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

[mongo]

Right, but the letter says the "shadow mode" is actually running on the physical car. As I remember, evidence to date has suggested that wasn't the case.

I think there weren't large quantities of data being uploaded over wifi, but filtered disengagement events would not need to be large amounts (a few frames from each camera), and may occur via cellular.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

I think there weren't large quantities of data being uploaded over wifi, but filtered disengagement events would not need to be large amounts (a few frames from each camera), and may occur via cellular.

I thought I remember that the evidence came from actually monitoring what was going on in the APE directly. @verygreen / @BigD0g to confirm?

 

[Etna]

I don’t know who “tesla_truth” is, but it sure isn’t the deceased Steve Jobs.

To be honest it makes me cringe. I think it is highly disrespectful to his memory and especially his family, and I encourage everyone here to stop referring and quoting that twitter account.

 

[Words of HABIT]

A big difference between the 3 and forthcoming Y launch is that Tesla will be able to offer the base SR model at a profit at launch.. The 2 years+ wait for the base SR 3 so far has mostly been due to the time taken to make the battery cheap emough, and for the number of vehicles shipped to reach a level that generates a big enough margin to cover the company fixed costs.

Both of those issues will not be a factor when the Model Y launches, so iF Tesla wants they could offer it at launch, But of course the initial ramp takes a little while to get up to speed so that might dictate mix initially, with limited model variability being preferable until the initial kinks are worked out.

After the SR M3, Tesla should not make a short range vehicle again, including the MY, nothing with a range under 300mi. And I would expect the entry level MY will cost more than the M3, proportionately as the MX is to the MS. Perhaps once MS, MX, M3, MY, Semi, Truck and Roadster are all producing in volume strength, Tesla can go after short range cars, but I don't see Tesla needing to do this for at least five years, even at >50% annual growth.

 

[CorneliusXX]

In my TD Ameritrade and Thinkorswim news feeds it simply reads:

Tesla Amended 13G Filing From FMR Shows Cut Stake To ~5.29% Stake
Benzinga

Benzinga: Tesla Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) - Tesla Amended 13G Filing From FMR Shows Cut Stake To ~5.29% Stake
Tesla: SEC Filing | Tesla, Inc.
Yahoo: TSLA Major Holders | TESLA INC Stock - Yahoo Finance

This implies that during the fourth quarter the FMR stake in Tesla was only reduced to 9,092,952 shares (5.29%) from 9,094,405 shares (5.33%) and no further change this year.

The 45% trim to which you referred appears to have occurred during 2018 before the fourth quarter began.

EDIT: Fidelity raises its Tesla stake

The report says that Fidelity only had sole power to vote or direct the vote over 1.8m shares. Does that mean 7m were sold short?

 

[EVNow]

Getting back to the pre-market discussion, Tesla can run any level of software from EAP to FSD, as long at the nags are there, they do not need to report anything.

At the last call, Elon mentioned that the system uploads data on disengagements, so all EAP driving serves as validation/ testing and provides new data for poorly handled cases.

"specially video clips with the customer submission when there is intervention."

This would be when someone is using AP. Even otherwise, Tesla can run the software in the background and compare its output (i.e. intended action) to the one the driver actually made. That is massive training data.

 

[Duffer]

The last time the Upper Bollinger Band was at 360 was Feb 5. Right now, the UBB is below 340, so it would take a strong rally at least that long to recover (7 trading days). So that's Fri, Feb 22 to avoid a strong technical selloff IF there was huge good news TODAY.

View attachment 376989

Then, keep in mind the TSLA SP used for the convertible bonds is the AVERAGE of 21 trading days in February. So, no, there is almost no chance the SP used for the bond valuation reaches 360.

It also DOES NOT matter. AT ALL. Tesla clearly stated during the 2018Q4 CC that they have sufficient cash in hand to pay the bonds completely in cash, and they intend to do so.

This is in spite of the non-sense, unsourced, and unconfirmed reporting by Bloomberg that Tesla would pay half in cash, half in stock.

Many notable commenters on this board were sucked in by that trope, obviously designed to extend the life of one of the shortz last points of attack.

Tesla will pay the bonds in cash (like they said they would), AND have a GAAP profitable 2019Q1. Tesla no longer depends upon TSLA for growth, or survival.

Agreed, other than the FUD aspect, there really isn't a downside to not reaching the $360 per share market price. I was reminded of the March due date only because of a YouTube video (from my newsfeed) with some Beavis and Butthead looking young guy claiming Tesla will be unable to pay the bill and will collapse.

 

[ZsoZso]

StatsTesla on Twitter

Wow! That graph along with the corresponding share price movement (brownian motion without any net effect change) pretty much settles the whole "Short Squeeze" theory. As in places it in the same category as tales about flying unicorns...

If over 1/3 of the shorts can close without any lifting effect on the share price, I do not see any realistic chance of a squeeze.

 

[Joe F]

Adam Jonas on CNBC soon. CNBC citing Tesla sales sliding (think they said "on the skids") due to competition. I think that kind of sounds familiar, like, I may have heard that somewhere before. Probably wrong about that though...

EDIT: fixed auto-correct error.

Not sure where they have the video at, but here's a Twitter link to the segment with video.

 

[JRP3]

To be honest it makes me cringe. I think it is highly disrespectful to his memory and especially his family, and I encourage everyone here to stop referring and quoting that twitter account.

Doubt his family knows or cares. Let's not forget that Jobs was not exactly a great family man.

 

[viridi]

Adam Jonas on CNBC soon. CNBC citing Tesla sales sliding (think they said "on the skids") due to competition. I think that kind of sounds familiar, like, I may have heard that somewhere before. Probably wrong about that though...

EDIT: fixed auto-correct error.

Where is all this alleged competition? As of right now, I do not believe that I can buy an all electric vehicle that is a competitor to the X, S, or 3. This competition argument, until something is really available, seems a bit disingenuous. And, I hope there is real competition at some point. All those scrambling to catch Tesla is a positive in my view - Elon has proved that electric cars are viable, desirable, and are here to stay. There is a huge auto market where many can be successful in the electric vehicle space - the key is to keep taking share from ICE manufacturers.

Also, the demand argument also seems fairly disingenuous. Based on what I have been seeing here and elsewhere,Tesla is selling as many 3s as it can get shipped to Europe and China. In the States, at least where I live, I still see new 3s all the time (and have many friends who will likely be buying one in the coming months).

 

[Fact Checking]

That graph along with the corresponding share price movement (brownian motion without any net effect change) pretty much settles the whole "Short Squeeze" theory.

Actually, the December run-up to almost-$380 was likely a short squeeze, only stopped by big institutional investors like T-Rowe taking profits on the millions of shares they picked up in the $250-$300 range.

 

[EVNow]

To be honest it makes me cringe. I think it is highly disrespectful to his memory and especially his family, and I encourage everyone here to stop referring and quoting that twitter account.

I kind of agree - even if it is a fan or satirical account, it needs something to distinguish itself from the real one.

BTW, initially I was confused as to whether the account was quoting something Jobs had said.

 

[AlexS]

Not sure where they have the video at, but here's a Twitter link to the segment with video.

My take is, that Adam Jonas is one earnings report away from turning his view on Tesla to bullish. I think something similar happened in 2013

 

[EVNow]

Actually, the December run-up to almost-$380 was likely a short squeeze, only stopped by big institutional investors like T-Rowe taking profits on the millions of shares they picked up in the $250-$300 range.

Could be - but purely from the short interest graph - there isn't that much of short interest reduction happening between 11/30 and 12/14.

ps : Looks like they started covering when EM settled with SEC. The combined effect of the covering & ER sent the SP to 280. But, as Nasdaq dived down, so did Tesla, after that.

 

[AlexS]

some more Model 3 winter driving on AP. It is crazy good. I think everyone who thought FSD winter driving will be not possible, think again.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I was reminded of the March due date only because of a YouTube video (from my newsfeed) with some Beavis and Butthead looking young guy claiming Tesla will be unable to pay the bill and will collapse.

Gali? or this guy?

 

[AudubonB]

...
On a lot of levels it is important to find out who are the wizards of our Oz and why. There must be a latin phrase for vigilance. Semper fi? No, Semper paratus is closer. Halp! AudubonB? Umbra vigilia?

Waaalll...my favorite is in fact, Dutch: waakzaamheid. In that you cannot say in English "wakefulness" or "watchfulness" without being thought loony, "vigilance" is, I believe, a perfect translation.
We do have a native Dutch speaker who can weigh in on this.....

 

[SteveG3]

That outcome was probable since Elon's Q1 profit warning and the resulting SP drop, and the actual news of Tesla paying back $920m of debt fully in cash in about two weeks will bring several advantages:

• It will demonstrate Tesla's cash generation power to pay back debt while maintaining high levels of capex - all while remaining cash positive.
• It's anti-dilutive, removes potential shares and reduces the "$360 barrier".
• The anti-dilutive effect is significant due to compounding: future cash flows to current shareholders improve by about ~7% over a time horizon of 5 years - which improves cash flow based valuation by a similar percentage.
• About 2.5 million shares worth of convertibles fewer to short against.
• It demonstrates to Moody's that the credit risks outlined in their 2018 downgrade decision did not materialize, making a Moody's upgrade more likely.
• In GAAP EPS calculations there will be 2.5 million fewer "diluted shares", which automatically and permanently improves EPS by about +1.5%.
• Balance sheet and gearing metrics improve as Tesla deleverages their debt.
• Removes a constantly abused negative narrative from the $TSLAQ toolbox and falsifies their "Tesla debt barrier" and "Tesla cash crunch" thesis and false narrative.
• Half of the shortz are already gone from the 2018 May peak levels of 40%, with few gains or even losses unless they were playing volatility. Many more will be gone this year, significantly reducing their herding power and their impact on the share price.

On March 1 Tesla will put the finishing touches on officially removing 2.5 million future TSLA shares from circulation. It permanently reverses a past dilutive debt-equity financing round.

I never understood why the $TSLAQ folks were rooting for Tesla to pay the convertibles fully in cash: it's an outcome that shareholders like @ValueAnalyst openly advocated for, due to the anti-dilutive benefits...

IIRC, when Tesla issued that debt, they bought financial instruments that largely hedged the dilution potential of a conversion outcome. That is, they have already spent money several years ago to very substantially minimize the diluting effect of the bond being repaid with shares. It would have been advantageous to make use of that already purchased hedge, repay the debt with shares, but, with far less dilution than without the hedge.

What's more, I think it far more likely that Tesla repaying with cash will increase media false narratives about cash concerns, not lower them. Likely we'll hear ~Now, with this massive outflow of a billion dollars, Tesla is really in a corner. They have to raise cash now, and they have over a billion more in debt due later this year.~

This week, I've heard on major media outlets about Tesla burning cash, and about their having to raise $2.5 billion this year as if it were common knowledge only a completely delusional 'snowflake' would not recognize. Neither idea was challenged at all on air. These false narratives get essentially a police escort onto and through most of corporate media... which are largely platforms for infomercials by the very large corporations with the money to buy the infomercial airtime.

As said before, the misinformation campaign isn't about those engaging in it believing 'foolish' things, but, rather about a vast advertising campaign selling foolish ideas to to the public. Think tobacco advertising a few decades back... "cigarettes are perfectly healthy, and rather sexy."

 

[Artful Dodger]

Wow! That graph along with the corresponding share price movement (brownian motion without any net effect change) pretty much settles the whole "Short Squeeze" theory. As in places it in the same category as tales about flying unicorns...

If over 1/3 of the shorts can close without any lifting effect on the share price, I do not see any realistic chance of a squeeze.

Don't get too excited, ZsoZso. That data source covers only about 1/3 of TSLA daily trading (the FINRA monitored instituitions).

For example, FINRA Total Volume reported for today session was 2,023,085 shares. NASDAQ itself reported 5,127,925 shares today (and will update tomorrow, then finalize in 2 days).

That means today's FINRA report covered just 39.45% of today's trades. There's room for PLENTY to be going on behind that curtain.

Edit:
The avg FINRA/NASDAQ volume reported in my dataset (Nov 23, 2018 to Feb 13, 2019) is
39.28%​

Ask yourself why "Failure-to-Deliver" Reports have gone down to Zero over the last 3 months? Not a few FTDs, exactly ZERO. Who's hiding what, and where? Any most importantly, WHY?