Bloomberg tracker is based on "self-reporting" from american buyers. Read on data provided by somebody from Tesla sales department.
Since pretty much all Tesla 3 go USA now, I would expect it's pretty much accurate with some week, half week delay.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Since pretty much all Tesla 3 go USA now, I would expect it's pretty much accurate with some week, half week delay.
apologies. i try to be as close to 100% correct as possible, however, I don't short or do options, esoteric trades, simple buy and hold with occasional trading, so I make errors. I appreciate your greater knowledge and help
pyromatter
Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Traditional manufacturers have new generation of a model 5 to 8 years once.
I dont really understand why the institutional investors should be the weak hands?
There will be a squeeze of the shorts depending on the certainty of the deal going through. When it is 99% certain, that the deal goes through for 420$, nobody will want to sell below 420$...
Therefore, price will need to be higher than 420$ due to the shorted shares. It does not depend on whether there are more shares not wanting to go private than there are short. As long as there are "shorts" and 420$ is guaranteed, no one will see a reason to sell below 420$ hence stock price will surge higher than 420.
There will be a squeeze of the shorts depending on the certainty of the deal going through. When it is 99% certain, that the deal goes through for 420$, nobody will want to sell below 420$...
Therefore, price will need to be higher than 420$ due to the shorted shares. It does not depend on whether there are more shares not wanting to go private than there are short. As long as there are "shorts" and 420$ is guaranteed, no one will see a reason to sell below 420$ hence stock price will surge higher than 420.
This joke turned out a little too true for my liking.
No problem. It's a common mistake to think that institutions are long-term, steady holders. This is based on 1950s patterns, when "instituitions" were staid banks, insurance companies, and pension fund managers with a long time horizon.
But when you look at it, all the financial institutions are full of short-term day-trader types. The financial institutions counted in "institutional holdings" these days include the brokerages, who literally hold stock in inventory so they can sell it and lend it; they include the market makers, who do the same thing; they include the options market makers; the options exchanges; they include quants like Rennaissance Technologies; they include most of the major short-term-trading hedge funds and mutual funds; etc. All the proprietary traders are included in those institutional numbers!
I actually think that the "retail holders" are probably mostly long-term, steady holders, though I am sure there are some swing traders in there. Because honestly, if you were an individual or private trust or charity or private business, and *not* a financial institution, why would you be speculating on short-term swings in Tesla stock? That's more the sort of thing the traders employed by financial institutions do.
The way "institutional holdings" are reported, the remaining "retail holders" include the Saudi Public Investment Fund and Tencent. Who knows what other similar organizations are in the "non-institutional holders" category but have <5% and aren't required to report? I tend to think the "non-institutional holders" are probably much longer-term investors, on average, than the "institutional holders".
A while ago I attempted to sort the long-term institutional holders from the short-term institutional holders. Bailie Gifford, who represents the Scottish Mortgage Trust, is an old-fashioned long-term institutional holder. Rennaissance Technologies is the exact opposite. Most of the others are somewhere in between.
But when you look at it, all the financial institutions are full of short-term day-trader types. The financial institutions counted in "institutional holdings" these days include the brokerages, who literally hold stock in inventory so they can sell it and lend it; they include the market makers, who do the same thing; they include the options market makers; the options exchanges; they include quants like Rennaissance Technologies; they include most of the major short-term-trading hedge funds and mutual funds; etc. All the proprietary traders are included in those institutional numbers!
I actually think that the "retail holders" are probably mostly long-term, steady holders, though I am sure there are some swing traders in there. Because honestly, if you were an individual or private trust or charity or private business, and *not* a financial institution, why would you be speculating on short-term swings in Tesla stock? That's more the sort of thing the traders employed by financial institutions do.
The way "institutional holdings" are reported, the remaining "retail holders" include the Saudi Public Investment Fund and Tencent. Who knows what other similar organizations are in the "non-institutional holders" category but have <5% and aren't required to report? I tend to think the "non-institutional holders" are probably much longer-term investors, on average, than the "institutional holders".
A while ago I attempted to sort the long-term institutional holders from the short-term institutional holders. Bailie Gifford, who represents the Scottish Mortgage Trust, is an old-fashioned long-term institutional holder. Rennaissance Technologies is the exact opposite. Most of the others are somewhere in between.
Last edited:
The so called Bloombeg "Tracker" is a problem. While it is calculating a good production rate, it is at least a week behind in incorporating the latest data. I check it routinely and the reported VIN's data from the wild is at least seven days old. Also there are reports several days old that Tesla has pulled VIN's up into the 108,000 range. The tracker only shows VIN's less than 100k. One should wonder how much better the predictions might look if the underlying data were updated daily as thy seem to imply. Laziness or a conspiracy? Your call.
From the right-hand bar: "Our model lumps consecutive batch registrations together to prevent them from skewing our rates."
shlokavica22
Member
"Norway is Tesla's third-biggest market and the country's wealth fund, the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund, had a 0.48 percent stake in Tesla worth about $253 million as of the start of 2018, according to the latest data from the fund."
This is beautiful. Great Work! Thank you for taking the initiative on this. It would be wonderful to somehow capture the top FUD spreaders in order to capture characters like Mark BS and L. Lopez.
In behind the scenes footage they comment, that the interview ended abruptly, when Musk had to go to a meeting.
I don't understand. Is that an excuse to ignore a more the 8% increase in registrations?
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
No, it's a small delay to smoothe the data. I believe Elon himself called the Bloomberg tracker accurate.
The Bloomberg Model 3 production tracker is based on robust methodology and has a good track record and no bias - they are the good guys.
They are not related to any FUD relayed by the news section of Bloomberg.
about ~785,000 shares based upon a January 2, 2018 closing price of $322/share
Exactly. Bloomberg has always been accurate, just with some delays. One may also argue as to what's the best level of smoothing to use - they use a sort of "moderate" smoothing, so downtimes show up as rate decreases (not stops), but then drag down the production levels around them. But the overall picture.. yeah, like Fact Checking said, they're the good guys.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Have bought two model 3 but I don’t report them on spread sheets or trackers. I am not alone and suspect in the majority. These trackers are not representative
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
BTW, did you guys notice the following detail:
"Trond Grande, deputy CEO of the Norwegian fund, declined to say whether Tesla had approached the fund about going private."
That kind of refusal to comment (from a fund manager otherwise willing to talk to the reporter) is generally only done if the Norwegian fund is indeed in talks with Tesla and potentially other shareholders, under NDA.
(If they had not been approached yet there would be no reason to not share that information.)
While it's still quite speculative at this stage, to me this appears to be the first indirect confirmation that the largest Tesla shareholders are actively participating in a going-private negotiation process.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
This argument can be made more formal by decomposing the share price as synthetic long using a cake and put option at strike $420. Specifically,
Price = Cash&interest + Call - Put
Cash&interest converge to $420 at expiration. So the interesting thing is what happens to the price of the Put and Call.
Specifically, the take-private transaction forced the value of the Put option to go to zero as the market becomes convinced that the transaction will in fact happen. The transaction makes these out options worthless. Selling them for any price (above transaction costs) becomes pure arbitrage.
So as the put option converges to zero, what happens to the call option? Whatever volatility remains will push the price of the call option up. Even if the call option expires exactly at the money, before this happens we may well see stretches of time when Call > Put. This will imply a stock price above $420 (minus the trivial interest yet to be earned on cash).
A curious thing is that if you look at long dated option like Jan 2020, you will see that the implied volatility on puts are about 3 times the volatility on calls. This means that shorts are willing to pay prices that are above parity for put options, that under this transaction will expire worthless. Thus, any sophisticated long that wants to cash out can consider selling out option and buying calls in lieu of holding shares. The disparity of implied volatility actually makes this more profitable to do.
All this is discussed in the Option Theoretic thread, but I am posting this here so a wider audience can appreciate how the synthetic long decomposition of share price can help make sense of this go-private transaction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
