeeze short sellers, then sold out when the SEC cracked down

@humbaba
That is one of the problems to be circumvented.
One failure to squelch the shorts just means, try something else if shorts are too pesky.
It could be an interesting intellectual exercise to do a lot of “what if’s”
If this then that,
Find disasters, prune those branches to find paths that longs would support and shorts & manipulators are powerless to block.
Right now there’s a bucket of ~$10 Billion just aching to be transferred to a plethora of longs from shorts of all types.
If you give up by “well they failed because”, you know a “because” to skirt around ‘legally’
(Is there already a discreet group doing this and this a subject to not be discussed publically?)

 

[Drax7]

Most funds holding TSLA short have massive positions long elsewhere. Their TSLA position would be protected by portfolio margin, they are unlikely to be at risk of being forced to cover. Some funds have rules that dictate their actions and may be required to reduce exposure as the position increases in $ value.

I think (my opinion) its most likely that these large shorts view Tesla as primarily (or exclusively) an automaker. An automaker valued at $76BN dollars while making a fraction of the cars and profit of lesser valued competitors. They believe that the valuation of Tesla is built on hopes and dreams and that time is on their side. They believe that unless everything goes perfectly, eventually "reality" will catch up with Tesla and its share value will implode. They are playing their perceived probabilities. In life things rarely go perfectly. They are waiting for the inevitable slowdown, fatigue, or failure of the company. These aren't nefarious foreign interests. Just greedy funds with little aversion to risk.

Similarly amazon, just a plain retailer with eventually a p/e of 12.

 

[mars_or_bust]

Semi on-topic:

There has been some second guessing of Elon as to why he chose Germany for GF4 - restrictive labor laws, strong unions, large salaries, opposition at all levels from the established and powerful dinosaurs (VW, BMW, Mercedes,...).

OK, there are pros - excellent engineers, large workforce, large market, etc. And the chosen site is not near any established car OEM, so in Berlin there is a much larger flexibility for Tesla as compared to say Munich.

But an important pro for the German site that seems to me to be overlooked is REPUTATION, especially regarding China. Tesla wants to kick ass in the luxury market in China. This market is dominated by the Germans, who have an excellent reputation there, for whatever reasons. To the Chinese the fact that Tesla has a factory in USA, China, AND in Germany will probably be a huge plus, and make the purchase of a Tesla much easier to do psychologically. If Tesla chose say Poland, or even Netherlands as GF4, then it might have an indirect negative effect on the Chinese market.

That is also why GF5 could easily be in Japan.

Could be wrong of course

 

[humbaba]

@humbaba
That is one of the problems to be circumvented.
One failure to squelch the shorts just means, try something else if shorts are too pesky.
It could be an interesting intellectual exercise to do a lot of “what if’s”
If this then that,
Find disasters, prune those branches to find paths that longs would support and shorts & manipulators are powerless to block.
Right now there’s a bucket of ~$10 Billion just aching to be transferred to a plethora of longs from shorts of all types.
If you give up by “well they failed because”, you know a “because” to skirt around ‘legally’
(Is there already a discreet group doing this and this a subject to not be discussed publically?)

Hey, I'm not "giving up" -- but I don't have the means to do anything other than buy and hold. I think an obvious option would be to force the SEC to change the rules. One (small) step would be to require disclosure of large short positions. Something like holding more than 5% of the short interest in a stock.

How to coerce the SEC into working against the interests of its owners? That would have to come from the government, so electing congressmen who support reining in those interests would be a start. But that is something I think more appropriate for a political thread.

But attempts to circumvent the SEC rules? That is just asking for legal action asserting stock manipulation. And its hard for me to see how it would not be. Circumvention isn't the answer, correcting the rules is. IMO.

 

[Cattledog]

This isn’t a fair statement. Some shorts brush their teeth and work at the same time.

 

[Fred42]

Since there is no "Thank you, couldn't agree more" button, have to do it verbally.

And despite increasing production capacity in Fremont and GF4, I am not worried about demand, either. Most of EU has been starved all of Q4 in favour of NL. There is right now some inventory in Norway but there is just exactly one lonesome M3 in Germany and UK and France have just a handful, not enough to put one in every showroom. Throughout the quarter, I didn't check the other countries but DE has been like this whenever I looked.
My expectation for Q1 is that EU will absorb the additional supply (including the portion formerly allocated to China) without a need to pull demand levers. Even if bad came to worse, the FCA credits give more wiggle room for tweaking the ASP in order to optimise overall revenue.

There is reason to fret about sales in Europe in Q1:
- The incentive step-down in the Netherlands;
- Big incentives begin 4-1-20 in the UK. This means low sales in Q1. If Tesla sends lots of cars in Q1 to be ready, the inventory and cost will be a drag on Q1.
- Anticipated incentives in Germany with a currently unknown start date will depress sales until we're past this. We don't know if we'll get past this quickly in January or if this will drag on.

Presumably Norway will no longer be starved of product and Tesla is apparently expanding its European market reach, but will these changes make up for UK and Germany sitting on their hands and the end of the Netherlands rush?

 

[winfield100]

Hey, I'm not "giving up" -- but I don't have the means to do anything other than buy and hold. I think an obvious option would be to force the SEC to change the rules. One (small) step would be to require disclosure of large short positions. Something like holding more than 5% of the short interest in a stock.

How to coerce the SEC into working against the interests of its owners? That would have to come from the government, so electing congressmen who support reining in those interests would be a start. But that is something I think more appropriate for a political thread.

But attempts to circumvent the SEC rules? That is just asking for legal action asserting stock manipulation. And its hard for me to see how it would not be. Circumvention isn't the answer, correcting the rules is. IMO.

No no no
Not circumvent the rules, definitely not, nothing illegal absolutely nothing illegal

perhaps a “Hobson’s choice” of forcing the SEC to apply the rules a bit less unfairly.
You have the example of a failure, perhaps a close examination of the failure from a longs viewpoint.

A close examination by a brainiac legal eagle with a sudden spark of a convoluted path of the rules.
This maybe why a separate thread that I’m clueless about.

 

[Alphacrux]

Excellent article, a great read:

Tesla: There’s None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See…

“I’ve been saying this for a long time, and I’ll say it again: the vast majority of analysts were not only overly simplistic in their assessment of Tesla, but completely wrong..”

 

[S3XY]

This isn’t a fair statement. Some shorts brush their teeth and work at the same time.

Sorry, not sure who you're referring to.

 

[replicant]

Excellent article, a great read:

Tesla: There’s None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See…

“I’ve been saying this for a long time, and I’ll say it again: the vast majority of analysts were not only overly simplistic in their assessment of Tesla, but completely wrong..”

What did you find interesting? It just repeats opinions that have been laid out everywhere in every form and for many years (stock goes up, some people still thinks it's over-valued, Tesla makes great car and other great suff, stock price should go even higher, competition can't compete, yada, yada). Or am i missing something?

 

[Alphacrux]

What did you find interesting? It just repeats opinions that have been laid out everywhere in every form and for many years (stock goes up, some people still thinks it's over-valued, Tesla makes great car and other great suff, stock price should go even higher, competition can't compete, yada, yada). Or am i missing something?

Interesting that the mainstream media is finally rejecting the FUD narrative put forth by so-called analysts.

 

[wnorris]

What did you find interesting? It just repeats opinions that have been laid out everywhere in every form and for many years (stock goes up, some people still thinks it's over-valued, Tesla makes great car and other great suff, stock price should go even higher, competition can't compete, yada, yada). Or am i missing something?

What is interesting is that a major publication with an academic author espousing what is discussed daily on TMC, that TSLA is not correctly valued. You do not see this often and more so how the author highlights the gap in understanding of TSLA from analysts and other academics.

This author has chosen to speak up and voice a contrary opinion to his peers. Kudos to him...

 

[The Accountant]

What did you find interesting? It just repeats opinions that have been laid out everywhere in every form and for many years (stock goes up, some people still thinks it's over-valued, Tesla makes great car and other great suff, stock price should go even higher, competition can't compete, yada, yada). Or am i missing something?

I found this part interesting:
For some time now, I’ve been discussing Tesla’s valuation with fellow academics who specialize in finance and strategy: irresponsible skeptics trying to convince their students that the company is overvalued, that its price is the result of some kind of collective hallucination, and that Elon Musk is little more than a charlatan who has amazingly managed to fool a lot of the people for a lot of the time.

In addition to the misinformed Analysts, the MSM and Short Sellers trying to convince everyone that Telsa is a bubble stock that will pop, we have professors teaching students this lie.

 

[humbaba]

Interesting that the mainstream media is finally rejecting the FUD narrative put forth by so-called analysts.

well, while I loved reading that I wouldn't go so far as to say it is mainstream media finally rejecting the FUD narrative. That was an opinion piece and all kinds of those get published. When Linette Lopez, Claudia Assis, Lora Kolodny, Dana Hull, or one of their ilk writes something like that... Okay, then we can talk about the mainstream media rejecting the FUD narrative.