Yeah, I'm still waiting for that.
Oh, sure, any retail shorts who initiated < $300 are almost certainly out at this point, but I've never believed that retail makes up much of the short position. In fact, I expect that there has been additional shorting into the rise, though presumably some profit taking on any fall.
Thanks to the rules favoring short sellers there is no visibility into this activity (no, please don't mention @ihors3 fantasies) but if the end of December short interest is not appreciably lower that would be an indication. So we have to a wait a week or so to find out what the short interest was at the end of December and will never know current short interest.
As was pointed out when I posted about the lack of stability in short interest value at risk (it has varied considerably, contrary to some statements made here) the short interest is also comprised of hedging done by funds, etc., and so it can fluctuate while "the shorts" maintain a constant value at risk. Fair enough, but has anyone done an analysis to show that the changes in short interest value at risk track with that? I don't have the knowledge to do so or I'd take a stab at it myself.
I am just going to throw this out there:
My broker - comdirect.de - sells options in fractions of 1/10 or 1/100 of the underlying security.
That's right, you buy the right to buy (or sell) 0.1 or 0.01 share. I do believe the minimum order corresponds to a single, whole share. I was very confused by this when I first looked at option prices - because I assumed 100:1 to have the normal meaning, making the option premiums seemingly underpriced by a factor of 10,000.
See attached photo for a couple of soon-to-expire TSLA calls - as one can see the per-contract price for the higher strike is _higher_ because it buys you 10 times more of the underlying TSLA.
OT: Gave "Love" because that's one of my favourite Eurovision songs.
Thanks, I appreciate the information!Assuming 80% of converts are delta hedged, these are the changes in $ short interest. The estimate for 6-Jan assume real shorts have maintained the same $ exposure since the last Nasdaq report in mid December. This suggests real short exposure has varied between $7.2bn and $8.3bn and is close to the lows currently. They have lost a very significant amount of $bns to maintain this position over the past year.
View attachment 497056
These are the changes in short shares outstanding. Real shorts have likely bought back 23.1 million shares since May. This is likely because many have fund $ exposure limits to Tesla and real shorts are capital constrained at $7-8bn.
View attachment 497057
OT: gave "Helpful" because I ALMOST CLICKED ON THAT EUROVISION SONG VIDEOOT: To me, that song is the "Sound of Eurovision" - overplayed vacuous pop songs that are carefully engineered to get stuck in your head
Which is why I was so happy that we sent Hatari, to go on stage and scream about how hatred will win and Europe will collapse while the drummer hits one or more cages of electrozombies and the lead singer abuses a guy in a gimp outfit . And why I dread what sort of terrible, generic, eminently forgettable Eurovision act we're going send next year :Þ
It's like... remember when Ireland sent a techno-singing turkey puppet to compete in 2008? Scored terribly, but... you remember that. Anyone remember what Ireland sent in 2007 or 2009? Straight down the memory hole. Come on, Europe, be creative! Go out in a blaze of dadaist glory!
I’ve always assumed the $420 tweet was a calculated rear guard action against what he saw as the start of a hostile takeover attempt by the Saudis. It rings more true to me than the official story that Elon had long wanted to take Tesla private and he was panicked into action during market hours by the spiking price. Then again Elon’s brain is built very different to mine.
I really hope he does his own book day some day. Netflix are gonna get the biopic all wrong otherwise.
I love this because it answers a lot of questions I had about Musk's (I thought) naivety re Saudis. I been there and seen those guys. Turns out he knew what he was doing
That was my and @neroden's take as well - and it clearly explained the rush to control the narrative: according to later SEC documents Elon tweeted the $420 tweet from his private jet, with minimal input from other board members.
Back then Elon probably already suspected that Q3/Q4'2018 is going to be fantastic, because they knew their cost base and had a lot of pent-up demand. This was the report that I believe Elon read and which might have increased urgency and triggered the $420 tweet:
And prior August 7 we did notice weird TSLA buying pressure here on TMC, which started after the July 4th bear attack that drove the price below $300:
Note that on the $420 tweet day the price was already at around $350, $365 intraday, fueled by Q2 earnings that already showed a positive inherent cash flow (modulo working capital fluctuation) and the Saudi speculation, which was later on confirmed to be a 4% stake in Tesla.
Also note that "$420" might have been a joke in part, but it was also exactly a +20% buy-out premium over the ~$350 price levels on August 7, so a fair offer. (350*1.2 = 420)
Note how the next 2 weeks after the $420 tweet were spent (successfully) organizing a $20b buy-out consortium that emphatically did not include the Saudi PIF. The Saudis also later on hedged (shorted) their stake and invested in another EV maker, so the relationship clearly cooled down.
Bears immediately hung on to "The $420 tweet was a lie, it's impossible to take Tesla private!" false narrative and started shorting big time, helped by institutionals and eventually the SEC itself.
In hindsight, had the Saudi PIF taken over Tesla and taken it private, we'd possibly not have seen the $400+ levels of today.
So SEC confrontation aside, Elon did Tesla investors a big favor by making Tesla "uninvestable" for a year or so, this avoided the Saudi takeover (the bone-saw memes would never stop ...), and it also kept VW-Porsche from taking over Tesla at the $180 price levels earlier this year, which I'm sure they were looking at...
The German "Manager Magazin" published a well sourced piece that also quoted members of the Porsche family bemoaning Tesla's high share price ... when it was below $200:
Tesla: Daimler, BMW und Volkswagen machen Jagd auf Elon Musk
"Hunting down Tesla"
"Electro-visionary Elon Musk fails due to the downsides of the auto business. Important investors lose confidence, the German premium providers are attacking. Tesla is ready for a takeover."
"The Tesla dream still glows in Diess, according to top VW managers familiar with his thinking. He believes that Volkswagen can benefit from Tesla's battery and, above all, software expertise. "He would get in immediately if he could," says one of his top people. The money is there too, for the beginning a participation is enough. It was more difficult with the approval of the major shareholders, the families Porsche and Piëch."
Right after they leaked this to Manager Magazin, Porsche family members "denied" the report:
I think they wanted to drive the price down a bit more by creating the impression that despite Diess being the super best friend ever of Elon, they are still not interested in bailing out Tesla - and then gobble up Tesla for the EV tech.
Then early September, they were on again:
Tesla: Wolfgang Porsche schließt Beteiligung nicht aus - manager magazin
"Volkswagen co-owner Wolfgang Porsche apparently does not rule out a stake in the US electric car maker Tesla."
I think they were still under the impression that the Taycan would pressure Tesla, and that Tesla has cash flow troubles and needs a bailout.
Lucky for us, VW-Porsche miscalculated, Q2 already drove the share price to $250 levels, and Q3 financials started the rally to $420 ... and Elon never had any interest in selling Tesla's assets to VW.
I don't think VW-Porsche has the money to take over Tesla at these price levels - and Elon would not agree to a one-sided partnership that gives Tesla's software crown jewels to Volkswagen - which I think VW had in mind in the summer.
So yeah, IMO Tesla investors dodged two takeover/dilution bullets in the span of a single year ...
The possibility of takeovers needs to be understood too when buying options: in a takeover much of the time value of an option can go to zero, which wipes out deep out of the money option holders.
IMO, Electrek's content has improved a lot in recent months and as a result I do visit once per week and take a look.
These are the people on the other side of our trades. The fact that they are so terrified of any dissenting opinions adds even more weight to my bullishness on TSLA. What a bunch of snowflakes. They have literally created a safe space for all their paranoia and conspiracy nonsense.
I think that is almost certain, though we have no way to know if it will be AD .8, .9 or 1.0.
What is certain is Elon rarely if ever gives up on a large scale leap forward concept he's conceived based on first principles thinking. He threw the long pass with M3 and missed. He's likely now to just grind it out yards year by year, GF by GF until machine that builds the machine is one more competitive advantage that no other auto company can touch.
In the comments someone is saying the date on the picture is 2020.3.20. So a Model Y program opening ceremony in March 2020?
That might make the ? mark building the model Y factory in Fact Checking's posts since that is where they are removing the old parking lots and clearing ground.
Something to keep an eye on anyways as we attempt to understand the layout.
Note to everyone here: do not be "this guy":
Zack on Twitter
He did apologize, but he also hid the tweets criticizing his behavior, kept the ones making excuses for him basically stalking a woman in a parking lot because she was in a Model Y and calling her a b**** when she asked him to stop filming her, and left his video up.
Note to everyone: cars do not have personal space or bodily autonomy. Go ahead and accost them (within the bounds of property law). But do not act like that to people, under the excuse that you "have the legal right to". The fact that somebody else has something that you want does not, ever give you the moral right to accost them because of it.