TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[uselesslogin]

I do not understand that which you say.
The big issues is that FIDO sold 11.9 M shares!

Do you not understand or do you choose to not understand? OK, sure, big issue... Selling all my TSLA now.

 

[RobStark]

... and the instantly-applied countervailing tariffs hurt Tesla, just like the Chinese tariffs.

That's not 'bullish', but if you were to rearrange some letters in the second part, then I'd agree wholeheartedly.

Cheers!

Chinese tariffs are all bad for Tesla because Tesla doesn't compete against Chinese imports in the USA.

With European tariffs extra sales in the US will probably at least offset any lost sales in Europe.

It means Tesla has to compete against Cadillac and Lincoln.BMW, MB, and Volvo SUVs plus a limited number of C Class that are made in the USA.

 

[doofenshmirtz]

It wouldn't power the whole state, but how about covering all of California's open aqueducts with solar panels? The land is already out of production and the panels would reduce evaporation. Add some nice power packs and....

India doing this...

 

[SpaceCash]

Why do everytime on this forum there is an Option Sniper tweet screenshot about TSLA going to the moon in the next few days, the next day it falls at least 3% ?

He's particularly bullish on TSLA longterm. Just peruse his history and pattern of posting. He def has a sweet spot for tsla and don't forget the manipulation with tsla is real, which can frustrate the technical analysis he specializes in

 

[dw4ngg]

He's particularly bullish on TSLA longterm. Just peruse his history and pattern of posting. He def has a sweet spot for tsla and don't forget the manipulation with tsla is real, which can frustrate the technical analysis he specializes in

Yep. Shorts are really throwing off technical correlation to fundamentals. Also, macros bad.

 

[dc_h]

It would be really bad if VW went out of business.. for all players.

All? What if there was some big brigade of douche's who spent their lives dreaming of ways to catch VW causing cancer, cheating on emissions, stalking their executives and taking creepy pictures of their CEO with their kids. Those guys would love all the pain and suffering bankruptcy would cause. But who the heck is that screwed up to spend their lives dreaming of the destruction of a company and livelihood of its owners and employees.

 

[SpaceCash]

Yep. Shorts are really throwing off technical correlation to fundamentals. Also, macros bad.

Wait are u him?

 

[dc_h]

That's bullish imo. If tarrifs are slapped on Euro autos, that directly helps Tesla

As a percent of sales, it is the biggest exporter of cars in America.

 

[dc_h]

I do not understand that which you say.
The poster suggested Ark "dumped" 23K shares, then posted they had sold 11K.
The big issues is that FIDO sold 11.9 M shares!
View attachment 352117



Ark is a little fish.
Current holdings interesting as well, nothing like 11M...or close
View attachment 352116

i believe that was a data entry error and the Fidelity did not own 20mm, but reduced from 11 to 9mm. If they did sell 11 million shares at a discount while the stock rose from 250 to 350, someone should get be looking for a new job.

 

[Fact Checking]

Not me. I have observed that in recent times, recessions follow an overheated economy. Because of price inelasticity a booming economy spikes up the oil price ($150 US per barrel just prior to GFC), and because oil is a factor in the cost of pretty much everything, this is inflationary. To suppress inflation, the Fed jacks up interest rates and we get a recession.

The Fed uses "core PCE" as their inflation metric - where "core" means that energy prices are excluded. I.e. high oil prices don't directly cause the Fed to act - but there's an indirect channel, dampened.

2008 triggered due to:

• two decades of catastrophic mismanagement of the Fed by libertarian Alan Greenspan - with the help of both political parties,
• when the (post-Greenspan) Fed was forced to start raising rates in 2007 the overheated housing market bubble collapsed. This alone would only have led to a recession, not to an almost-depression, but:
• under Greenspan major banks became under-capitalized and over-leveraged, and most became insolvent as housing collapsed. Deregulation also increased pricing opaqueness, which reduced crisis resilience. This alone would still only have led to a bank shareholder wipeout and a U.S. recession, but:
• the first major bank insolvency (Bear Stearns) was bailed out in early 2008,
• the second insolvency, of Lehmann Brothers, was not bailed out in an epic misjudgement, due to the Bush administration being worried about optics for the upcoming presidential election. Not only did they not bail out Lehmann, they allowed a "short form bankruptcy" which was even more destructive, setting off a huge, ~700 billion dollars large financial atomic bomb in the global financial markets.
• belatedly the banks were bailed out a few days later, but by then it was too late: the Lehmann bankruptcy was legally irreversible, with a million pieces of high speed shrapnel of financial destruction making every other bank duck: interbank liquidity froze up, nobody knew where the bad assets were exactly, trust collapsed. In particular "shadow banks" were on the verge of insolvency, and an epic global bank run on almost every modern bank was all but inevitable,
• all the major central banks, at the request of Great Depression scholar Fed chair Ben Bernanke injected trillions of dollars of liquidity into the financial markets. This move is what avoided the bank run and turned a new Great Depression into "only" the Great Recession.

The right policy response would have been to take all insolvent U.S. banks into government receivership from the get go, wiping out shareholders and then recapitalizing them, and then selling them a few years down the road to make taxpayers whole. Wall Street's political dominance prevented that obvious solution - so we got a taxpayer financed bailout instead.

Forget "subprime": while a housing bubble bursting is bad, that would only have led to a U.S. recession, not a global meltdown. Forget CDOs and AIG: those were unnecessarily opaque, but they would not have been a structural problem if there hadn't been a $700b uncontrolled bankruptcy triggered by the imbeciles in the Bush administration out of political miscalculation - just to be followed by a much worse trillion dollar bailout a few days later ...

As to the present situation in 2018:

• Housing is not overheated on the U.S. level - at least 5 years of growth left.
• Technology sector might price correct, but it's unclear whether that triggers a recession. Even the dotcom bubble burst was comparatively mild on the national level - and we are nowhere near dotcom craze levels.
  
• What might trigger a recession it is that Republicans, now that they've created trillions of deficit via tax cuts, will start deficit, debt and inflation fearmongering and obstruction again in 2020 if there's a Democratic president - especially if there's a Democratic Senate. That's still two years away.
• Crash-out BRExit could also cause a global recession.

Meanwhile my guess for the next two years is, if BRExit crash-out is avoided, we'll get a tech correction plus average growth.

Could be wrong about it though.

 

[ZsoZso]

Will the SEC investigate this? Had I loaded up on VW shares expecting them to deliver on this, I’d feel like they misled me. Of course this is VW we’re talking about, so I guess false claims and misleading statements are to be expected.

you are lucky this is only hypothetical loss for you. But look at poor Mark Spiegel, he based his entire investment thesis (Tesla shorting) on this and similar statements by the incumbents. Maybe he should really sue VW!

 

[Carl Raymond]

The Fed uses "core PCE" as their inflation metric - where "core" means that energy prices are excluded. I.e. high oil prices don't directly cause the Fed to act - but there's an indirect channel, dampened.

2008 triggered due to:

• two decades of catastrophic mismanagement of the Fed by libertarian Alan Greenspan - with the help of both political parties,
• when the (post-Greenspan) Fed was forced to start raising rates in 2007 the overheated housing market bubble collapsed. This alone would only have led to a recession, not to an almost-depression, but:
• under Greenspan major banks became under-capitalized and over-leveraged, and most became insolvent as housing collapsed. Deregulation also increased pricing opaqueness, which reduced crisis resilience. This alone would still only have led to a bank shareholder wipeout and a U.S. recession, but:
• the first major bank insolvency (Bear Stearns) was bailed out in early 2008,
• the second insolvency, of Lehmann Brothers, was not bailed out in an epic misjudgement, due to the Bush administration being worried about optics for the upcoming presidential election. Not only did they not bail out Lehmann, they allowed a "short form bankruptcy" which was even more destructive, setting off a huge, ~700 billion dollars large financial atomic bomb in the global financial markets.
• belatedly the banks were bailed out a few days later, but by then it was too late: the Lehmann bankruptcy was legally irreversible, with a million pieces of high speed shrapnel of financial destruction making every other bank duck: interbank liquidity froze up, nobody knew where the bad assets were exactly, trust collapsed. In particular "shadow banks" were on the verge of insolvency, and an epic global bank run on almost every modern bank was all but inevitable,
• all the major central banks, at the request of Great Depression scholar Fed chair Ben Bernanke injected trillions of dollars of liquidity into the financial markets. This move is what avoided the bank run and turned a new Great Depression into "only" the Great Recession.

The right solution would have been to take all insolvent U.S. banks into government receivership from the get go, wiping out shareholders and then recapitalizing them, and then selling them a few years down the road to make taxpayers whole. Wall Street's political dominance prevented that obvious solution - so we got a taxpayer financed bailout instead.

Forget "subprime": while a housing bubble bursting is bad, that would only have led to a U.S. recession, not a global meltdown. Forget CDOs and AIG: those were unnecessarily opaque, but they would not have been a structural problem if there hadn't been a $700b uncontrolled bankruptcy triggered by the imbeciles in the Bush administration out of political miscalculation - just to be followed by a much worse trillion dollar bailout a few days later ...

As to the present situation in 2018:

• Housing is not overheated on the U.S. level - at least 5 years of growth left.
• Technology sector might price correct, but it's unclear whether that triggers a recession. Even the dotcom bubble burst was comparatively mild on the national level - and we are nowhere near dotcom craze levels.
  
• What might trigger a recession it is that Republicans, now that they've created trillions of deficit via tax cuts, will start deficit, debt and inflation fearmongering and obstruction again in 2020 if there's a Democratic president - especially if there's a Democratic Senate. That's still two years away.
• Crash-out BRExit could also cause a global recession.

Meanwhile my guess for the next two years is, if BRExit crash-out is avoided, we'll get a tech correction plus average growth.

Could be wrong about it though.

Why was the fed forced to raise rates in 2007? Because inflation. Why inflation? Because everybody wanted more of the finite oil supply on which all product depends (or did, at that time). It bid the price way up.

As the oil price climbed to $150 / barrel, I remember thinking - uh oh, here we go. A month later, the sugar hits the fan.

We are merely another animal species whose output is governed by the available energy. Just because we cheat(ed) by digging it up, the rules don't change.

Less economics, more physics. It's Elon Musk's secret to success. It's why I'm a long time fan.

 

[S3XY]

Electric pickup trucks are not in GM’s plans for the next couple decades, says exec

Edit: Did not mean to post in this thread but will leave it here since it got two funnies.

Electric pickup trucks say GM is not in their plans in a couple decades.

 

[AWDtsla]

The Fed uses "core PCE" as their inflation metric - where "core" means that energy prices are excluded. I.e. high oil prices don't directly cause the Fed to act - but there's an indirect channel, dampened.

2008 triggered due to:

• two decades of catastrophic mismanagement of the Fed by libertarian Alan Greenspan - with the help of both political parties,
• when the (post-Greenspan) Fed was forced to start raising rates in 2007 the overheated housing market bubble collapsed. This alone would only have led to a recession, not to an almost-depression, but:
• under Greenspan major banks became under-capitalized and over-leveraged, and most became insolvent as housing collapsed. Deregulation also increased pricing opaqueness, which reduced crisis resilience. This alone would still only have led to a bank shareholder wipeout and a U.S. recession, but:
• the first major bank insolvency (Bear Stearns) was bailed out in early 2008,
• the second insolvency, of Lehmann Brothers, was not bailed out in an epic misjudgement, due to the Bush administration being worried about optics for the upcoming presidential election. Not only did they not bail out Lehmann, they allowed a "short form bankruptcy" which was even more destructive, setting off a huge, ~700 billion dollars large financial atomic bomb in the global financial markets.
• belatedly the banks were bailed out a few days later, but by then it was too late: the Lehmann bankruptcy was legally irreversible, with a million pieces of high speed shrapnel of financial destruction making every other bank duck: interbank liquidity froze up, nobody knew where the bad assets were exactly, trust collapsed. In particular "shadow banks" were on the verge of insolvency, and an epic global bank run on almost every modern bank was all but inevitable,
• all the major central banks, at the request of Great Depression scholar Fed chair Ben Bernanke injected trillions of dollars of liquidity into the financial markets. This move is what avoided the bank run and turned a new Great Depression into "only" the Great Recession.

The right policy response would have been to take all insolvent U.S. banks into government receivership from the get go, wiping out shareholders and then recapitalizing them, and then selling them a few years down the road to make taxpayers whole. Wall Street's political dominance prevented that obvious solution - so we got a taxpayer financed bailout instead.

Forget "subprime": while a housing bubble bursting is bad, that would only have led to a U.S. recession, not a global meltdown. Forget CDOs and AIG: those were unnecessarily opaque, but they would not have been a structural problem if there hadn't been a $700b uncontrolled bankruptcy triggered by the imbeciles in the Bush administration out of political miscalculation - just to be followed by a much worse trillion dollar bailout a few days later ...

As to the present situation in 2018:

• Housing is not overheated on the U.S. level - at least 5 years of growth left.
• Technology sector might price correct, but it's unclear whether that triggers a recession. Even the dotcom bubble burst was comparatively mild on the national level - and we are nowhere near dotcom craze levels.
  
• What might trigger a recession it is that Republicans, now that they've created trillions of deficit via tax cuts, will start deficit, debt and inflation fearmongering and obstruction again in 2020 if there's a Democratic president - especially if there's a Democratic Senate. That's still two years away.
• Crash-out BRExit could also cause a global recession.

Meanwhile my guess for the next two years is, if BRExit crash-out is avoided, we'll get a tech correction plus average growth.

Could be wrong about it though.

What about this disaster: Student Loans Owned and Securitized, Outstanding

 

[Fact Checking]

Why was the fed forced to raise rates in 2007? Because inflation. Why inflation? Because everybody wanted more of the finite oil supply on which all product depends (or did, at that time).

Your argument ignores the various facts that I pointed out:

Firstly, the Fed used and uses the core PCE Inflation metric that does not include oil prices. Here's the metric the Fed uses:

As you can see there's no increase in the inflation metric the Fed uses to make policy, leading up to or even in 2008 due to record high oil prices. This alone is fatal to your argument.

Secondly, oil prices weren't even high in 2007 yet:

As you can see they started rising to record levels in early 2008, as the Fed was forced to reduce interest rates to fight the banking crisis triggered by the housing bubble and the other factors I listed.

To correct the 2007 date I used, the Fed stared raising the Fed funds rate to above current inflation levels in 2005-2006:

But the massive U.S. housing bubble was already in place by then:

And the stock market was just correcting in early 2008:

So the main reason for the 2008 oil bubble wasn't mainly any true supply/demand forces, but:

• funds moving out of housing (which was correcting since late 2006),
• funds moving out of bonds (which got lower yield),
• funds moving out of equities (which peaked in late 2007),

Which left a single major target for investment and speculation: commodities. They bubbled up, massively and speculatively, driven by futures and options speculation - but this really was just one symptom of the looming trouble, not the trigger of the recession.

The flow of macro funds today in 2018 is not even comparable to the 2008 situation:

• funds are still moving into U.S. housing, which is still under-served in some markets. Healthy population growth and economic growth in the U.S. requires more structures to be built, and for years still.
• funds are moving into bonds, as interest rates are rising,
• funds are probably still moving into equities after recent peaks, or are in holding pattern,
• as a result commodities are not in a bubble.

Putting the blame on oil prices and inflation is a simplistic argument that mistakes correlation for causation.

I think this matters to near term $TSLA price action, as a recession would hit the various automakers differently: a U.S.-only recession would mostly help German carmakers - while a global recession triggered by catastrophic-BRExit would hurt all ICE automakers.

BTW., I also think that Tesla would be more recession-resilient than most other carmakers - but a global recession would probably hurt Tesla sales too.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Nasdaq 100 Dec 18 (NQ=F)
CME - CME Delayed Price. Currency in USD
6,860.25+25.25 (+0.37%)
As of 12:12AM EST. Market open.

 

[Carl Raymond]

You entirely ignored the various facts that I pointed out:

Firstly, the Fed used and uses the core PCE Inflation metric that does not include oil prices. Here's the metric the Fed uses:

As you can see there's no increase in the inflation metric the Fed uses to make policy, leading up to or even in 2008 due to record high oil prices. This alone is fatal to your argument.

Secondly, oil prices weren't even high in 2007 yet:

As you can see they started rising to record levels in early 2008, as the Fed was forced to reduce interest rates to fight the banking crisis triggered by the housing bubble and the other factors I listed.

To correct the 2007 date I used, the Fed stared raising the Fed funds rate to above current inflation levels in 2005-2006:

But the massive U.S. housing bubble was already in place by then:

And the stock market was just correcting in early 2008:

So the main reason for the 2008 oil bubble wasn't mainly any true supply/demand forces, but:

• funds moving out of housing (which was correcting since late 2006),
• funds moving out of bonds (which got lower yield),
• funds moving out of equities (which peaked in late 2007),

Which left a single major target for investment and speculation: commodities. They bubbled up, massively and speculatively, driven by futures and options speculation - but this really was just one symptom of the looming trouble, not the trigger of the recession.

The flow of macro funds today in 2018 is not even comparable to the 2008 situation:

• funds are still moving into U.S. housing, which is still under-served in some markets. Healthy population growth and economic growth in the U.S. requires more structures to be built, and for years still.
• funds are moving into bonds, as interest rates are rising,
• funds are probably still moving into equities after recent peaks, or are in holding pattern,
• as a result commodities are not in a bubble.

Putting the blame on oil prices and inflation is a simplistic argument that mistakes correlation for causation.

I think this matters to near term $TSLA price action, as a recession would hit the various automakers differently: a U.S.-only recession would mostly help German carmakers - while a global recession triggered by catastrophic-BRExit would hurt all ICE automakers.

BTW., I also think that Tesla would be more recession-resilient than most other carmakers - but a global recession would probably hurt Tesla sales too.

All cart. Not horse. The horse is energy.

 

[Fact Checking]

Nasdaq 100 Dec 18 (NQ=F)
CME - CME Delayed Price. Currency in USD
6,860.25+25.25 (+0.37%)
As of 12:12AM EST. Market open.

In fact Nasdaq futures rose since their lows last night (when TSLA aftermarket closed), by about +1.5%, so if that is maintained then $TSLA might rise relative to the ~$228 aftermarket closing price, in the early pre-market.

 

[Artful Dodger]

In fact Nasdaq futures rose since their lows last night (when TSLA aftermarket closed), by about +1.5%, so if that is maintained then $TSLA might rise relative to the ~$228 aftermarket closing price, in the early pre-market.

Yeah, TSLA fell $2 during the last 5 min of the after-hrs session, to $328.50

Absent any news, and without a corresponding drop in the macros, I'll just chalk that up to market manipulators. It'll be gone on opening, then we'll see how much buying interest the big boys really have.

Lots of options expiring on Friday, could be a factor. Max pain for Nov 16 works out to $315 right now. Could influence market makers trading in a low volume period.

Cheers!

 

[Papafox]

Nice article on cleantechnica on Tesla entering the S&P500 in Q2

Should be quite a big deal

Tesla's Upcoming Inclusion In The S&P 500 Index | CleanTechnica

That author's writing style seems SO familiar.