TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[mongo]

It’s just a simple thought experiment. It’s not my real prediction of what’s going to happen.

Oh, gotcha seemed like a real analysis/ view, but if it was just a worst case spitballing/ value prediction, that still makes Tesla look good, I'm all for it! (I've been dinged on overly pessimistic base assumption that still may a great case for Tesla also).

 

[ThereAre4Cars]

The thought of some dude with a fake French accent whining about Tesla pricing while getting a free Roadster does not sit well.

Shots fired. I heard the French subtitle movies from Quebec.

 

[MXWing]

And when I go to purchase a used Performance 3 that should have had unlimited supercharging but no longer does because the owner canceled it I will immediately subtract $5000 off whatever price the other cars are selling for. Now you are out all the supercharging fees and the $5K you got refunded. BUT you will probably be lucky enough to not have to worry about it because most people will not even remember this in a year or three when the car gets sold.

No Model 3 ever has supercharging stay with the car when transferred.

I’m an economist and wouldn’t make a rookie mistake like not factoring in the transferability of super charging into any cost analysis calculations.

Though transferable supercharging would appease people overnight....

 

[ThereAre4Cars]

Why, thank you. It was eating me inside that I couldn't thank this post. Not sure why I thought I'd still be able to agree/disagree while banned.



There's only one way to resolve this.

Hey I was the first one here to point out you deserved credit... where's my cookie.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I don't expect to be allowed back to his blog / pretend EV journalist site. Fast freddy has blocked my comments before, when I directed Robert Bollinger to ask Elon to allow Supercharger access to the upcoming Bollinger E-SUV.

As I expected, and consistent his past heavy handed actions, Fast Freddy has already removed my comment from his "news" site.

I pointed out the obvious conflict of interest which inevitably leads to ethics violations whenever a journalist accepts a large gift from a company he reports on. Want gifts? Fine. Call yourself a Tesla Blogger and don't call yourself a Journalist. Click this thumbnail to view a screenie:

 

[ThereAre4Cars]

Exactly, Tesla is generating twice as much cash from revenue as Amazon, and Tesla is growing into a new EV market that is 10-30 times larger than Apple's markets (!): global automotive is 2-3 trillion dollars annual - and well above 10 trillion dollars with Energy, Autonomy and Ridesharing included, a substantial percentage of world GDP.

My highest, top end valuation for $TSLA, if everything goes perfectly in the next 5-15 years and every competitor messes up, has thus six digits per share.

Which is obviously and admittedly a low probability outcome at this stage, but between $330 and that figure there's a lot of pathways to really big numbers.

Reign it in their soldier. The sequoia can only grow so fast.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Hey I was the first one here to point out you deserved credit... where's my cookie.

Cookie

 

[AWDtsla]

As I expected, and consistent his past heavy handed actions, Fast Freddy has already removed my comment from his "news" site.

I pointed out the obvious ethics violation that causes a conflict of interest when a journalist accepts a large gift on a company he reports on. Very unethical, continued ethics violations.

Here is what Fred did:

View attachment 347503

I'm amusing myself by thinking of what Fickle Freddy will do when he gets the income tax bill for his free roadster. Another article about Tesla punishing it's owners?

 

[elasalle]

#Tesla registered 2,297 new #Model3 VINs. ~30% estimated to be dual motor. Highest VIN is 179851.
Model 3 VINs (@Model3VINs) | Twitter

 

[ThereAre4Cars]

Lol. Why can’t you cite any evidence to support your position? How come when I present hard data that supports my case you resort to insults?

He wants to toss me off the board for questioning the likelihood of a short squeeze, which apparently went on for an extended period in 2013 rather than simply you know... being a good run. Someone should review the short squeeze talk here from August. It was one for the record books.

 

[jimmy_d]

I noticed some people using technical analysis in this thread, so I wanted to re-post something I wrote on that topic in another thread.

Academic research finds that most daily price movements are random.

Here's an academic study that compared five common technical trading strategies to random trading. It concluded:

"Our main result, which is independent of the market considered, is that standard trading strategies and their algorithms, based on the past history of the time series, although have occasionally the chance to be successful inside small temporal windows, on a large temporal scale perform on average not better than the purely random strategy, which, on the other hand, is also much less volatile."

Another study looked at 5,000 technical trading strategies and found none performed better than chance.

This is a great study that simulated a stock market where prices moved 100% randomly. Lo and behold, they found some of technical traders' favourite patterns in the random data:

"To demonstrate why traditional technical analysis falls short, we applied the standard methods to a synthetic market generated by a random walk. Although the market data is engineered to be pure noise, technical analysis "discovers" strong features such as accumulation/distribution patterns, upward and downward trends, support and resistance levels."

So, if you are using the tools of traditional technical analysis, you are probably attributing meaning to noise. These same patterns appear in completely random data.

Just because a technique appears to work once or a few times doesn’t mean it has a success rate better than chance. People could flip coins to decide whether a stock will go up and down, and many of them would have streaks of 7 or more successes in a row. That’s just statistics. Confirmation bias, the gambler's fallacy, and survivorship bias often lead people to feel confident about techniques that perform no better than chance.

Apparently, some prominent proponents of technical analysis are also advocates of astrology, and believe that astrology can be used to predict stock price movements. That's maybe a sign that technical analysis lacks scientific rigour.

You can also ask: 1) if traditional technical analysis worked, why wouldn't high-frequency trading algorithms have arbitraged all the alpha away by now? and 2) if it worked, why doesn't technical trading have a billionaire poster child, like Warren Buffett for value investing?

Also relevant:

The video is about how alpha is elusive because a) the stock market is highly unpredictable and b) even more importantly, anytime anyone finds a way to non-randomly attain alpha, people just copy them and arbitrage all the alpha away. That would of course apply to technical trading methods.

LOL!

Thank you for that. But I've gotta say - you aren't going to make a lot of friends in *this* forum.

 

[ThereAre4Cars]

Cookie

Yum yum yum yum eat em up.

 

[S3XY]

I decided to not go to Fred's site anymore. There are several other sites I can read instead. What Fred did is a small thing but reflects character.

I started avoiding the site and stopped listening to the podcasts when the clickbait titles started. There are plenty of other resources out there and this is my small (tiny) way of showing my displeasure.

 

[Causalien]

LOL!

Thank you for that. But I've gotta say - you aren't going to make a lot of friends in *this* forum.

LOL. I mentioned 330 a couple days before and now we sit at 330. If it isn't because of technicals. Then I must be able to see the future.

Or it could just be that the researchers applied the technical patterns without knowing when they are in effect. Because researchers who can successfully apply TA have already stopped researching so they can make money and retire.

Just like the famous quote. Those who cannot do, teach.

 

[Artful Dodger]

The last cars with transferable unlimited supercharging were ordered January 15th, 2017, and delivered up to a few months after that. It was originally December 31st, 2016, but it was extended 15 days. No Model 3 has it.

I ordered without unlimited supercharging, April 2017, but I was fortunate to get it retroactively. It doesn't follow the car, though.

Indeed I see you are right. I found this about the Sept free offer:

"New Model S, Model X, and Model 3 Performance buyers still have a chance to get free unlimited Supercharging for the lifetime of their ownership by ordering before the end of the day"
​

Can we go back to slagging the WSJ now?

 

[EVNow]

The DoJ needs to prove that Elon/Tesla lied. They need someone to say, “I told Elon in April, May, and July there was no way ( and it’s in fact impossible) Tesla would produce 5k week.” Who better to say these things then *former* employees.

Here is some thing similar from my experience.

My group manager wanted to complete a project in a timeline that many of us felt was impossible, including my manager. We said so at that time. But some others thought it was tough but not impossible. The group manager went ahead with the impossible schedule.

Does this mean DOJ had a case against my group manager ?

But it turned out he was actually right - he managed to change some of the age old processes and actually complete the project on time to everyone's surprise.

Moral of the story : We are talking about professional judgement here. People will naturally have different opinion - just because one low level (or even high level) employee thought something was impossible, doesn't make it so.

 

[Artful Dodger]

No, it's attached to the car and its transferrable.

Telsa tried to make the change you suggest in Jan 2017, but quickly recinded the policy due to massive unpopularity.

Yeah, I'm wrong. It's not transferable, at least not for the Model 3P SC offer in Sep 2018.

Cheers!

 

[Intl Professor]

One of my greatest fears as a teacher was getting boring, even though many times as an undergrad I fell asleep in class. This often happens. Once a very highly regarded colleague and recognized for his research recounted the tale of a chicken which wondered into his class, walked to a corner, and then went to sleep.

I'm getting bored with this back and forth about Fred. Maybe others here are also weary of such back and forth gossip.

Edit: cut two words.

 

[Leo9]

I noticed some people using technical analysis in this thread, so I wanted to re-post something I wrote on that topic in another thread.

Academic research finds that most daily price movements are random.

Here's an academic study that compared five common technical trading strategies to random trading. It concluded:

"Our main result, which is independent of the market considered, is that standard trading strategies and their algorithms, based on the past history of the time series, although have occasionally the chance to be successful inside small temporal windows, on a large temporal scale perform on average not better than the purely random strategy, which, on the other hand, is also much less volatile."

Another study looked at 5,000 technical trading strategies and found none performed better than chance.

This is a great study that simulated a stock market where prices moved 100% randomly. Lo and behold, they found some of technical traders' favourite patterns in the random data:

"To demonstrate why traditional technical analysis falls short, we applied the standard methods to a synthetic market generated by a random walk. Although the market data is engineered to be pure noise, technical analysis "discovers" strong features such as accumulation/distribution patterns, upward and downward trends, support and resistance levels."

So, if you are using the tools of traditional technical analysis, you are probably attributing meaning to noise. These same patterns appear in completely random data.

Just because a technique appears to work once or a few times doesn’t mean it has a success rate better than chance. People could flip coins to decide whether a stock will go up and down, and many of them would have streaks of 7 or more successes in a row. That’s just statistics. Confirmation bias, the gambler's fallacy, and survivorship bias often lead people to feel confident about techniques that perform no better than chance.

Apparently, some prominent proponents of technical analysis are also advocates of astrology, and believe that astrology can be used to predict stock price movements. That's maybe a sign that technical analysis lacks scientific rigour.

You can also ask: 1) if traditional technical analysis worked, why wouldn't high-frequency trading algorithms have arbitraged all the alpha away by now? and 2) if it worked, why doesn't technical trading have a billionaire poster child, like Warren Buffett for value investing?

Also relevant:

The video is about how alpha is elusive because a) the stock market is highly unpredictable and b) even more importantly, anytime anyone finds a way to non-randomly attain alpha, people just copy them and arbitrage all the alpha away. That would of course apply to technical trading methods.

TA is not magic and it won’t predict everything, but it’s an extremely powerful tool if you know how and when to use it.

I have always thought that technical analysis was BS, but experience has completely changed my mind.
You will find the answer to your questions in any serious book about trading.
Just look at option sniper on Twitter. He has an unbelievable success rate using pure TA.

 

[geometro]

What we don't see is the impact on new orders when Tesla messes with prices and options. Since buyers aren't rational the impact is probably greater than we would expect from a gut feeling.

I assume this most recent price change is intended to maximize ASP in Q4. To push the apparently many AWD orders into P orders.

Isn’t it still a $11k jump from AWD to P? That’s still quite steep, and not trivial.