TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[SpaceCash]

Check my post history... not a bear.

I just did. If you can't handle Elon being himself, then this isn't the stock for you. I am not mad at a single thing he's done lately. Everything that people spin as a bad thing is just him reaffirming his character and style. I'm comfortable. Let him tweet away and smoke whatever he wants

 

[TSLA_Hopeful]

I just did. If you can't handle Elon being himself, then this isn't the stock for you. I am not mad a single thing he's done lately. Everything that people spin as a bad thing is just him reaffirming his character and style. I'm comfortable. Let him tweet away and smoke whatever he wants

Smoking... I couldn't care less. Tweeting I have an issue with. And you can't just say "the stock isn't for you." Following SEC & FINRA regulations is an expectation and right that I as a shareholder have. Without irony, it's more that if Elon can't handle following the guidelines, Tesla being a public company isn't for him. Which... ironically started this whole thing haha.

 

[Reality]

Check my post history... not a bear.

or.....your name

 

[-=buzz=-]

To refresh for some people:
Elon said he was considering taking Tesla private.
Funding secured does not have to mean signed documents.
The board was informed before the tweet.
Elon and insiders did not trade on the news.

No criminal actions took place. If there is an actual investigation that's the only crime being committed since it's completely unwarranted.

Additionally:

Elon tweeted into the spike caused by publication of SiF taking a stake in TSLA effectifly killing the raise.
And the stock traded below the pre tweet price within 2 days. And dropping way lower after canceling of the deal.
So even the shorts had no damage due to the tweet, except those selling in panic (their bad?, longs took the oposite trade on the deal going through)

 

[Unpilot]

My take on the pot thing. If EM taking a single puff helps to change the amazingly stupid drug laws then it was worth any short term stock price damage.

Our smart neighbor to the north is about to vote for the legalization of Marijuana. This country can't follow fast enough. The absolute lunacy of the "war" on drugs needs to stop.

 

[jhm]

Funding secured or no?

Sure, I'll just take out a loan against my 401k.

 

[winfield100]

Pretty sure about 12:47 pm EST Ihor tweeted 35.26 million shares short. Looks up a bit (lot)

 

[phil0909]

Well, I did not see that video and there is only statements in the Gernan news that VW did not comment on that matter. If the CFO indeed denied it I would expect this to show up in the German media instead I read that they wanted to and did not comment when asked..

Happy to be proven wrong but show me the prove. As of now all what we have is a comment from Bloomberg what the VW CFO said but believe me I don't trust Bloomberg news if they talk Tesla...

Bloomberg quotes the VW exec directly from their own (Bloomberg TV) interview. Here's a link:
VW Vows to Give Tesla a Fight on Electric Cars, but Not Cash

Your link is a third-party rumor about what some investment bank said in a private meeting, with no source attributed, and disclaimers like "potential" and "could have been."

I think you need to acknowledge schonelucht is correct on this one. Really, I thought that was universally understood at this point.

 

[SGordB]

Then, if this wasn't a new development. what's bloombergs reasoning of disclosing this break of confidentiality information (criminal itself?) during trading hours without details beyond "rumors of criminal investigation" and thereby causing unreasonable stock drop (e.g. punish the longs) with perfectly timed shorting stepping in not being a criminal act itself? Freedom of press?

As much as I hate true FUD, reporting the news - even when it's based on confidential, anonymous sources - is how the news works. In the extremely unlikely event that a major news org like Bloomberg would risk its business by faking news in order to rig the market, there's always recourse to an investigation of them. As far as I know, news orgs have zero responsibility to hold a market moving story during market hours. But if indeed the story turns out to be a malicious rumour, negligently reported, they should pay a price.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Bought 10 more at 283. It may go down a bit more on the aftermath of this nonsense, but the focus on fundamentals will come back again.

 

[gora321]

Now this is master manipulation!
My investing formula: FUD+manipulation View attachment 336098

I wonder who are the big guys buying between?

 

[JRP3]

I know we are all Tesla fans... but we also can’t just say “Elon’s gonna tweet.” Just because we all support Tesla and the mission doesn’t give Elon the right to do reckless and stupid things.

Saying he was considering taking Tesla private was not reckless and stupid if it was the truth. By tweeting he actually better informed common investors such as ourselves instead of preferentially telling only large institutional holders, which is likely the more "normal" action. Elon did nothing wrong at all in this case.

 

[Big Earl]

I picked up another share at $277. That puts me at 80% of the way to my goal for the year.

 

[SpaceCash]

As much as I hate true FUD, reporting the news - even when it's based on confidential, anonymous sources - is how the news works. In the extremely unlikely event that a major news org like Bloomberg would risk its business by faking news in order to rig the market, there's always recourse to an investigation of them. As far as I know, news orgs have zero responsibility to hold a market moving story during market hours. But if indeed the story turns out to be a malicious rumour, negligently reported, they should pay a price.

Rigging the market is PAR for the course. Standard. Every day kind of stuff. That's their wheelhouse. They waited until footing at 300 was established and then wrecked house by releasing the article with simultaneous shorting. This is not conjecture, that's what happened.

 

[-=buzz=-]

"Considering" = no problem. "Funding secured" = potential problem and the crux of the matter.

"Funding secured"
Is completely up to interpretation.

Could be anywhere from: "I might be able to get enough funds to do this. If I beg everyone I know." Over " I've got this fund willing to invest billions (and others will most likely join in)" To "The signature on the closed deal is still drying"

And there's no clear definition of any legal boundary


Beyond that, the whole statement was preempted with "considering" making the deal a possibility only in the first place

 

[TSLA_Hopeful]

Saying he was considering taking Tesla private was not reckless and stupid if it was the truth. By tweeting he actually better informed common investors such as ourselves instead of preferentially telling only large institutional holders, which is likely the more "normal" action. Elon did nothing wrong at all in this case.

In principle I agree. But:
1) Do it after market hours
2) Publish the full facts like in the blog post, not just a tweet
3) Better yet, get the investors line up finalized first (optional)

First two would have sufficed.

 

[phil0909]

"Last month, following Elon's announcement that he was considering taking the company private, Tesla received a voluntary request for documents from the DOJ and has been cooperative in responding to it. We have not received a subpoena, a request for testimony, or any other formal process. We respect the DOJ's desire to get information about this and believe that the matter should be quickly resolved as they review the information they have received."

Tesla stock drops on report company faces US criminal probe over Musk's take-private tweets

Tesla is saying they received the DOJ document request in August.

Would it have been better to disclose the DOJ request at that time? Or is it better to wait for the news to leak, and then acknowledge it?

 

[TSLA_Hopeful]

or.....your name

Please don't like my posts. I hate bears more than I hate irrational fans.

 

[Compton]

"Funding secured"
Is completely up to interpretation.

Could be anywhere from: "I might be able to get enough fjnds to do this." To "The signature on the closed deal is still drying"

And there's no clear definition of any legal boundary

So the probe is obviously completely fruitless and the investigators know from the beginning that they are wasting their and everyone else's time?

 

[lklundin]

That would put current production in the range of something like 25 GWh, which simply can't be true.

That is true.

I mistakenly wrote:
"This is more than double the current annual, global automotive battery production",
but should have written:
"This is more than a doubling of the current annual, global automotive battery production".

This is per Tesla's current claim that their 20 GWh of annual, automotive battery production is equal to (or more than) the combined annual, automotive battery production of all other automakers, i.e. a current, total annual production of at most 40 GWh.

So for VW (which has no history of vertical integration) to simply assume that they can buy their 50+ GWh batteries annually is in my view overly optimistic.

Bear in mind that Tesla claims to have a roadmap for bringing their GF1 up to about 100 GWh annually. With their ongoing progress, Tesla surely already has contracts with suppliers of raw materials also for the future. So it is not obvious that even the supply of raw materials for the batteries VW will need is available (at prices that will allow for a profit).

EDIT: Here is the link:
Tesla confirms Gigafactory 1 battery production at ‘~20 GWh’ – more than all other carmakers combined

PS. I guess this forum now has a more important topic at hand than VW's "batteries secured".