Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Investor Discussions

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
saw a couple of items today that are encouraging as far as Tesla hitting delivery target for the year (believe it is 2750-3250).

first an article where an analyst estimated 1,150 November Model S deliveries...

Electric Car Sales Hit Another Record - Forbes

and right here on TMC, a new thread. apparently Tesla is looking to see who would be ready for December delivery if their car was produced in time. Reservationists, with 85kwh, some with production numbers up to 8,000, were emailed by the company.

Model S December Production email

personally I think Tesla's doing just fine whether or not they hit the range, but reality is hitting the range or not has short term impact on TSLA.
 
I sell everyday once the price is $1 above my purchase price. Ironically, the stock likes to fluctuate enough to allow me to buy back the shares at nearly the same price every couple days. No sell limits in the IRA accounts those are in for the very long haul.
 
I sell everyday once the price is $1 above my purchase price. Ironically, the stock likes to fluctuate enough to allow me to buy back the shares at nearly the same price every couple days. No sell limits in the IRA accounts those are in for the very long haul.
Wasn't that the strategy that sent Lenny Dykstra to bankruptcy? Basically capping gains at $1, but unless you similarly cap losses you're screwed the stock ever takes a long term dive.
 
I know that you guys don't have crystal balls, but do you feel its possible for this stock to fall below 31 ever again? I would like to buy more shares, but a price of 33 I feel may be too high. I am long on TSLA and have very little investing experience so maybe I am being picky and should just get a price at 33 since I won't be selling for a few years anyway. What do you guys think?
 
I know that you guys don't have crystal balls, but do you feel its possible for this stock to fall below 31 ever again? I would like to buy more shares, but a price of 33 I feel may be too high. I am long on TSLA and have very little investing experience so maybe I am being picky and should just get a price at 33 since I won't be selling for a few years anyway. What do you guys think?

Unless there's some news, it may not fall to 31 anytime soon. Why not sell some 31 puts until it happens? You make money waiting.
 
Wasn't that the strategy that sent Lenny Dykstra to bankruptcy? Basically capping gains at $1, but unless you similarly cap losses you're screwed the stock ever takes a long term dive.

OT but it looks to me like he was living beyond his means and got nailed by the 2008 financial crisis.

"In July 2009, Dykstra, whose net worth was estimated at $58 million in 2008, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, listing less than $50,000 in assets against $10 million to $50 million in liabilities. Dykstra claimed to be a victim of mortgage fraud and lost a house purchased for $17.5 million from Wayne Gretzky to foreclosure.[23] The house is located in the Sherwood Country Club development in Thousand Oaks, California. [24]"

Lenny Dykstra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Unless there's some news, it may not fall to 31 anytime soon. Why not sell some 31 puts until it happens? You make money waiting.

I am pretty new to investing and puts even more so, never did one. A good suggestion as I understand their premise so I will have to do more research on how to do them and fully understand them before I shoot myself in the foot. Right now I have 257 shares at avg 29.31 so that is a decent amount for my income, heh. Hate to screw it up.
 
This was obviously not done on the open market, at least not most of the acquisition, since there was no large volumes on or around the 30th of November. Maybe they have been buying in over time though on the open market, and just made the news public on the 30th? In that case that could be one of the drivers of the upwards price in the last weeks.
 
There's some very weird activity in the options of tesla today. Calls trading at 0 IV. more details coming.


Update:

Ok here are the trades that have gone through. Calls at 0 IV, which generally isn't ever supposed to happen.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla iv/Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 2.38.32 PM.png

Not a tiny amount.

And the person doing it is still on the ask.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla iv/Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 2.40.02 PM.png

Like, what's weird isn't that someone wants to buy them at 19.20, thats the intrinsic value, its that anyone is willing to sell them at 19.20 when thats the current intrinsic value of the stock. The only reason you'd sell those calls rather then just short the stock is no shares to borrow. This is someone entering a 100 contract or so ($150,000 nominal) short postion for January. Presumably they're doing it this way cause the puts are very expensive.

The problem is that the market for those calls will go back to being quite illiquid (look at the march 15 calls, more then a dollar bid/ask spread). So they won't be able to close the postion very easily, no matter how the stock moves.

I haven't really seen this ever so um, no idea what the implications are. Possibly just a novice person thinking they found a clever way to short and will end up getting crushed. Stock would have to move down about a dollar just to make up for the bid/ask.

I'm mentioning this because this person is the one keeping the price at 34.20 during this afternoon. Been on that ask at 14.20, so every time the price goes over a Market Maker fills it, buying the call, and shorts shares above 34.20. Fully hedged postion, arbitrage. Explains why their are small fills. It's why the ask is sitting at 34.21 for so long.

Once this person's orders are all filled (22 contracts left, so 2200 shares) should finally break this range.


EDIT:

On second thought, its very very weird that these aren't getting filled faster. Shares have traded at 34.22 without any more fills on those calls. This is an arbitrage opportunity that is being ignored, which never happens. Only explanation is that the arbitrage opportunity requires the ability to short shares. Which MMs seem to be unable or unwilling to do.

There's also similar 0 IV activity in other strike prices. over Dec/Jan calls. All small orders.

Take a look at what just happened.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla iv/Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 3.10.36 PM.png

.03 arbitrage. But the order was sitting there for about 10m.

Seems likely its the same person since all of the orders are xx.20. There are more like 35 more contracts to fill, and i estimate the total order size is about 150 contracts actually.

This is so weird. If this is just a retail person there going to get crushed when they try to close the postion. If anyone wants to look, the calls are Dec 22 strike and Jan 15 strike.
 
Last edited:
about a $100 million buy last week, [/url]

Nasdaq does not show complete information. As of the end of the third quarter, it shows Blackrock and its affiliates as holding:


BLACKROCK ADVISORS LLC 3,042,228
BLACKROCK FUND ADVISORS 572,934
BLACKROCK GROUP LTD 132,394
BLACKROCK INC. 348,221
BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC 24,909
BLACKROCK JAPAN CO. LTD 1,000

That’s about 4.1 million shares, but more than likely Blackrock collectively held almost 5.9 million shares on 9/30/12.

The key to the most recent disclosure (which amends and earlier filing) is item 5:
“Item 5.

Ownership of 5 Percent or Less of a Class. If this statement is being
filed to report the fact that as of the date hereof the reporting person has ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of the class of securities, check the following [ X ].”

The original filing was in February which show Blackrock collectively controlled nearly 5.9 million shares or about 5.65%

Tesla Motors - Statement of Beneficial Ownership

Selling about 218,000 shares or less than 4% of Blackrock’s holding is probably not material, but it does have the opposite implication from that suggested in the originally cited blog post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.