Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for your apologies, but no need. I was very aware of the risks. But if anyone here can say they saw the largest public to private transition ever happening, feel free to forward the link on that discussion ( I actually do recall someone raising that possibility, but literally once), and so I assigned the probability of that event happening a very very slim chance. I completely disagree that money losses have tainted my opinion, and clouded my judgement. If I was in it strictly for the money, I would just give my money to the aforementioned hedge fund manager/owner. But i care where my money is invested, and who gains from the profits of that company. What activities do those profits support both directly and indirectly? As for my LEAPS having huge time premiums, that in my opinion can go both ways. Yes looking at it with retrospect makes them more risky, but why do you pay those premiums? to help de-risk the time element... (ramping issues, elon's own time etc).



Sorry unsure of exactly how. I can say his area of expertise is merger arbitrage. I think its more a matter if deal gets announced, there is no way a squeeze will happen, as institutional investors are going to sell at anything above 420.





That sums it up. For myself its a loss of confidence. Not full loss, but loss. I have enjoyed TSLA as an investment , as I was a strong, ardent supporter of Musk. I do not care if he says the stock is over-valued. I value honesty above all. But when he starts publicly accusing pedophilia, how can one not question those actions? Would you question your teenager if they did that? Maybe hold them to a higher principal? Do you feel "funding secured" was appropriate terminology, even after his blog post clarification? Do you feel Tesla should open itself up for a buyout to a nation that might not have transitioning to alternative fuel sources as its primary objective? How does that fit with the master plan?

Sorry, but you need to question.

"
Musk: Well, I do think there’s a good framework for thinking. It is physics. You know, the sort of first principles reasoning. Generally I think there are — what I mean by that is, boil things down to their fundamental truths and reason up from there, as opposed to reasoning by analogy.

Through most of our life, we get through life by reasoning by analogy, which essentially means copying what other people do with slight variations."


Not really I have a thick skin I am not that sensitive.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: P85_DA
This isn't reddit, a "disagree" has no impact other than showing up a little thumbs down icon with a number next to it.
Yeah
This isn't reddit, a "disagree" has no impact other than showing up a little thumbs down icon with a number next to it.
Elon probably is wrong, but give the guy a break. He’s just not as brilliant as you obviously are.

Have some pity for all those poor people that don’t have your ability to make instant decisions about things for which they have incomplete information.

I would guess you must have a once in a generation talent to be able to brilliantly see Elon’s mistakes even though you haven’t thought about the topic or know as much about Tesla as he does.

But if he knows more about TeslaT esl isn't he more careful then?
It wouldn't matter. Elon could have left off "Funding Secured", and the news would be just as bad, everyone would just focus on "the fact" he doesn't have the money, and such a large deal is impossible. It's market manipulation because it's clearly untrue. So on and so forth. Nothing changes.
This is very true and a good point. I'm sure it wouldn't have made much difference in the big picture.
 
This really bothers me. I've been a process engineer before and there can be scrap


I've been a process engineer and scraps is usual part of business. Especially on first runs, a lot of automation (not calibrated), etc... This kind of publicity convinces me going private is better so there is non of this short peddling.
Everyone agrees that there should be scrap. The controversy was with respect to the amount - allegedly hundreds of millions of dollars, Tesla said much less. Tripp seems to have published some documentation now for the greater amount. Could have been falsified, I suppose...
 
Ive got money in the game myself and it's not on the short side, but honestly what was the purpose of the tweet? He could have said much less and had the same outcome. I'm not attacking your faith in musk or Tesla. I've invested for 4+ years now. All I think is he should have left off the funding secured part ..I mean , it seems obvious he was too impulsive with that.

It would have made no difference. He says I’m thinking of taking Tesla private for $420/share. ...and the piranhas come out:

‘Ha ha, he has no money to do that, where does he think he’ll get the money, he’s lying, fraud, scammer, SEC is going to investigate him for that tweet, I’m suing...’

The outcome is no different; confusion, accusations, SP all over the place etc...

If you’ve been following as long as you claim, you know this as fact.

So yeah, big disagree on your opinion of how he should have done it different.
 
Sorry unsure of exactly how. I can say his area of expertise is merger arbitrage. I think its more a matter if deal gets announced, there is no way a squeeze will happen, as institutional investors are going to sell at anything above 420.

Your friend would be correct if this was a normal LBO where everyone was forced to sell - easy for shorts to cover at 420, smart money will sell at any price above 420 and set a ceiling, etc.

Unfortunately, your friend has the same amount of experience as anyone else in this unprecedented case where there will be an opportunity to keep your shares and go private. This limited-time opportunity to participate in all the future growth of Tesla will be worth more than 420 to a non-zero number of people. How many people is still to be determined but the point remains that this is a different equation than your friend is used to.

Edit: I'd be curious to know if he has considered this difference from a typical privatization and has an explanation for why it wouldn't matter.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: lklundin and avoigt
I think its more a matter if deal gets announced, there is no way a squeeze will happen, as institutional investors are going to sell at anything above 420.
You know, I actually kinda agree with that. But I think it does depend a lot on circumstances. This deal, if it goes as proposed, is quite a bit different than most, in that most shareholders will be able to keep their shares. For those that can't, it's not immediately clear when they will sell(it may be now, in an effort to avoid a possible crash if the whole thing was made up), and, worse, it's not only shorts who necessarily will be buying.

They might be able to avoid a squeeze(I'm actually ok with that, I don't need to see people lose everything), but it'll depend on there being enough shares for the people wanting to buy when they decide to cover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden and MikeC
Not really I have a thick skin I am not that sensitive.
Why are LEAPs disapproved of? It's alo
It would have made no difference. He says I’m thinking of taking Tesla private for $420/share. ...and the piranhas come out:

‘Ha ha, he has no money to do that, where does he think he’ll get the money, he’s lying, fraud, scammer, SEC is going to investigate him for that tweet, I’m suing...’

The outcome is no different; confusion, accusations, SP all over the place etc...

If you’ve been following as long as you claim, you know this as fact.

So yeah, big disagree on your opinion of how he should have done it different.
Just from a corporate communications standpoint he just should not do it. Even if it doesn't affect the outcome --and though the SEC thing won't hurt him (slap on the wrist at most I'm sure) he could have just avoided saying those 2 words. The FUD will always be there, but why not just make life easier? I think he gives the shor
It would have made no difference. He says I’m thinking of taking Tesla private for $420/share. ...and the piranhas come out:

‘Ha ha, he has no money to do that, where does he think he’ll get the money, he’s lying, fraud, scammer, SEC is going to investigate him for that tweet, I’m suing...’

The outcome is no different; confusion, accusations, SP all over the place etc...

If you’ve been following as long as you claim, you know this as fact.

So yeah, big disagree on your opinion of how he should have done it different.
Okay you're free to disagree. Yay USA. Don't worry we'll make lots of money in the end beyond the shorts and FUDsters. Let them draw in the shorts as long as possible....
 
To me, it sounds like his "whistle blower" attempt fell flat.
Sure seems fishy that he is now going hardcore on twitter to try to persuade people. IMO, a clearcut whistleblower case would certainly not need or even want that. However, a whistleblower case will take a while regardless, so perhaps he is trying to generate a quicker reaction for whatever reason he has (cough, hoping for settlement). I think this guy is very much hoping for a settlement.
 
Macros and more $SCTY merger pattern matching. Great buying opportunities!

As long as Elon acts like a leader like Trump and makes this happen, this will work out fine. But if Elon is chasing the tail of the "news", then he was never serious about going private in the first place, because that's the whole reason to go private, to stop chasing fake news. While Elon might be a bit out of his depth with the total barrage of fake news, he's had great teachers in Donald Trump, and I expect he'll pull through and everything will work out fine.
If Elon calls Linette Lopez a dog I'm out.
 
Thanks for your apologies, but no need. I was very aware of the risks. But if anyone here can say they saw the largest public to private transition ever happening, feel free to forward the link on that discussion ( I actually do recall someone raising that possibility, but literally once), and so I assigned the probability of that event happening a very very slim chance. I completely disagree that money losses have tainted my opinion, and clouded my judgement. If I was in it strictly for the money, I would just give my money to the aforementioned hedge fund manager/owner. But i care where my money is invested, and who gains from the profits of that company. What activities do those profits support both directly and indirectly? As for my LEAPS having huge time premiums, that in my opinion can go both ways. Yes looking at it with retrospect makes them more risky, but why do you pay those premiums? to help de-risk the time element... (ramping issues, elon's own time etc).

."
What apology are you thanking me for? I expressed sympathy for your loss only. You do NOT derisk by paying those premiums. During that extra time things can drive the price down as well as drive it up. Only looking at potential positive events and ignoring negative events in your logic is wrong thinking. Other events recalls, strikes, recession, war, a company releasing a superior or cheaper product can all produced the same effect but you did not consider these?
 
Well Musk definitely screwed up here. He likes to make his own life difficult I think. After awhile you wonder if he learns to keep his fingers in his pockets and off his phone.

Elon's reasons for tweeting this stuff were clear, valid, and I think noble.

It is the insane FUD that took things in the wrong direction.

As many of us have been saying since that day, the world is showing us why taking Tesla private makes so much sense.
 
Thanks for your apologies, but no need. I was very aware of the risks. But if anyone here can say they saw the largest public to private transition ever happening, feel free to forward the link on that discussion ( I actually do recall someone raising that possibility, but literally once),
I did :), back on July 11 - but I thought it might be the Chinese.
 
Everyone agrees that there should be scrap. The controversy was with respect to the amount - allegedly hundreds of millions of dollars, Tesla said much less. Tripp seems to have published some documentation now for the greater amount. Could have been falsified, I suppose...
I can kinda see how someone might think they were doing good by divulging if a company is using punctured batteries in products that could pose a safety risk, but the scrap metal thing just doesn't work for me there. No doubt Tesla has been inefficient with battery module production earlier in the year. Is there someone who actually figured they wouldn't have been? How does that become a whistleblower affair or even important data? The fact that Tripped is focusing on it suggests to me that he feels he needs to demonstrate multiple questionable things to try to accomplish what he wants to do, whatever that is. I understand that he feels he needs to point it out to undermine Tesla, but it just seems unimportant to me during this ramp process.
 
All I think is he should have left off the funding secured part ..I mean , it seems obvious he was too impulsive with that.
Just because the media is trying to create a frenzy about it doesn't mean there was anything actually wrong with what he tweeted. From what I've seen "funding secured" does not have to mean signed documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.