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

[Nocturnal]

Wow, there's a huge new hit piece in Forbes.com, but then there's this at the end:

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, style, or theme.

How can this be true? I can only assume, given the vast number of absurd statements and assumptions in the article, that there are shorts involved here. Any insights from our well-informed forum members?

Tesla: The Most Dangerous Stock For Fiduciaries

If you want a bunch of eyeballs, write an article about Tesla. Good or bad, doesn't matter. That's what drives nearly all media these days.

 

[lafrisbee]

Wow, there's a huge new hit piece in Forbes.com, but then there's this at the end:

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, style, or theme.

How can this be true? I can only assume, given the vast number of absurd statements and assumptions in the article, that there are shorts involved here. Any insights from our well-informed forum members?

Tesla: The Most Dangerous Stock For Fiduciaries

That was THE BEST Bear report i have ever seen..Kudos to them!
From here on out the bears only need to post a link to it when they want to discuss the Stock position of TSLA. There is nothing they can add.

 

[M|S|M MYP]

AAPL - July 30th Stock split announced - Closing SP $384.76 Current SP $468.76 SP Diff = $84 SP % gain = 21.8%
TSLA - Aug 11th Stock split announced - Closing SP $1374.39 Current SP $1895.74 SP Diff = $521.35 SP % gain = 38%

And yet..Stock splits do nothing for the fundamentals of the stock Just doing my fiduciary responsibility.

 

[Thumper]

The Forbes article is a clever vector of attack on TSLA price. It is clearly designed to scare fiduciaries from recommending or even allowing clients to buy Tesla stock. It is also full of misinformation and clearly false assumptions. Sad.

 

[FrankSG]

Great work Frank. I thought it was interesting not to see Citadel in your list. I see you commented in one of your summary points towards the end but I do see a 13F from Citadel for Q2. Also remember they owned a 4.3% stake in Q1. Here are the two relevant links:

Citadel's Ken Griffin reports Tesla stake

https://fintel.io/soh/us/tsla/citadel-advisors-llc

Citadel Advisors is separate from the market maker entity, which is called Citadel Securities.

I could've included the shares Citadel Securities reported in its 13G in April I suppose, but I wouldn't be surprised if that stake significantly increased during Q2, and if those shares are truly all for delta hedging, I think there's a good chance that Citadel Securities is currently the #1 non-Elon TSLA shareholder.

It also would make it confusing in the sense that there are likely other market makers like Citadel, who do not need to file 13Fs, and who also own a substantial amount of shares for delta hedging. There's no way to track all these entities' exact holdings except for when some of them file 13Gs, so I have left them out.

 

[ggr]

Do you have any data supporting that S&P500 inclusion is not allowed before a split?

Asking, as I am doing some option plays to try to have some leverage when S&P500 is announced. If I can delay and save some time-cost, that would be great. ;-)

If S&P announced inclusion timed to switch over for market opening on the 31st, it would have the advantage that no pre- or post-market trading could happen over the weekend because of the split. But maybe that would be a disadvantage. I have no clue. But today or tomorrow would be the logical time for such an announcement, if they were aiming for that.

 

[dl003]

The Forbes article is a clever vector of attack in TSLA price. It is clearly designed to scare fiduciaries from recommending or even allowing clients to buy Tesla stock. It is also full of misinformation and clearly false assumptions. Sad.

I used to want to become a financial advisor. Now, I don't want to be associated with these people; it's a cesspool where life insurance salesmen in disguise try to squeeze every penny out of their clients. Coincidentally, I don't have to because TSLA makes me a lot more money than this profession ever will.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Small, but sharp jump at open. I'm surprised.

Waddya mean? SP marched right up to tag the Upper-BB, now is back to hovering around $10 below. How's this surprising?

 

[humbaba]

Wow, there's a huge new hit piece in Forbes.com, but then there's this at the end:

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, style, or theme.

How can this be true? I can only assume, given the vast number of absurd statements and assumptions in the article, that there are shorts involved here. Any insights from our well-informed forum members?

Tesla: The Most Dangerous Stock For Fiduciaries

Not sure about the others, but here are some other headlines for Kyle Guske articles:

Tesla Is the Most Dangerous Stock in 2020 and Intel is Worth a Look

Why Investors Should Sell Tesla and Buy Intel

Tesla: The Most Dangerous Stock for 2020

Podcast: Why This Automaker Is In The Danger Zone <<yes, that is about Tesla: "extremely irrational exuberance">>

Just August, and I probably missed some. While he may not be paid specifically to bash TSLA, that seems to be a high fraction of his output.

edited to fix two titles

 

[lafrisbee]

hmm? We (and the FAANG are all up about .5 -1.0) and the markets are all down .5?

 

[humbaba]

hmm? We (and the FAANG are all up about .5 -1.0) and the markets are all down .5?

well NASDAQ is up ~0.2% and its a bit early to tell for sure, but $TSLA seems to be following it, just magnified and currently a bit higher

 

[dl003]

hmm? We (and the FAANG are all up about .5 -1.0) and the markets are all down .5?

Gloomy Fed's outlook = tech rally
Economy recovers = rotation back to epicenter stock

 

[Drax7]

I really enjoyed the discussion between Rob and JIm. It just shows that even while Jim has turned bullish there's still so much he doesn't know or really understand about Tesla.

One thing that really stood out for me was Jims expectations for battery day being heavily focussed on the million mile battery. He seemed to view a million mile battery as enabling an EV to drive for 9 hours straight with massive range. Thankfully Rob elightened him about what a million mile battery means and that Tesla probably already has this in their stroage products. The interview with Dan Ives on Yahoo a couple of days ago was similar with his 2 big items for battery day being a million mile battery and Tesla becoming a 3rd party supplier of batteries. This shows a relatively shallow focus and poor technical knowledge, research and understanding of a lot of the financial community.

For me this raises the prospect that what Wall Street is expecting from Battery Day is at a mismatch with what many of us expect to be the key takeaways. Some Wall Street analysts could come away initially disappointed that their pet theories aren't central and miss much of the significance of the day. At worst this could lead to a similar response to autonomy day. However I expect the importance and significance of what Tesla presents won't be fully lost on them, even if it takes a few days for everything to fully sink in.

Any ICE car out there that can run 9 hours straight, what is this new metric nonsense.

 

[ggr]

Capping around $1895, which happens to be the upper bb. I predict it will power through that at about 11:30. I also predict I will be wrong. Half of my predictions are guaranteed to be correct!

 

[vikings123]

If S&P announced inclusion timed to switch over for market opening on the 31st, it would have the advantage that no pre- or post-market trading could happen over the weekend because of the split. But maybe that would be a disadvantage. I have no clue. But today or tomorrow would be the logical time for such an announcement, if they were aiming for that.

Interesting observation. If there is no trading allowed after market close on Aug 28th and pre market on Aug 31st, would it not make sense for them to actually make the announcement after market close on Aug 28th? The implication being that funds can start adding TSLA when market opens on Aug 31st and traders cannot front run it.

OT post about brokers: I signed up for webull today just to try out the interface. I was surprised that they gave me level 2 quotes free for 3 months and then after that it is 1.99 per month. It looks like the promo started today. I know people have asked about level 2 market depth in the past so just sharing it in case someone is interested. The UI is pretty decent too.

 

[Harrito]

Going by what OEMs have shown over the past decade, I think it's at most a single digit percentage likelihood that Tesla will have as little as 20% EV market share in 2030. I think it'll probably be around 40% market share, but I'd say there's a decent ~30% chance that Tesla will have a near 50% or 50%+ market share in EVs in 2030.

This is related to something I've been wondering for a while now. There is a lot of talk of 50% CAGR and that leading to 20 million Tesla's delivered in 2030. The question in my head is, why so conservative?

AFAIK Fremont should start the year 2021 with annual production capacity of approximately 590,000 vehicles, Shanghai with 350,000 and Berlin should quickly be ready for producing and starting to ramp up. Also, Austin should be ready to start ramping up well before the end of 2021. So altogether Tesla should have the annual output capacity of approximately 1,000,000 AT THE BEGINNING of 2021. And certainly they'll improve everything as the year goes on so the annual capacity will definitely be much more by the end of 2021. Sooo a rough guesstimate suggests Tesla should EASILY reach a total of at least one million cars produced during 2021, and possibly maybe something around 1,300,000 cars. 1,3 million if Fremont pushes out 650,000, Shanghai 400,000, Berlin 200,000 and Austin 50,000. Given their recent demonstration of ramping up capabilities these numbers should be somewhat reasonable..?

Should they pull something like this off that would suggest about 90% CAGR from 2019 to 2021. I know, that is quite unlikely to be anything close to sustainable growth rate, but even if we continue with only 50% CAGR after that the output of 2025 would be around 6,5 million (instead of an often seen number of 3,2 million by the bulls) and around 50 million in 2030.

What am I missing? Why so conservative? The evidence around suggests much higher CAGR than 50% IMO.

 

[lafrisbee]

well NASDAQ is up ~0.2% and its a bit early to tell for sure, but $TSLA seems to be following it, just magnified and currently a bit higher

NASDAQ hasn't been up today on my Yahoo graph? ahhh shugar....I was looking at the "futures" on Yahoo?

 

[Nocturnal]

I used to want to become a financial advisor. Now, I don't want to be associated with these people; it's a cesspool where life insurance salesmen in disguise try to squeeze every penny out of their clients. Coincidentally, I don't have to because TSLA makes me a lot more money than this profession ever will.

Being an FA was my backup plan when I graduated college. Fortunately I found a real job instead.

 

[CLK350]

Imagine Larry’s circle of friends; to hang out with that group, would give you amazing insights.

It would be like hanging with the TMC Gang of Polymaths:

PapaFox
Curt Renz
David Lee
The Artful Dodger

Please add to this list, since I am production constrained...

FrankSG comes to mind just now, there are others

 

[lafrisbee]

This is related to something I've been wondering for a while now. There is a lot of talk of 50% CAGR and that leading to 20 million Tesla's delivered in 2030. The question in my head is, why so conservative?

AFAIK Fremont should start the year 2021 with annual production capacity of approximately 590,000 vehicles, Shanghai with 350,000 and Berlin should quickly be ready for producing and starting to ramp up. Also, Austin should be ready to start ramping up well before the end of 2021. So altogether Tesla should have the annual output capacity of approximately 1,000,000 AT THE BEGINNING of 2021. And certainly they'll improve everything as the year goes on so the annual capacity will definitely be much more by the end of 2021. Sooo a rough guesstimate suggests Tesla should EASILY reach a total of at least one million cars produced during 2021, and possibly maybe something around 1,300,000 cars. 1,3 million if Fremont pushes out 650,000, Shanghai 400,000, Berlin 200,000 and Austin 50,000. Given their recent demonstration of ramping up capabilities these numbers should be somewhat reasonable..?

Should they pull something like this off that would suggest about 90% CAGR from 2019 to 2021. I know, that is quite unlikely to be anything close to sustainable growth rate, but even if we continue with only 50% CAGR after that the output of 2025 would be around 6,5 million (instead of an often seen number of 3,2 million by the bulls) and around 50 million in 2030.

What am I missing? Why so conservative? The evidence around suggests much higher CAGR than 50% IMO.

With something growing so rapid you have to pick your spot (the EXACT time you are considering). I think you might be choosing/forecasting to give the growth for the year at the BEGINNING, and others might be recognizing the growth at the end of the year.