There are so many possibilities. Saudi cash is certainly one. Could very easily picture the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund getting involved. Chinese investors seem to be trying to fund anything that moves these days, particularly if it has a plug. Apple is flush with cash and doesn't seem to know what to do with it. Musk is friends with Larry Page. I mean, on and on and on. Finding out who's ponying up the cash will be interesting.
I do have some mixed feelings about voting for it. It definitely puts Tesla in a stronger competitive position, and the $420 price floor is a nice touch. And I don't mind losing voting rights and having less frequent ability to buy in / cash out.
On the other hand, the volatility created by the shorts - while bad for the company - are great for longs. They keep dumping in money, getting squeezed, dumping in money, getting squeezed... it's effectively a wealth transfer from them to us.
Health of the company, or good buying opportunities? Hmm...
I'd like to be greedy and pick the latter, but my natural instinct is the former.
Yes, you can. People like Chanos have basically made a career out of it. By shorting, you lower the stock value, and its market cap. It puts the company in a position to borrow on less favourable terms and pay off convertible debt with cash. Short campaigns generally come hand-in-hand with FUD campaigns, designed to encourage longs to sell and worsen lending terms to the company / create less interest in its bond offerings / reduce its sales. In short, they attempt to create a self-reinforcing downward spiral.
The problem is that it only works effectively with companies that are currently dependent on borrowed cash - usually companies heavily invested in scaling up operations, wherein their investments have not yet transformed into revenue.
Then complain to Rick Stanton, co-lead of the rescue team, who requested the sub and supplied his dimensions. I'm sure he'd be glad to hear from you and your cave rescue expertise.
Oh, and FYI, even after Musk apologized? Unsworth's mother, in an interview, called for Musk to be shot.
And I guarantee you that there's already some people out there contemplating doing exactly that. There's orders of magnitude more people that hate Musk than people who even know that Unsworth exists.
Huh? AWD didn't exist in Q1 (and certainly not before then). It was still in development. Not all options come out at the same time. We're still waiting on air suspension and the tow package.
The vehicle was designed from the beginning (including the battery pack) with the intent of having AWD, but that doesn't mean that it was ready yet.
Rant all you want, but they're now making the 7th highest selling car in the US and earning positive margins on every one sold - and the margins will be around 15% this quarter, with three times the volume of last quarter.
And FYI, they've largely tracked their (always extremely aggressive) goals this year. Heck, even the predictions of profit were initially "Q3 or Q4", rather than the now straightforward "Q3".
2.2 billion cash and over 3 billion in accounts payable.
$27,9 billion in assets. $22,6 billion in liabilities. Was there any reason why you handpicked only one part of the assets and liabilities lists? Also, any particular reason you didn't bother to mention the 60 day payment terms on accounts payable, that is to say, they build, deliver, and get payment for a vehicle before the bills for its production come due? No bothering to mention the nearly 20% margins they make on said vehicles? The fact that the Model 3 margins are without any AWD/P (significant extra profit) in the mix, despite them now being half of all new orders? Let alone natural margin increases as production scaleup and refinement decreases the depreciation and labour per vehicle? Not going to mention that the decline in cash in Q2 was less than the value of the vehicles in transit at the end of the quarter, held back for the 200k limit? Not going to bother bringing up the severence/restructuring costs that hit in Q2 turn into a cost savings in Q3 and beyond? Not going to mention that total Q3 production will be three times higher than in Q2, and if you doubt Tesla on this, may I recommend checking out the Bloomberg tracker?
Nah, that would all ruin your narrative. So please. Keep up the cherrypicking.
I was perfectly happy with that post until I realized that when I switched the order of the sentence "... shorts would place bets on the sun rising in the west if Musk told them it'd rise in the east" I forgot to switch the directions as well:P
My guess is you haven't sold a single share which means you have ZERO profit
Just had a stop order trigger today at $379;) Only set them last week because it had become obvious that shorts were going to keep this stock highly volatile at least until the end of Q4, and I wanted to be able to profit on all of the ups and downs. Going to cancel the rest of the stop orders now. Obviously don't want to sell at lower than $420. Probably will put the money from the $379 sell back into an order at... not entirely decided yet, maybe a couple tiers around ~$370 and ~$360? I think the shorts might get it down that low. Musk could state that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow and they'd place bets on it rising in the east;)
No, I would never take that risk.
You didn't even have a 50% confidence they'd fail? Give us the number then. What was your actual confidence that they'd fail? 30%? 15%? 5%? 0%? Come on, let us in on it. I want to know that after all of this hyperventilating from you, how little confidence in your words you actually had.
Don't dodge this. After all of your ranting, how confident were you actually?
No, I have been WARNING people like you that you SHOULDN'T INVEST in individual stocks, especially things like Tesla.
What a pity I didn't listen to you;)
It makes no difference to any of my points.
Yes, it does. What sort of person who was convinced that Tesla was destined for imminent failure wouldn't take the "obvious" profits from that? What, was your checking account earning too high of an interest rate compared to doubling your money on Tesla's "obvious" collapse?
Let's say you weren't 100% convinced - you were just acting that way. Let's say you were only 90% convinced. Heck, let's say only 50% they were going bankrupt, 25% they'd decline but not go bankrupt, 20% that they'd hold even, and 5% that they'd rise (If so, good acting job, by the way, pretending to be way more convinced than you were). Are you saying you'd choose checking account-level interest over a 50% chance of doubling your money, a 25% of a huge return, a 20% chance of no return, and a 5% chance of a loss?
So you've been ranting and raving all this time about how Tesla was doomed, yet you never actually held those beliefs strongly enough to put even a penny on the line? Basically, you were concern trolling?
Elon has donated only slightly more to the GOP/Republican candidates than he has to Democrats/Democratic candidates. Generally his own reps and people on key congressional committees. Aka, for access (I hope that it doesn't shock your sensibilities to learn that members of your government pay more attention to you when you give them money, although I know you'll feign offense at the concept)
These donations in turn have been orders of magnitude smaller than he's given to organizations such as the Sierra Club.
1) They're quarterly calls, not yearly 2) It was Q1 of this year, not last year 3) There were two people. They were not "investors", they were analysts, both of whom had been pushing short theses (although only one was generally negative on Tesla as a whole). The the questions were - BTW - boneheaded. One of them was literally answered right at the top of the quarterly newsletter that everyone on the call was supposed to have read before calling in. 4) There actually was one person on the call (Galileo) representing actual retail investors, and Musk devoted half the call to answering questions from him.
Investing in an EV manufacturer is a perfectly logical hedge for a company whose assets are mostly locked up in oil. And Tesla is the only sizeable purely-EV manufacturer in the world (and manufacturers over half of the world's EV battery capacity)
That said, it's not clear what the Saudi announcement has to do, if anything, with this. It was claimed that they had been trying to buy into Tesla directly, and were rebuffed, so they bought shares on the open market. If they're actually investing as one of the funders buying out shareholders for privatization, that's an entirely different story than the one that came out earlier in the day.
If they did only buy shares on the open market, mind you, they've made a very handy return for themselves.:)
And now today it's up 1,13%. Funny, its almost like stocks fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, and calling small one-day changes "downtrends" or "uptrends" is bloody stupid, huh?
Oh, no, no stock as you so astutely caught me, and I'm totally not egging on a CT troll right now. No sirree. I live hand to mouth on my Shill Check. Should I call accounts payable, or just leave a request with HR? Maybe I haven't gotten it because they went bankwupt?
1. The overwhelming majority of SpaceX's revenue is from commercial launches.
2. NASA launches with SpaceX because it saves them money. That was the whole point of COTS in the first place, and it's the current whole point of Commercial Crew. The savings have been massive.
Your argument is akin to saying that because there are US government employees who fly on commercial aircraft rather than running their own private planes, because that saves them money, that commercial carriers are "piglets of corporate socialism".
Lastly:
3. NASA sets the safety standards and testing requirements for its launches with SpaceX - same as it does with its ULA launches. Which is why among other things SpaceX will literally be destroying a rocket on purpose for NASA later this year, to test the abort system. Also, with 61 launches having one failure and one partial failure, and one ground failure, the Falcon 9 is above industry average in terms of reliability. Furthermore, there has not been a ground failure in 32 flights (aka, over half of their launches have happened since their last ground failure), and not an in-flight failure in 42 flights (aka, over 2/3rds of their launches have been since then).
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Live by the sword, profit nicely off the sword, sell the sword and go back to a life in a non-sword-related field.
There are so many possibilities. Saudi cash is certainly one. Could very easily picture the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund getting involved. Chinese investors seem to be trying to fund anything that moves these days, particularly if it has a plug. Apple is flush with cash and doesn't seem to know what to do with it. Musk is friends with Larry Page. I mean, on and on and on. Finding out who's ponying up the cash will be interesting.
I do have some mixed feelings about voting for it. It definitely puts Tesla in a stronger competitive position, and the $420 price floor is a nice touch. And I don't mind losing voting rights and having less frequent ability to buy in / cash out.
On the other hand, the volatility created by the shorts - while bad for the company - are great for longs. They keep dumping in money, getting squeezed, dumping in money, getting squeezed... it's effectively a wealth transfer from them to us.
Health of the company, or good buying opportunities? Hmm...
I'd like to be greedy and pick the latter, but my natural instinct is the former.
Yes, you can. People like Chanos have basically made a career out of it. By shorting, you lower the stock value, and its market cap. It puts the company in a position to borrow on less favourable terms and pay off convertible debt with cash. Short campaigns generally come hand-in-hand with FUD campaigns, designed to encourage longs to sell and worsen lending terms to the company / create less interest in its bond offerings / reduce its sales. In short, they attempt to create a self-reinforcing downward spiral.
The problem is that it only works effectively with companies that are currently dependent on borrowed cash - usually companies heavily invested in scaling up operations, wherein their investments have not yet transformed into revenue.
Then complain to Rick Stanton, co-lead of the rescue team, who requested the sub and supplied his dimensions. I'm sure he'd be glad to hear from you and your cave rescue expertise.
Oh, and FYI, even after Musk apologized? Unsworth's mother, in an interview, called for Musk to be shot.
And I guarantee you that there's already some people out there contemplating doing exactly that. There's orders of magnitude more people that hate Musk than people who even know that Unsworth exists.
Huh? AWD didn't exist in Q1 (and certainly not before then). It was still in development. Not all options come out at the same time. We're still waiting on air suspension and the tow package.
The vehicle was designed from the beginning (including the battery pack) with the intent of having AWD, but that doesn't mean that it was ready yet.
Rant all you want, but they're now making the 7th highest selling car in the US and earning positive margins on every one sold - and the margins will be around 15% this quarter, with three times the volume of last quarter.
And FYI, they've largely tracked their (always extremely aggressive) goals this year. Heck, even the predictions of profit were initially "Q3 or Q4", rather than the now straightforward "Q3".
$27,9 billion in assets. $22,6 billion in liabilities. Was there any reason why you handpicked only one part of the assets and liabilities lists? Also, any particular reason you didn't bother to mention the 60 day payment terms on accounts payable, that is to say, they build, deliver, and get payment for a vehicle before the bills for its production come due? No bothering to mention the nearly 20% margins they make on said vehicles? The fact that the Model 3 margins are without any AWD/P (significant extra profit) in the mix, despite them now being half of all new orders? Let alone natural margin increases as production scaleup and refinement decreases the depreciation and labour per vehicle? Not going to mention that the decline in cash in Q2 was less than the value of the vehicles in transit at the end of the quarter, held back for the 200k limit? Not going to bother bringing up the severence/restructuring costs that hit in Q2 turn into a cost savings in Q3 and beyond? Not going to mention that total Q3 production will be three times higher than in Q2, and if you doubt Tesla on this, may I recommend checking out the Bloomberg tracker?
Nah, that would all ruin your narrative. So please. Keep up the cherrypicking.
What are you talking about - "a religion"? Please. It's the one true religion. We can prove the existence of our savior, what about you? ;)
Bring on the jokes, I deserve them ;)
Ugh....
I was perfectly happy with that post until I realized that when I switched the order of the sentence "... shorts would place bets on the sun rising in the west if Musk told them it'd rise in the east" I forgot to switch the directions as well :P
Just had a stop order trigger today at $379 ;) Only set them last week because it had become obvious that shorts were going to keep this stock highly volatile at least until the end of Q4, and I wanted to be able to profit on all of the ups and downs. Going to cancel the rest of the stop orders now. Obviously don't want to sell at lower than $420. Probably will put the money from the $379 sell back into an order at... not entirely decided yet, maybe a couple tiers around ~$370 and ~$360? I think the shorts might get it down that low. Musk could state that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow and they'd place bets on it rising in the east ;)
You didn't even have a 50% confidence they'd fail? Give us the number then. What was your actual confidence that they'd fail? 30%? 15%? 5%? 0%? Come on, let us in on it. I want to know that after all of this hyperventilating from you, how little confidence in your words you actually had.
Don't dodge this. After all of your ranting, how confident were you actually?
What a pity I didn't listen to you ;)
Yes, it does. What sort of person who was convinced that Tesla was destined for imminent failure wouldn't take the "obvious" profits from that? What, was your checking account earning too high of an interest rate compared to doubling your money on Tesla's "obvious" collapse?
Let's say you weren't 100% convinced - you were just acting that way. Let's say you were only 90% convinced. Heck, let's say only 50% they were going bankrupt, 25% they'd decline but not go bankrupt, 20% that they'd hold even, and 5% that they'd rise (If so, good acting job, by the way, pretending to be way more convinced than you were). Are you saying you'd choose checking account-level interest over a 50% chance of doubling your money, a 25% of a huge return, a 20% chance of no return, and a 5% chance of a loss?
So you've been ranting and raving all this time about how Tesla was doomed, yet you never actually held those beliefs strongly enough to put even a penny on the line? Basically, you were concern trolling?
** ... for a country whose assets are mostly locked up in oil.
But I should back off. You've just lost a ton of money and I'm sure you want to vent. Come on. Shout. Shout. Let it all out.
Come on. I'm talking to you, come on.
Elon has donated only slightly more to the GOP/Republican candidates than he has to Democrats/Democratic candidates. Generally his own reps and people on key congressional committees. Aka, for access (I hope that it doesn't shock your sensibilities to learn that members of your government pay more attention to you when you give them money, although I know you'll feign offense at the concept)
These donations in turn have been orders of magnitude smaller than he's given to organizations such as the Sierra Club.
1) They're quarterly calls, not yearly
2) It was Q1 of this year, not last year
3) There were two people. They were not "investors", they were analysts, both of whom had been pushing short theses (although only one was generally negative on Tesla as a whole). The the questions were - BTW - boneheaded. One of them was literally answered right at the top of the quarterly newsletter that everyone on the call was supposed to have read before calling in.
4) There actually was one person on the call (Galileo) representing actual retail investors, and Musk devoted half the call to answering questions from him.
Investing in an EV manufacturer is a perfectly logical hedge for a company whose assets are mostly locked up in oil. And Tesla is the only sizeable purely-EV manufacturer in the world (and manufacturers over half of the world's EV battery capacity)
That said, it's not clear what the Saudi announcement has to do, if anything, with this. It was claimed that they had been trying to buy into Tesla directly, and were rebuffed, so they bought shares on the open market. If they're actually investing as one of the funders buying out shareholders for privatization, that's an entirely different story than the one that came out earlier in the day.
If they did only buy shares on the open market, mind you, they've made a very handy return for themselves. :)
*whistles a tune*
This is freaking hilarious ;)
LOL! Don't look at TSLA right now unless you want to have a bad day ;)
And now today it's up 1,13%. Funny, its almost like stocks fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, and calling small one-day changes "downtrends" or "uptrends" is bloody stupid, huh?
Oh, no, no stock as you so astutely caught me, and I'm totally not egging on a CT troll right now. No sirree. I live hand to mouth on my Shill Check. Should I call accounts payable, or just leave a request with HR? Maybe I haven't gotten it because they went bankwupt?
1. The overwhelming majority of SpaceX's revenue is from commercial launches.
2. NASA launches with SpaceX because it saves them money. That was the whole point of COTS in the first place, and it's the current whole point of Commercial Crew. The savings have been massive.
Your argument is akin to saying that because there are US government employees who fly on commercial aircraft rather than running their own private planes, because that saves them money, that commercial carriers are "piglets of corporate socialism".
Lastly:
3. NASA sets the safety standards and testing requirements for its launches with SpaceX - same as it does with its ULA launches. Which is why among other things SpaceX will literally be destroying a rocket on purpose for NASA later this year, to test the abort system. Also, with 61 launches having one failure and one partial failure, and one ground failure, the Falcon 9 is above industry average in terms of reliability. Furthermore, there has not been a ground failure in 32 flights (aka, over half of their launches have happened since their last ground failure), and not an in-flight failure in 42 flights (aka, over 2/3rds of their launches have been since then).