I think some expect q4 to be good, but hope to get their money back after q1.
The profit in q1 plus s&p would cause the real bloodbath, because there will be zero hope left after that.
-
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
The profit in q1 plus s&p would cause the real bloodbath, because there will be zero hope left after that.
I assume there will be plenty of shorts that are not this smart, but yea that would be the right move. I wouldn’t want to touch the short side until I get Musk’s guidance for 2020. Odds are he will set some ambitious goals and once you know those goals you can wager a better bet.
My belief is Musk is playing a few steps ahead and he’s going to set up Q1 for a beat. I think Tesla is in a much better position going into Q1 than they were last year.
I think even if it's not great, the impact won't be nearly as severe. Q1 2019 looked like maybe there was just a pent up demand and things were falling apart. If Q1 2020 is a little soft more people will just brush it off as seasonality.
They could have rushed to deliver more China cars in Q4 but they didn't, which confirms Q4 is solid, which means Q1 can take those sales.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Over 250K Put contracts expire today BELOW the lowest possible target price envisioned by stalk picker extraordinaire AJ ($165). Don't laugh. Truly. 
Cheers!
Cheers!
JusRelax
Active Member
I agree that, even if Q1 2020 isn't great, but at least decent, it will wipe the shorts. They're expecting Q1 2019-esque kind of pain. If Q1 is great, it will be an absolute bloodbath.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I agree, but I don't think Q1 demand will be soft. It's more a question of how many cars they can make.
Lots of Deep In The Money calls expiring today.
I don't know if that will affect the SP today, or Tuesday, or not at all. I know I will be buying 100 shares for $285
Since these shares aren't purchased on the open market it shouldn't have much, if any, effect on the share price (unless they are immediately sold in large quantities).
Normally you would say that you can’t because the way an article is written. This is the exception. The title makes a false statement. They do not say “reportedly” or similar language. A safe title would be “Tesla under scrutiny as ntsha investigates acceleration incidents”
Well if the deliveries are high in Q1 and Q2 sees model y introduced...could be a nice setup.
Based on options open interest before the opening, Opricot calculates TSLA MaxPain for today's expiration as $460. It is heavily skewed low by the large number of options expiring at strike prices quite low relative to the current share price. A cursory survey suggests that a more reasonable MaxPain target for large option writers could be $510. But that can change throughout the rest of the session.
While this is not a Triple Witching quarterly expiration, the size of the open interest has been large due to the contracts having opened over a year ago as LEAPS designed to push potential profits into a later tax year.
So there will likely be much options related activity today that can affect the share price. Many option owners and writers will be trying to close positions before the market closing. Perhaps some large options writers will in position to manipulate the share price toward what they perceive as MaxPain. Keep in mind that the closing of options positions often also involves the closing of share positions that had been hedges.
Quick bursts of high volume share price movement today are far more likely related to options considerations than activity by long-term oriented institutions and funds. These bursts can trigger cascades of stop limits set by weak longs.
A big consideration in all of this is the fact that options have an expiration date while stock shares do not. Thus options traders may feel frenzied today, while strong shareholders can remain calm.
Opricot Open Interest|Volume|Max Pain
I think GF3 China sales could be more devastating to the Tesla bears & short sellers convictions than a Q1 profit. There is a common thread that Tesla posts fake or one-time profits. So I think many would hang tough even in the face of a full-year profit. However, many bears are convinced that Tesla will fail in China, based on modest Tesla sales in 2019 and a “failing EV market”. When Tesla starts to sell over 10,000 cars per month in China - with a backlog - I think any rational trader will see the writing on the wall. So the combination of high China sales and profitability and S&P 500 inclusion could spur a rush for the exit among shorts.
Last edited:
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
Tesla dropping despite all my other stocks gaining is annoying. Lots of worrying about it being overvalued but if you take out the general market gains our run-up isn't all that crazy.
People who say that are straight up stupid. I won't mince words there. My Tesla is a few grand cheaper now than when I got it, even factoring in the $7500 tax credit. So in the net, my decision would have been exactly the same. (heck, I'd probably still pay my price but with no incentive because of how great the car is)
They won't sell 600k cybertrucks per year early on because they won't be able to make that many for several years.
Yeah. What I think would've been an interesting question for Sandy Munro is this:
"Because you say the 50k and 600k production plans require different production methods, what do you think makes the most sense as an approach for scaling up from 50k to 150k (or more) over a year or two." In short, would it make more sense to do the cheap $35M capex for 50k and just replace it as you built up the higher capacity production, or just start with the higher capacity and suffer the higher capex startup costs. Maybe its just a business evaluation of how fast you estimate you can grow your market, but I think its more interesting than most of what was asked.
As to market size, I think its pretty clear that if Tesla were to make 600k cybertrucks in 2020 they couldn't sell them all. Even if the final market is at least that large you can only grow your customers so fast.
Will Tesla ever sell 600k cyber trucks a year? I don't know, but I'm pretty confident that there will be at least 600k EV trucks sold annually in the not so distant future. The whole "EVs are in a different market than trucks" nonsense is so stupid the guy who said it (I think I later caught his name as Gary) should be ashamed.
Cirrus MS100D
Member
To be even more accurate, is it not the case that they aren't even agreeing to investigate, but rather are agreeing to review the petition to investigate?
You know, I wouldn't object to a little forward looking engineering to that effect.
Like, throw all FCA and other credits into Q1 and deliver feature complete in March to recognize a bunch of fsd revenue.
What they gonna do? Cry that s&p needs to be postponed until the "real" profitable quarter? Yeah, keep on crying.
If I make anything on those crazy 700,800 calls, I might as well buy acceleration boost for q1 to help the shorts out.
Well, it isn't so clear-cut. The MM who sold that call may have bought some of the shares as a hedge at the time of selling the call, but I doubt they bought all 100% -- that would be too expensive hedge. So they may have to buy some to satisfy the exercised calls.
Cirrus MS100D
Member
OK, maybe I'm wrong and this is actually THE investigation? Does anybody more well-versed on this topic able to interpret this particular PDF?
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INOA-DP20001-6030.PDF
This wasn't a "press release" (NHSTA doesn't even have any press releases for 2020) - This was a petition submitted via email that reads:
Summary: On December 19, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition by email requesting a defect investigation of alleged sudden unintended acceleration in model year (MY) 2012 through 2019 Tesla Model S, MY 2016 through 2019 Tesla Model X, and MY 2018 through 2019 Tesla Model 3 vehicles. In support of his request, the petitioner cited 127 consumer complaints to NHTSA involving 123 unique vehicles. The reports include 110 crashes and 52 injuries.
A copy of the petition will be added to the public file for this defect petition and ODI will evaluate the petitioner's allegations to determine if the petition should be granted or denied. If the petition is granted, ODI will open a defect investigation; if the petition is denied, ODI will publish a notice in the Federal Register.
So to sum, whoever submitted this petition (TBD) managed to get a lot of negative press to the point where many news outlets are saying NHSTA *is* investigating Tesla unintended acceleration (aka: pedal misapplication), which is absolutely not true. It'll be interesting to see who actually filed the petition (though it's possible it was submitted via third party, so we won't really know who's behind it.)
To reply to my own post, the answer is YES, this isn't an investigation:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INOA-DP20001-6030.PDF
This wasn't a "press release" (NHSTA doesn't even have any press releases for 2020) - This was a petition submitted via email that reads:
Summary: On December 19, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition by email requesting a defect investigation of alleged sudden unintended acceleration in model year (MY) 2012 through 2019 Tesla Model S, MY 2016 through 2019 Tesla Model X, and MY 2018 through 2019 Tesla Model 3 vehicles. In support of his request, the petitioner cited 127 consumer complaints to NHTSA involving 123 unique vehicles. The reports include 110 crashes and 52 injuries.
A copy of the petition will be added to the public file for this defect petition and ODI will evaluate the petitioner's allegations to determine if the petition should be granted or denied. If the petition is granted, ODI will open a defect investigation; if the petition is denied, ODI will publish a notice in the Federal Register.
So to sum, whoever submitted this petition (TBD) managed to get a lot of negative press to the point where many news outlets are saying NHSTA *is* investigating Tesla unintended acceleration (aka: pedal misapplication), which is absolutely not true. It'll be interesting to see who actually filed the petition (though it's possible it was submitted via third party, so we won't really know who's behind it.)
Last edited:
But the problem is that only a limited number of people will see that article, so the harm that it does is small. Should Tesla sue, it would be widespread and many would assume that Tesla is trying to cover up something. It's best just to ignore these kind of FUD articles.
anthonyj
Stonks
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
