-
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
What rally? SP is still below 220. I doubt they've covered more than 5 mln.
IMO, it's a mistake to put any faith into what Ihor says. Even if he is well-intentioned, where is he getting his data? Reliable sources?
Mike Smith
Active Member
Wow, they really are getting close to running out. According to Ihor there are around 48-49M shares available to short.
I think it is generally reliable, for most stocks, but the TSLA shorts are using markets/methods that hide their activity so he doesn't get an accurate picture of it from his sources. So for TSLA you can't really count on his numbers. (Though the trend he sees tends to be correct, so we should likely see that there was little covering, if any done, between 5/31 and now. Though there will be ~5 more days of activity before the next official snapshot is taken.)
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
Is the TESLA one made to check for Gasoline fumes?
X Fan
Active Member
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
Jake responded to the tweets that he explained his verdict in detail in a podcast.
I have just listened to the podcast. The bottomline is:
- the per-category ratings show green (5/5) as long as there was less than 1% problem rate in the category
- the overall rating (below average 2/5) is not using the same scale, but instead a comparison to the average of all other 2018 car results. So it has nothing to do with the individual ratings, not any kind of average of those.
- he emphasizes that typical failure rate in 2018 cars is extremely low anyway, so it can happen that a 0.8% failure rate (which still gets green in per-category output) count as below-average reliability, because the actual average is 0.2% failure rate.
- he also said, that even small problems such as a trim falling off can be indicative of bad build quality, the same bad build quality later in 4-5 year time would result in major reliability problems occurring, so they "extrapolate" based on that.
Now, his explanations all sound very reasonable. My problem is that their observation is the direct opposite of my own. Let me explain: they had "average" rating on Model S at the same early stage, which then later (with more age and data) got upgraded to "above average", while for Model 3 they have "below average" rating after few months of data. I have a 2014 Model S and I had several issues within the first 6 month that required me to visit the service center. None of them were stranded-on-the-roadside seriousness, but they were problems anyway (such as 1 door not opening from the outside, only from the inside). Now, I have a 2018 Model 3 and after 6 month of ownership I had absolutely zero issues with it. So in my experience the Model 3 has a much better build quality and reliability than early Model S had.
This kind of stupid flash drop happens very often, some how my limit order never got triggered
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
That is really messed up. So many people targeted $180 and said that would be the bottom. I am pretty sure the number's been passed around within institutions as well and yet, nobody covered... Should be the same strategy as longs. If you doubled your money, might as well take half away to cover your capital cost.
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
For my clarification, as I'm still very new with active participation in stock, when it says "days to cover" I am assuming this means days to pay back the shorted stock, and these are an average working days. So, the 2.9 days happened on Friday 31, they had roughly until closing on Wednesday the 5th to pay back the stock they shorted?
This is total short interest divided by daily volume.
Has nothing to do with when shorts need to cover. They can hold forever if they can afford it.
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
Tesla's Youtube channel is one. I heard Cleantechnia will also have a live stream, with captions of the questions.
No it means that based on the average volume it would take x days with 100% of the trades being short covering to unwind all of the short positions. (In other words a fairly useless metric.)
Days to cover is literally nothing more than the result of (Short Interest) / (Avg. Daily Volume).
Johann Koeber
Happy Owner
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
