TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[SteveG3]

I want to put the following in the comment section of the interview but would like to share it here first. Let me know if you have suggestions.

This is a hit piece intended to hurt tsla disguised as an interview about Journalism and CEOs criticizing Journalists. Here are the evidences:

1. CNBC invited 3 people on one side and no one on the other side to present opposite view.
2. All three people were connected to Chanos the short seller (Lopez: Linette Lopez on Twitter, Sonnenfeld: James Chanos, Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, McLean: Bethany McLean: your benefit of the doubt is hereby revoked | Deep Capture) Looked like McLean had done this kind of job to Fairfax in the past. To see the dirty tricks of Chanos and his gangs played against Fairfax: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/fairfax-pdf.310679/
3. They proclaimed that the point was about “Journalists under attack” yet repeatedly asked that “investors should re-consider investing in tsla”. Their own words betrayed their real intention.
4. Martin Tripp, the ex-tesla employee who was the source of Lynette’s piece, was clearly someone who intended to hurt tsla through his leaks. Since being caught and sued by tesla, he claimed whistleblowing but his behavior (going to a biased reporter instead of authority, leaking documents about inefficiency and waste which were not whistleblowing materials, etc.) clearly showed that he was a person bent on hurting tesla. Writing a piece based on a shady character like Tripp was not the behavior of an unbiased Journalist interested in reporting truth.
5. McLean almost admitted that she was biased by saying that Elon was also biased because he had incentive to grow tsla market cap. Elon has fiduciary duty to grow tsla and its market cap so there is nothing wrong about that. However, disgusting as an unbiased reporter writing pieces with the real intention to drive down stock price is not Ok.

CNBC should be ashamed of being part of this!

please send us a link when you're done posting this comment, for easy "liking."

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Lol - it's actually posts like this I am referring to. Talk about self fulfilling prophecy. Your post is hilarious ironic given everything you accuse me of you did in that comment.

I have a $70k Model 3 on order (everything except the autonomous driving basically), my faith in Tesla to delivery is me putting my money where my mouth is, just like most of the others here. It's very unlikely I know as much about Tesla as a lot of people here, but U certainly know more than you're willing to gibe me credit for. We're an institutional investor (long) and I have access to our equity research.

Now I'm sorry I don't have time to read 5 years' worth of comments just to make sure I only post original and insightful information none of you have ever seen before. A quick scan of your last 30 posts or so tell me you haven't either. In fact the vast majority of your posts are snidey take-downs challenging people to provide 'evidence' for their opinions, when you yourself do nothing of the sort. Having said that, I can't possibly compete with a professional forum bully, so won't bother.

Here's the important part. Those of us who are genuinely worried about the health of Tesla, either because we're about to spend a lot of money on one of their cars, or because we have significant net worth invested in their company, have every right to question, probe, criticize or even outright doubt the information coming from Tesla. They're a public company who are legally obligated to protect their shareholders above everything else (that's what it means to be a PLC). They have the same obligation to do that as all companies, from Apple to Enron and everyone inbetween.

I'm here to be informed and learn as much as anyone, and offer my own view (isn't that what a forum is about)

Just to add context, since ugliest1 and cobos has already addressed the major points, but you come off very strongly like a large number of care-bears that have graced TMC over the years. They tend to jump right in the middle with how supportive they are of Tesla, but have these concerns. Then the forum proceeds to educate them about the fallacies of those concerns and the real battle that's going, only for us to find out they're only interested in voicing their concerns and regurgitating flawed arguments, despite having the fallacies clearly explained.

That's why I liked Reality the most, since he/she didn't try to hide being short and openly discussed their views without fear of the bull herd.

Edit: left a thought hanging. And then every few months or so, they'd change their username (there was an ironic one) and start the "discussions" all over. That's why the long term forum members are so quick to judge your "concern"

 

[bdy0627]

I don’t think the point of you reading 5 years worth of historical posts is so that you can post original and insightful information yourself. It’s so that you can gain some insight on what has happened since day 1, and what patterns are continuing today. That would give you added perspective. And yes, it would be time-consuming and somewhat boring at times to slog through all that.

But wait!! In your next paragraph below, you say you are genuinely worried... and yet you seem to refuse to do the hard work of slogging through so that you actually COULD gain some perspective.


Sure, doubt. Then pursue that doubt with research. Which leads us back to my first paragraph. Oh, you have equity research in your company? That must be the be-all and end-all then. Again, perhaps some added perspective would help.

Enron? Really?


From what I’ve read, perhaps not “learn as much as anyone” because many here have put years into this effort.

I do get where you are coming from. You are concerned, you have questions, it’s difficult to weed out grains of real truth within all the billions of FUD articles out there. But the tone of some of your questions definitely have a “Tesla must be lying” tone to them. Tesla makes mistakes but from what I’ve seen, the company is driven by their mission statement and overall does an honest and credible job. That’s just my opinion, of course, but I HAVE read thousands upon thousands of posts, both questioning and factual responses, and those are what led me to that conclusion.

Personally, I think this criticism of Wooloo is getting a little overboard. Full disclosure - I asked him to participate on this thread. There is no way to weed through this thread efficiently and get the gist of what has been discussed. In 30 minutes, you really can't even read through much more than a few pages of mostly noise these days. Give him a break on that. He has an in your face style. He doesn't have an agenda against Tesla. He anticipated the stock trading down on the Q2 deliveries news, which I thought could have been helpful to balance some of the extreme enthusiasm going on here after the delivery news leaked, causing an AH rise in the stock.

 

[Lbkmxp100d]

I want to put the following in the comment section of the interview but would like to share it here first. Let me know if you have suggestions.

This is a hit piece intended to hurt tsla disguised as an interview about Journalism and CEOs criticizing Journalists. Here are the evidences:

1. CNBC invited 3 people on one side and no one on the other side to present opposite view.
2. All three people were connected to Chanos the short seller (Lopez: Linette Lopez on Twitter, Sonnenfeld: James Chanos, Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, McLean: Bethany McLean: your benefit of the doubt is hereby revoked | Deep Capture) Looked like McLean had done this kind of job to Fairfax in the past. To see the dirty tricks of Chanos and his gangs played against Fairfax: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/fairfax-pdf.310679/
3. They proclaimed that the point was about “Journalists under attack” yet repeatedly asked that “investors should re-consider investing in tsla”. Their own words betrayed their real intention.
4. Martin Tripp, the ex-tesla employee who was the source of Lynette’s piece, was clearly someone who intended to hurt tsla through his leaks. Since being caught and sued by tesla, he claimed whistleblowing but his behavior (going to a biased reporter instead of authority, leaking documents about inefficiency and waste which were not whistleblowing materials, etc.) clearly showed that he was a person bent on hurting tesla. Writing a piece based on a shady character like Tripp was not the behavior of an unbiased Journalist interested in reporting truth.
5. McLean almost admitted that she was biased by saying that Elon was also biased because he had incentive to grow tsla market cap. Elon has fiduciary duty to grow tsla and its market cap so there is nothing wrong about that. However, disgusting as an unbiased reporter writing pieces with the real intention to drive down stock price is not Ok.

CNBC should be ashamed of being part of this!

Agreed! I have always watched CNBC until today. I will never watch their shows again. The biased view toward Tesla and Elon was on a new level. I’m aware even if everyone on this board boycotted then it wouldn’t make a dent In their viewers but I sure wish there was a way to have Elon’s 22 million twitter followers boycott CNBC. I have never felt this passionate about a network before but the outright manipulation of viewpoint against Tesla is concerning. Makes one wonder where there motives lie and who their corporate sponsors are.

 

[Boomer19]

I want to put the following in the comment section of the interview but would like to share it here first. Let me know if you have suggestions.

This is a hit piece intended to hurt tsla disguised as an interview about Journalism and CEOs criticizing Journalists. Here are the evidences:

1. CNBC invited 3 people on one side and no one on the other side to present opposite view.
2. All three people were connected to Chanos the short seller (Lopez: Linette Lopez on Twitter, Sonnenfeld: James Chanos, Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, McLean: Bethany McLean: your benefit of the doubt is hereby revoked | Deep Capture) Looked like McLean had done this kind of job to Fairfax in the past. To see the dirty tricks of Chanos and his gangs played against Fairfax: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/fairfax-pdf.310679/
3. They proclaimed that the point was about “Journalists under attack” yet repeatedly asked that “investors should re-consider investing in tsla”. Their own words betrayed their real intention.
4. Martin Tripp, the ex-tesla employee who was the source of Lynette’s piece, was clearly someone who intended to hurt tsla through his leaks. Since being caught and sued by tesla, he claimed whistleblowing but his behavior (going to a biased reporter instead of authority, leaking documents about inefficiency and waste which were not whistleblowing materials, etc.) clearly showed that he was a person bent on hurting tesla. Writing a piece based on a shady character like Tripp was not the behavior of an unbiased Journalist interested in reporting truth.
5. McLean almost admitted that she was biased by saying that Elon was also biased because he had incentive to grow tsla market cap. Elon has fiduciary duty to grow tsla and its market cap so there is nothing wrong about that. However, disgusting as an unbiased reporter writing pieces with the real intention to drive down stock price is not Ok.

CNBC should be ashamed of being part of this!

elon has 22mm followers (twtr)
if even 7-8 mm of those watch/browse cnbc products and only 1mm of those rebel, that will eventually flush out in cnbc bottom line

that’s the only way for them to smarten the hell up and get objective across all products.

goddamn shameful. and it’s going to get worse. i fear i’m going to get in hot water w work for this. but this is my line in the sand. it’s not even about elon or tesla at this point. it’s about truth, and the mockery we make of it. sad.

 

[Boomer19]

You don't get social media do you? If no one follows you/retweets your posts you may as well just be a bear pooping in the woods by yourself.

hahah,
and also i couldn’t figure out how to prevent followers.
i figured it could do it with only what @SteveG3 told me...use #tsla or $TSLA

 

[SteveG3]

elon has 22mm followers (twtr)
if even 7-8 mm of those watch/browse cnbc products and only 1mm of those rebel, that will eventually flush out in cnbc bottom line

that’s the only way for them to smarten the hell up and get objective across all products.

goddamn shameful. and it’s going to get worse. i fear i’m going to get in hot water w work for this. but this is my line in the sand. it’s not even about elon or tesla at this point. it’s about truth, and the mockery we make of it. sad.

was thinking if we reached out in large numbers to some of NBC and/or Universal Pictures top money makers via social media who appreciate Tesla re the nature of CNBC's nonsense, perhaps they could speak up about CNBC games. Might be tricky to find, but, I suspect among NBC and Universal's "stars" there might be some willing to do this... some may be very supportive of Tesla. I don't watch TV or nearly any movies, so don't really know where to start, lols.

 

[Boomer19]

Personally, I think this criticism of Wooloo is getting a little overboard. Full disclosure - I asked him to participate on this thread. There is no way to weed through this thread efficiently and get the gist of what has been discussed. In 30 minutes, you really can't even read through much more than a few pages of mostly noise these days. Give him a break on that. He has an in your face style. He doesn't have an agenda against Tesla. He anticipated the stock trading down on the Q2 deliveries news, which I thought could have been helpful to balance some of the extreme enthusiasm going on here after the delivery news leaked, causing an AH rise in the stock.

i asked him here too, not that it matters. just saying, he was cajoled.

if he (assuming the picture is real)spends some time here he’ll eventually get a taste of the BS that we’re continuously forcefed.

and i’m new and i’m full (although i have been reading as non member for some time longer)

 

[Papafox]

Currently having an interesting twitter discussion with S3 Partners Ihor Dusaniwsky.

Interesting point about batching by Dusaniwsky.

Then another visitor asked a question about misinformation (see below Dusaniwsky's post) and Ihor made it clear that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated.

The Papafox queries continued, then.

If you agree with Papafox's (TheElectricRoadTrip)'s most recent post, please visit it at twitter and give a like so that this conversation might continue. Thx!
TheElectricRoadTrip on Twitter

 

[TrendTrader007]

TSLA shorts @CNBC about to experience huge shock.
chart tells me clearly that $TSLA on verge of making move similar to $AMZN in October 1997 when stock ran from $15 to $99 in less than 4 months
$TSLA bears beware a similar move coming
short sellers about to find out real hard way
I kid you not!

 

[Boomer19]

TSLA shorts @CNBC about to experience huge shock.
chart tells me clearly that $TSLA on verge of making move similar to $AMZN in October 1997 when stock ran from $15 to $99 in less than 4 months
$TSLA bears beware a similar move coming
short sellers about to find out real hard way
I kid you not!

what does that mean?
where’s the chart and analysis?

 

[ggr]

TSLA shorts @CNBC about to experience huge shock.
chart tells me clearly that $TSLA on verge of making move similar to $AMZN in October 1997 when stock ran from $15 to $99 in less than 4 months
$TSLA bears beware a similar move coming
short sellers about to find out real hard way
I kid you not!

Mod: that would be Technical Analysis, and not market action, and there's a different thread for that. So take it there. --ggr.

 

[Ugliest1]

You don't get social media do you? If no one follows you/retweets your posts you may as well just be a bear pooping in the woods by yourself.

Well, I definitely wouldn’t want to be pooping in the woods with a crowd around!

 

[madodel]

Well, I definitely wouldn’t want to be pooping in the woods with a crowd around!

Then you mustn't be a bear. ;-)

 

[JRP3]

A quick scan of your last 30 posts or so tell me you haven't either. In fact the vast majority of your posts are snidey take-downs challenging people to provide 'evidence' for their opinions, when you yourself do nothing of the sort.

Unfortunately that speaks more to the influx of FUD purveyors than anything else. I try to help keep the level of discussion on this board elevated by discouraging repetitive nonsense. Sometimes feelings get hurt.

Having said that, I can't possibly compete with a professional forum bully, so won't bother.

Ah, the victim card. I can't say "well played".

You recently joined this forum and thought it was appropriate to engage in this manner:

I understand that, but reading this thread (and indeed much of this forum) I see many people have an allergic reaction to anything remotely negative said about Tesla. That's unhealthy.

No one who feels so strongly about Tesla or Musk that they feel the need to defend them at every turn, should invest in Tesla. They're too emotionally attached and will likely make bad decisions because of it.

I don't believe for one minute that's a conducive way to engage in constructive discussion.

 

[hacer]

OK, followup.. this is getting weird. Shortvolume.com has the *same short sale volume* reported as Fintel. It has *different total volume*.

Huh. So I look up the volume on Tradingview for July 5, and I get roughly 17 million. Fintel thinks it's 34 million. This is suspiciously twice as large, meaning I think Fintel is counting buys and sells separately (i.e. doubling the volume, since every trade is a buy and a sell). But then shortvolume.com thinks total volume is 9 million, which seems suspiciously like half of 17 million.

So I check Yahoo for volume, which agrees with Tradingview.

So it turns out shortvolume and fintel are both wrong. Shortvolume has the short percentage twice as high as it really is, and fintel has is HALF as high as it really is. So for yesterday, 7/10/2018, shortvolume said 61.4%, Fintel said 15.3%, and it's actually 30.6%.

Thanks for leading to this useful piece of detective work!

Actually I believe that shortvolume.com is trying to measure short selling as a percentage of "selling" which at first blush seems like as a percentage of total volume because buying = selling (every trade has a buyer and a seller). However it is possible to figure out who is initiating the trade, a buyer or a seller because a buying initiator will buy at the ask price, while a selling initiator will sell at the bid price. While it is possible for offering sellers to sit at the ask (and above) and offering buyer to sit at the bid (and below) with no trading at all taking place. So it appears that shortvolume.com is measuring the short selling as a percentage of initiated (or market order) selling.

What fintel is doing is just wrong, but you can double their numbers to get a percentage of all trading that was short selling in case you are interested in that figure.

 

[30seconds]

The way I look at it is that I have stopped counting on the number of Model 3s I see each and every day because there really is no point anymore.

And I’ve stopped looking at panel gaps because the last 5-10 cars I pulled up next to and checked out have all been perfect.

And I’ve stopped asking people how they like their Model 3s because every single one will go on about how awesome it is, and same for their surprised spouses.

Now multiply that by thousands per week and imagine what the narrative will be in a few months

 

[30seconds]

Plus this car is about to destroy the market for the Audi S4, BMW M3, and the C-class AMG.

 

[generalenthu]

Plus this car is about to destroy the market for the Audi S4, BMW M3, and the C-class AMG.

Forgot the Camry

 

[wipster]

Forgot the Camry

What about the Accord?

Of course, maybe he was just going after the Germans, like our POTUS...