TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[MP3Mike]

but you just need to move it before the Admin does

I can't move it anymore than you can. (Unless you are a mod.)

 

[Curt Renz]

Not sure on the small discount in aftermarket at $368, so I bought a small position in case TSLA keeps going up while waiting for the unicorn dip...

The dip about an hour ago was in sync with the macro-market in apparent reaction to Trump proposing tariffs on even more Chinese goods.

 

[neroden]

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but the surest way to trigger a squeeze that I can imagine would be for someone to pull a few million shares out of the lending program.
View attachment 310606

Actually, buying a few million shares would be much more reliable. My estimate is that if hardcore "will not sell" types bought 12 million more shares, we'd be in true squeeze territory (which is actually kind of scary, as that's when share lenders might not get their shares returned).

 

[TradingInvest]

Why? That line came from another public leak of the email: Elon Musk sends company email about 'extensive and damaging sabotage' by employee

If Tesla actually want to discover who is leaking, I assume they do, we don't want to give the guy a friendly warning.

 

[EinSV]

Short volume as percent of trading dropped today to an extremely low 36.34% according to volumebot.com.

Will be very interested to hear @Papafox's thoughts on this when he is ready for his daily update.

 

[neroden]

Magicians make you look in one place as they perform the trick in another place where you don't look.
How about Tesla Energy for the Short Squeeze? Such as a large contract with a foreign country, or a very large utility company, similar but much bigger than the South Australian battery?

Huh. We have absolutely no visibility on Tesla Energy deliveries in Q2, do we? Is this information which is published but in such a way that people didn't notice it? If so, that would definitely be a candidate.

 

[Krugerrand]

If Tesla actually want to discover who is leaking, I assume they do, we don't want to give the guy a friendly warning.

The guy is in big trouble. Unless he’s some hardened criminal, he’s going to squeal on associates, partners etc...sooner rather than later. I wouldn’t worry about warning anyone else. If they aren’t boarding a plane right now to Switzerland, they’ll be caught before the week is out.

 

[liuping]

The guy is in big trouble. Unless he’s some hardened criminal, he’s going to squeal on associates, partners etc...sooner rather than later. I wouldn’t worry about warning anyone else. If they aren’t boarding a plane right now to Switzerland, they’ll be caught before the week is out.

I thought they already had the person, based on Elon's comment about what the saboteur has admitted to: "The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad"

 

[Krugerrand]

I thought they already had the person, based on Elon's comment about the saboteur has admitted to: "The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad"

Yes. I think the next question was whether it was just him or if he had help/partner and/or who he sent the data to.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yes. I think the next question was whether it was just him or if he had help/partner and/or who he sent the data to.

I think it unlikely in the extreme that even if he had partners in crime, it will be anyone interesting. Just more idiots. The likelihood it is a corporate enemy is pretty small. But not zero. Pass the popcorn, please.

 

[oneday]

I think it unlikely in the extreme that even if he had partners in crime, it will be anyone interesting. Just more idiots. The likelihood it is a corporate enemy is pretty small. But not zero. Pass the popcorn, please.

I hope you’re right. However, Tesla has a large talent pool of applicants. I would say that the odds of it being an “idiot” is small. Sociopath more likely. I wouldn’t expect it to come from a competitor, but UAW or a short fund would not shock me.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I hope you’re right. However, Tesla has a large talent pool of applicants. I would say that the odds of it being an “idiot” is small. Sociopath more likely. I wouldn’t expect it to come from a competitor, but UAW or a short fund would not shock me.

Well, I was using the word idiot in relation to his crime. Anyone who would do that is an idiot in my book, regardless of how otherwise smart they are. It was more of a generic pejorative rather than a clinical disorder assessment.

 

[ggr]

It's not bad Mike, just in the wrong forum. I appreciate your post, but you just need to move it before the Admin does

Mod: no, it seems on-topic to me. --ggr.

 

[ggr]

I thought they already had the person, based on Elon's comment about what the saboteur has admitted to: "The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad"

Yes, they have the saboteur, but not (necessarily) the person/people leaking the internal emails.

 

[wipster]

Mod: no, it seems on-topic to me. --ggr.

Guess I'll just stick to poetry and politics in the future...

 

[neroden]

I'm not at all sure that it's worth stopping the leaker. The internal email leaks seem to be driving the stock price up at the moment.

Hope they catch all the saboteurs, though!

 

[neroden]

Does this mean the squeeze has started?

Mark B. Spiegel on Twitter

Just means that Spiegel got wiped out; lacks the margin to short-sell and is reduced to buying puts with his remaining cash. Which will of course expire worthless.

 

[johnnybgood888]

Actually, buying a few million shares would be much more reliable. My estimate is that if hardcore "will not sell" types bought 12 million more shares, we'd be in true squeeze territory (which is actually kind of scary, as that's when share lenders might not get their shares returned).

So, that is an interesting hypothetical scenario. What actually happens if there aren't enough shares for shorts to buy back to return to the lenders?? Has it ever happened before?

 

[neroden]

It's Mark's apartment. I had a small apartment near Central Park for years when I was in my 20s and had little to no money.

He has about $10 million of assets under management, last I checked. Either that's not really a hedge fund, or surprise, several of us manage assets the size of hedge funds and we didn't even know it.

Very large accumulated wealth may just be paying for his services as a spokesperson for narratives they seem to feel as if they want out in the world. Doesn't make much sense someone with $10 million AUM would be on CNBC, and speak a conferences where the likes of billionaire investor Ron Baron speaks.

Self-promotion is a powerful thing, but it is more likely that he has "backers". As Jesse thinks.

I really think there's a strong chance that the bulk of the short position is about a larger game.

 

[neroden]

So, that is an interesting hypothetical scenario. What actually happens if there aren't enough shares for shorts to buy back to return to the lenders?? Has it ever happened before?

I only know of 19th century examples, and the laws have changed a *lot* since the 19th century.

The way the contracts are written, the brokers would return as many shares as they could get to the lenders, and the rest of the lenders would get the collateral (losing out on any further run-up). As for the short-sellers, they'd owe the brokers the value of the shares -- I'm not quite sure when the shares would be evaluated for this purpose, but it probably doesn't matter because the short-sellers would be declaring bankruptcy.

Back in the 19th century, the short-sellers were *thrown in prison* for failure to return the shares. Sadly this does not happen any more. "He who sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to prison" -- attributed to Daniel Drew