TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[EinSV]

I've always found DeBord's articles reasonable and factually based.

My distinct impression is that most of DeBord's Tesla articles over the years have been hit pieces (with some positive articles sprinkled in). Basically he seems to be a click-bait artist who will say whatever it takes to get clicks, usually negative but sometimes he swings to the opposite extreme.

I think many others share my low opinion of his work -- a few examples below (there are lots more ....)

Essentially another hit piece from Matthew DeBord of Business Insider. Actually hilarious this time: This Honda shows why electric cars still have a long way to go before they post massive sales

Like Matthew Debord from Business Insider? The guy posts a hit piece once a week and the odd semi-positive story just to save face from appearing totally biased.

I wonder if we should have a thread that tracks the authors that seem to have a anti-Tesla bias

The author (Russ Mitchell) goes by @hrmhrm on this forum. It is a little sad to see another click bait headline. Matthew DeBord from Business Insider is still king in this area. He is consistent with one negative Tesla article per week.

Tesla Model 3 Down: Won't Power Up, and is Inaccessible

Kind of figured that’s the one you meant.

Plenty of reporters and low level management, I’d agree (though there’s a conspicuous number who look quite likely to be paid off by someone- hedge funds or big oil, etc. see Cory Johnson, Rick Newman, Mathew DeBord, Anton Wahlman, Bertel S., etc).

Business Insider is a click-house located in a circus tent.

A couple years ago Matthew DeBord was loaned a P90D, which he used to take his family on a camping trip.

1. He deliberately didn't charge the car fully.
2. He ignored the warnings to charge.
3. And then he nearly ran out of gas ... er, electricity (as he put it), and stranded his family while he waited for a 120V to trickle charge.
4. Also .. no mention of the P90D's performance.

Pictures have all been deleted, presumably to protect the innocent (his family) from the stupidity (his).
We took a Tesla Model S on a road trip and learned the hard way how it's different from every other car

Tesla's biggest problem is that it's selling the wrong car - Yahoo Finance

Matthew DeBord's biggest problem is that he's writing the wrong article.

Matthew DeBord of Business Insider is again ranting about Tesla.

Tesla mania has reached a comical level

 

[neroden]

I've witnessed myself getting front-run on particular trades in the past. It has a very particular hallmark.

It's much clearer on a stock with thin trading and much less volatility than Tesla. Suppose we have a thinly traded share with a bid of $84.50 and an ask of $85. And these sit for hours unchanged. I place a marketable limit order, let's say a buy at the $85 price, and I watch the ask retreat ahead of me to $85.05, because someone soaked up all the liquidity at $85 *after* I placed my order and *before* it was executed. The price then stays there for a few minutes until real liquidity reenters the market.

 

[X Yes?]

Mod: let me add to this. But not in Lavender, because that's too hard on the eyes for a long posting. Nevertheless, this whole posting is official sub-moderator comment. --ggr

Without naming names specifically, there are a number of posters recently who have all committed the same sin.

I appears I have "been named specifically" as an offender here... And your post seems to be very well "Liked" and "Loved" This is supposed to be an investor discussion. It appears stating any negative views on demand, is taboo here, (unless you are known to be long). Seems to be a legitimate question with investors elsewhere and even today, others are posting links, questioning the strength of demand here. Is it possible to discuss the "bear view" in the context of a discussion? I've been called "an idiot" and "dishonest" and I'm fine with that, because along with those insults, I learn something new .with each post.

For the sensitive folks, some post likely generate a tsunami of negative reports and create additional work for you. Sorry for my part in this, I'm guessing mods are not paid for the work. I understand this forum is going to tilt pro Tesla, (survival of TMC requires) but eliminating dissent turns it into an "echo chamber" If the bull and bear case is allowed to be presented, you might consider putting the "serial reporters" in moderation...

 

[jhm]

Any cup can only be full and then it spills over.
The responsibility is therefore on the mods. They allow for all the BS to wear down everyone.
Ignoring is no solution. No-post-ban-for-the-first-week-of-membership may be helpful.

I've been reading all the same BS for more than 10 years already.
I am full.

I would support a probationary period for new members.

 

[X Yes?]

Yes, but this is missing the point. Most of the shorts/bears/trolls* post here want Tesla to fail either because they are shorted, hate them or are paid by oil/incumbets/the Kocks, etc.

* Delete as applicable

This is true, but but for those with "blinders on" they might receive New information that saves them from a "reversal of fortune" I happen to love the MS and M3, but investing in the stock is a different story...

 

[msvoyager]

Say what you may about the author, I welcome ANY article that puts Tesla into a decent perspective. Lets give it as many clicks as possible. It would be great if we could make others realize that this news sells more, instead of spreading FUD.
A Tsunami of money could be headed Tesla's way in the next year — and that’s bad news for the bears
We need more of these pieces, similar as an earlier article I posted the link to on this board last week:
An Open Letter to Jim Chanos about Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA)

 

[Menifeer]

TSLA is going to continue to be a bloody battleground with a LOT of volatility. The key for investors right now is to be patient.

That key doesn’t seem to fit the lock…

Since you’re expecting volatility, maybe a better approach would be to trade. I’ve been buying & selling for the last couple years and likely have a lot more to show for it than those who simply held.

As I’ve said before, TSLA is a short-term trader’s dream come true. Its price spikes up on good/down on bad news and the option premiums are high. Couldn’t ask for anything better.

 

[JRP3]

My distinct impression is that most of DeBord's Tesla articles over the years have been hit pieces (with some positive articles sprinkled in). Basically he seems to be a click-bait artist who will say whatever it takes to get clicks, usually negative but sometimes he swings to the opposite extreme.

I think many others share my low opinion of his work -- a few examples below (there are lots more ....)

Agree.
He is at best "uneven" in his reporting.

 

[Cosmacelf]

That is basically what the front-running operations do. They screw people out of 0.1% of the best price or something like that. It adds up over time.

No doubt the front runners make real money over time, but for me personally, I could care less about missing 0.1%.

 

[EVMeister]

As I’ve said before, TSLA is a short-term trader’s dream come true. Its price spikes up on good/down on bad news and the option premiums are high. Couldn’t ask for anything better.

It frequently drops on good news as well, though. At least at the moment that seems to be the case. But if you're good at timing the movements, more power to you.

 

[Unpilot]

It frequently drops on good news as well, though. At least at the moment that seems to be the case. But if you're good at timing the movements, more power to you.

There aren’t many successful long term market timers...no matter what they tell you.

Sure the nice run here or there...but consistent long term...nope

 

[RobStark]

It frequently drops on good news as well, though. At least at the moment that seems to be the case. But if you're good at timing the movements, more power to you.

TSLA frequently rises on bad news too. It is discomfiting.

 

[gluu]

OK, so the illegal front-running operations were using statistical forecasting based on data from end-user customer order flow which has not executed yet. They are then executing ahead of the customers who they have the data on.

To be clear about this: *That is illegal*. But they've gotten away with it.

If your statistical forecasting only uses data from orders which have executed, then, sure, your operation is legit.

But if it's using data from unexecuted orders and then running orders ahead of them, it's illegal front-running. It's been documented to happen repeatedly but the SEC hasn't done anything about it.

Spoofers are another form of manipulation, of course.

If HFT front-running is documented, please kindly point out your sources. I am not aware of any such instances. We do not have clients and have no unexecuted information to use to forecast, as I said before. We use publicly available market data feeds in our models.

Much like Tesla, the FUD around HFT is incredibly strong. Posts in this thread mostly make them out to be the boogeyman, not realizing HFT is the friend of the retail investor.

 

[gluu]

This guy thinks HFT reduces the spread but doesn't influence the underlying price retail investors have access to. What a joke.

Just make a 0.01% transaction fee into the law and watch HFT ers crawl back into the sewers.

The same price can have very different bid ask spreads, hence no or very little influence on the price. Closing the spread simply reduces transaction costs.

Frankly, why the hostility? HFTs save you money yet you have some preconceived notion that we are ripping you off, yet you have next to zero idea what we do. Ignorance and anger are not a useful combination.

 

[gluu]

I've witnessed myself getting front-run on particular trades in the past. It has a very particular hallmark.

It's much clearer on a stock with thin trading and much less volatility than Tesla. Suppose we have a thinly traded share with a bid of $84.50 and an ask of $85. And these sit for hours unchanged. I place a marketable limit order, let's say a buy at the $85 price, and I watch the ask retreat ahead of me to $85.05, because someone soaked up all the liquidity at $85 *after* I placed my order and *before* it was executed. The price then stays there for a few minutes until real liquidity reenters the market.

The simpler explanation is that electronic markets move quickly. You are overestimating your impact. How are you sure that the price didn’t move because there was a rise in the s&p 500? The probability that something else in the market caused a repricing is highly likely, after all there only three possible directions for the price to go, up, down, or nowhere. Your anecdote is mostly boogeyman thinking. You clearly have TSLA position, how did you accumulate that if HFTs were constantly front running you?

Most brokerages sell retail flow to places like citadel where they internally match your order. Generally, they want to match your orders at the nbbo, it is the equivalent of being at the front of the order queue.

Most retail flow is profitable for traders, we would generally never attempt to avoid your orders in particular. We mostly attempt to avoid getting run over by large institutional flow.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

If Tesla provides a favorable 3Q18 Model 3 Performance deliveries guidance for Q3, TSLA would react positively and quickly, in my opinion.

Model 3 Performance Deliveries in 3Q18

 

[hacer]

You clearly have TSLA position, how did you accumulate that if HFTs were constantly front running you?

This question implies that front-running prevents execution. It does not. Tesla's NBBO often has a wide spread. Firms that pay for order flow can easily receive orders that are between the NBBO spread, including orders that cross.

Example: NBB is 312.32, NBO is 312.82. Order flow comes in to a firm paying a broker to route to them. First with a limit sell of 312.40, followed by a market buy 930 microseconds later. The order flow recipient front-runs these orders, selling to the market buy for 312.81 and immediately buying from the limit 312.40 sell order, pocketing 0.41 risk free in the process. Both public parties got execution. The market buyer got a price better than the national offer at 312.82 so they could be happy and certainly can't be mad. The limit sell got their order filled right away too at their limit so they aren't complaining either. This is probably not illegal but it is still front running because the firm that paid for the order flow used a millisecond or so to re-order (in time) these crossed orders and place their own in-between for a risk-free profit. It is obvious that this order flow is non-public information. If it was required to be routed directly to NASDAQ, the national best offer would have dropped to 312.40, and the market order would have filled at 312.40. The order flow firm, not participating would get nothing and the market buyer would have gotten a better price.

Order flow firms don't front every order, only those that they are certain or predict will be profitable for them. For the order flow that doesn't cross at a risk-less profit, the order-low firm forwards it to another venue, or perhaps executes some for their own account depending on other expectations they have.

Notice that the buyer still got to buy the shares, thus "accumulates their long position" even though it cost them more than it would if no front-running were happening.

It is quite easy to observe trades that could fit this pattern when the volume is slow during the mid-day. There is often multiple trades at diferent prices taking place between the spread as the bid and offer remain unchanged. It's also true that some customers could be led to believe that they got "better" pricing than the spread because of intermediaries. But in this example, it is not because of the wonderful work of the middle man, it is in spite of it. I understand that you say there are no HFT firms that pay for order flow, so this can't happen at any HFT firm. I'll take your word for it.

But it is very peculiar that you try to tell us that a front-run customer could not get an order filled. Why would you say that?

 

[FirebirdAlpha]

WSJ has a brutal piece in papers tomorrow:

Tesla Asks Suppliers for Cash Back to Help Turn a Profit

Next big signal shorts have been waiting for is a supplier run.

Tesla Inc. has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously, an appeal that reflects the auto maker’s urgency to sustain operations during a critical production period.

The Silicon Valley electric car company said it is asking its suppliers for cash back to help it become profitable, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal that was sent to a supplier last week.

The auto maker’s memo, sent by a global supply manager, described the request as essential to Tesla’s continued operation and characterized it as an investment in the car company to continue the long-term growth between both players.

 

[generalenthu]

WSJ has a brutal piece in papers tomorrow:

Tesla Asks Suppliers for Cash Back to Help Turn a Profit

Next big signal shorts have been waiting for is a supplier run.

Tesla Inc. has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously, an appeal that reflects the auto maker’s urgency to sustain operations during a critical production period.

The Silicon Valley electric car company said it is asking its suppliers for cash back to help it become profitable, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal that was sent to a supplier last week.

The auto maker’s memo, sent by a global supply manager, described the request as essential to Tesla’s continued operation and characterized it as an investment in the car company to continue the long-term growth between both players.

The same article says Tesla is close to becoming profitable in Q3. If not for Elon's insistence to not raise capital at bargain basement prices, these headlines would not be there.

In any case, as a shareholder, of be happy to see a 2 to 5% dilution to put nonsense like this behind and accelerate the China factory. But I am not Elon Musk. So what do I know.

 

[gringotuanis]

This is going to be a rough Monday on the stock price...would be nice if Tesla gets ahead of this with some additional info.