MarcusMaximus
Active Member
Regarding #ExplaintheVins from TeslaCharts. I've been racking my brains what the hoopla is all about and why they think this is the chart to end all charts. So from my own understanding, this is the basic premise:
Tesla is overstating their Q3 sales because the number sold is far less than the Vins registered as shown in some public database (NVMTIS).
They contend that the funds from the fraudulent sales likely come from their ABL, reporting the accessed credit line as sales. They cite an example where a Ford dealer withheld reporting of sales to Ford while already receiving the cash from Ford credit. Funds were withheld for an average of 55 days in that example. So a form of check kiting. In this case it's called a floor financing model.
So essentially it furthers the TSLAQ premise that the entire company is a massive pyramid scheme. They will keep on inflating these sales figures quarter after quarter using this method until there is no more source of funds to access.
The problem with this is that this would involve a massive conspiracy on a lot of Tesla employees. For example:
1. Accounting staff will have to falsely book two sides of the entry, one side to draw on the credit line not for its suited purpose. The other side to book sales and not questioning where the funds came from.
2. Delivery and Logistics - all the false sales would need to be moved in some location. Because these cars will not get delivered , it would assume these employees are in on the scheme and just turn a blind eye on sitting inventories.
Now if you are a family business like a dealership, this is probably not impossible to coordinate but eventually the whole scheme crumbles as with all pyramid scheme like this.
Am I missing something else? Is this really how the TSLA shorts think to come up with such a convoluted fantasy just to satisfy their premise?
You end up at their conclusion, but I think their premise is that the number (estimated to be) sold is *more* than the number (estimated to be) in the database.
Of course, one of those estimates is from a blog and the other is from the shorts, themselves, and both numbers are increasing at the same rate, just offset from each other by a constant ~1.5 months, but we didn’t really expect their argument to make sense, did we?