Good, just wanted to be clear on that. I see a LOT of comparisons to Holmes by bears out there, but none seem to take into account that fundamental difference.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Good, just wanted to be clear on that. I see a LOT of comparisons to Holmes by bears out there, but none seem to take into account that fundamental difference.
Semi-Mod: Hmmm, calling someone an epithet that starts with D and ends in ORK isn't really a grammatical error. Anyway, no need to apologize, just stay within the terms of service (all of you) and we'll all be happy.
Trotting out old news and pretending it is new news is called fake news. Interesting that it was reported just before margin calls go out to the shorts who are falling over each other to get out their S---T storm.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Shorts deserve financial ruin. This type of WSJ/NYT market manipulation shows fear is boiling in their blood. I’d love to see TSLA bankrupt Mark Siegel, Eihnhorn, Chanos and their funds. Showing no mercy from where I’m sitting, closing in on $330s.
dandurston
Member
Tesla/Elon aren't going to get in trouble if the guidance was simply optimistic. Rather, they'd get in trouble if they were outright lying. If Elon was going around telling insiders it was impossible while publicly saying they were going to do it, then they could be in trouble. If Elon's production folks were telling him it was impossible but he didn't believe them and kept saying it, then it's murkier. It's a judgement call on whether Elon believed was he was saying.
Well, I did exactly that in 2010 (and several times before that).
It didn't work.
I hope you find my experience in this matter helpful.
Good luck to anyone who has to prove in court that Musk isn't hopelessly optimistic about... um... everything.
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Please feel free to join me in taking preventive action. [Click avatar, click desired option].
I think both. I think the reversal and drop at about 13:20 was shorts selling on the knowledge that WSJ was about to do a hit piece. Then most of the actual volume at 14:00 was algobots.
3) By infrastructure, they're surely referring mainly to superchargers. And simultaneously forgetting that superchargers have been increasingly transitioning from a loss-leader to self-funding their own expansion. That's the whole point of making Model 3 owners pay for charging - so that Superchargers pay for themselves and Tesla can deploy them in far greater numbers. The more Model 3s there are on the road (and the longer it's been since their initial free-use credits expire), the more income Tesla gets. Meanwhile, the busier superchargers are, the more insignificant that "demand charges" (electricity cost per kW rather than kWh) are to company. Supercharger revenue won't pay for the whole expansion next year, but it'll pay for a good chunk of it. By my estimates, it should fully pay for its own expansion at a healthy pace in 2020.
KR I thought supercharging cost on M3 is based solely on cost of electricity. In fact if M3 owners have to pay lease, equipment, installation and other costs it becomes like the other charging systems which have prices approaching the cost of gas. If so I dont see that charge being self-funding for future superchargers.
KR I thought supercharging cost on M3 is based solely on cost of electricity. In fact if M3 owners have to pay lease, equipment, installation and other costs it becomes like the other charging systems which have prices approaching the cost of gas. If so I dont see that charge being self-funding for future superchargers.
Bears also like to bring up Enron.
It's a bold strategy. Let's see if it works out for them!
Disagree--this is classic FUD--long on innuendo and short on facts. Beyond scary but meaningless terms like "intensified", the second quote is classic. Nowhere does it say the testimony is negative. The testimony could just as easily give them evidence there was no wrongdoing and to justify closing down the investigation.
I take it to mean that they won't act on the submission unless they are also allowed to communicate it to the subject.
Your comment ended up having a newline after "I’d love to see TSLA bankrupt". I was wondering what the hell was going on.
No. Typical high-rate supercharging costs are about 10 cents over residential electricity rates, let alone commercial rates.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
The SEC needs to investigate who bought shares after this fraudlent news report broke, and compare their names to the telephone records at the WSJ
On average, women a shorter. This implies that on average their torso is probably shorter, meaning their eye line will be lower than a man, on average (who would on average have a taller torso).
As such, when you need to see over a binnacle and possibly hood to see the road immediately in front of you (seeing far away isn't a problem), sitting higher helps. Many mis-associate absolute height with relative height, but SUV and CUV vehicles do tend to have a higher relative height also.
By relative height, I mean height of seat relative to binnacle and hood line, with a higher relative height equating to higher eye line with more visibility immediately in front of the car (all else being equal).
You can improve visibility without raising height by removing the binnacle (as the 3 has done) as well as by making the hood shorter and angled away from the eye line (not uncommon, but the 3 also does this somewhat).
So the 3 can provide a good view for someone with a shorter torso (regardless of gender), even though the absolute height is lower than a SUV/CUV.
But often, people associate relative height with absolute height and thus they feel like they can see better from their SUV thrones. There is an element of miseducation there. But there's also an element of truth in that many smaller cars provide poor sight lines for people with shorter torsos, so it's not a totally incorrect rule of thumb that bigger vehicles lend a better view.
That said, for some, the 3 might still be "too low", or even actually too low. A Y will sell better to these individuals.
I'm gonna just cut you a break here because being a mod is presumably not fun.
I filed an SEC complaint just now about the suspicious $20 drop at 2pm. Let's see what SEC does about it.
I suggest others too file a complaint about it. Enough noise needs to be made about it that they take action against such blatant price manipulation.
I suggest others too file a complaint about it. Enough noise needs to be made about it that they take action against such blatant price manipulation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
