Anyone else think Tesla is a good short?

[L-Pink]

"I decided there was a similar opportunity to short shares of Tesla Motors. I've supported some of their more virtuous pursuits, and the Tesla Model S is a superb product. But I think Tesla will be unprofitable for years to come, and has morphed into a glamor firm ? one where people gleefully invest in the promise of a company's mission and personality of its CEO rather than its actual financial performance"


"Unlike last century's best-selling Ford Model T, a car that thrived on simplicity, the high costs and business challenges involved for Tesla's products are only the tip of a financial iceberg that requires billions in subsidies, and tens of billions of future investments, just to stay afloat. This for a company that currently sells fewer than 35,000 vehicles a year.

As much as I love the romance of what Tesla represents, the company's financial weaknesses and competitive threats have only grown stronger ? and it will be an unglamorous slog to overcome them"


https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...211558551.html

[MrBottomTooth]

This thread is not Mark Prince approved!

[woj]

Shorting probably works best for established companies that are sinking... blockbuster for example... trend is clear, risk is low...

with Tesla on the other hand, who knows how it will play out? for all we know some Tesla related good news will come out this year, and their stock price could triple = you are fucked if you shorted...

plus shorting startup companies that are creating cool innovative products kinda has a bad vibe to it... just imagine 10 years from now, everyone could be bragging how they invested in Tesla early on and made a fortune... while you were the idiot who was shorting it...

[Sly]

I don't know enough about stocks, but I do think that Mr. Musk is overextending himself on "ideas" and his whole empire is going to crumble if he doesn't slow the fuck down and start making money.

[ITraffic]

Tesla CEO Musk says market value could rival Apple by 2025 - Yahoo Finance

[ITraffic]

the paypal mafia is going to completely revolutionize this society within a decade.

[dyna mo]

tesla is fine, their #s are super solid, they are reinvesting and had a weather issue on deliveries this last quarter. i wouldn't short on the long view.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Sly

I don't know enough about stocks, but I do think that Mr. Musk is overextending himself on "ideas" and his whole empire is going to crumble if he doesn't slow the fuck down and start making money.

Also worth noting a lot of Musk fans are outspoken critic's of "big business" and the special treatment afforded them by a certain political party, just look here for a few choice examples. Yet Musk relies so heavily on government subsidies himself.


.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Also worth noting a lot of Musk fans are outspoken critic's of "big business" and the special treatment afforded them by a certain political party, just look here for a few choice examples. Yet Musk relies so heavily on government subsidies himself.


.

The game he played with the Nevada plant was absolutely amazing. The guy is incredibly smart, I'm not taking that away from him at all, 10 times smarter than I will ever be. But yes, you are absolutely right.

Read this: Inside Elon Musk's $1.4 billion score - Fortune

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"I decided there was a similar opportunity to short shares of Tesla Motors. I've supported some of their more virtuous pursuits, and the Tesla Model S is a superb product. But I think Tesla will be unprofitable for years to come, and has morphed into a glamor firm ? one where people gleefully invest in the promise of a company's mission and personality of its CEO rather than its actual financial performance"


"Unlike last century's best-selling Ford Model T, a car that thrived on simplicity, the high costs and business challenges involved for Tesla's products are only the tip of a financial iceberg that requires billions in subsidies, and tens of billions of future investments, just to stay afloat. This for a company that currently sells fewer than 35,000 vehicles a year.

As much as I love the romance of what Tesla represents, the company's financial weaknesses and competitive threats have only grown stronger ? and it will be an unglamorous slog to overcome them"


https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...211558551.html

wow, i just read that article, it's quite negatively biased. I'll dig up the last earnings report, i read it several days ago, it explains that tesla's sales surged n the 4th quarter but the also made investments.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

wow, i just read that article, it's quite negatively biased.

He probably had his wife short the stock just before he wrote the article.

[dyna mo]

Musk's letter to shareholders, feb 11th

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...er%20Final.pdf

they're spending to expand.

[Relentless]

Lots of reasons not to buy stock.... Zero reason to take on the risk of actively getting against them.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"I decided there was a similar opportunity to short shares of Tesla Motors. I've supported some of their more virtuous pursuits, and the Tesla Model S is a superb product. But I think Tesla will be unprofitable for years to come, and has morphed into a glamor firm — one where people gleefully invest in the promise of a company's mission and personality of its CEO rather than its actual financial performance"


"Unlike last century's best-selling Ford Model T, a car that thrived on simplicity, the high costs and business challenges involved for Tesla's products are only the tip of a financial iceberg that requires billions in subsidies, and tens of billions of future investments, just to stay afloat. This for a company that currently sells fewer than 35,000 vehicles a year.

As much as I love the romance of what Tesla represents, the company's financial weaknesses and competitive threats have only grown stronger — and it will be an unglamorous slog to overcome them"


https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...211558551.html

That would likely be a very bad gamble. Specially since they are moving into the lower cost car market which means they will have more sales. Added to this they are about to launch a new side industry which brings together his battery company & his solar panel company to sell home battery systems under the Tesla name, creating an entirely new market in the US.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Musk's letter to shareholders, feb 11th

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...er%20Final.pdf

they're spending to expand.

I stopped reading when I got to here .... "While we were able to recover the lost production by end of the quarter, delivering those cars was physically impossible due to a combination of customers being on vacation ... " Huh?


.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"I decided there was a similar opportunity to short shares of Tesla Motors. I've supported some of their more virtuous pursuits, and the Tesla Model S is a superb product. But I think Tesla will be unprofitable for years to come, and has morphed into a glamor firm — one where people gleefully invest in the promise of a company's mission and personality of its CEO rather than its actual financial performance"

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...211558551.html

dude.

whoever wrote that drivel doesnt know shit. nobody intelligent recommends a short of ANYTHING on a LONG TERM fundamental basis. even if the strategy is to short radio shack or sears, you dont do that with a multiyear time horizon. you do that when the writing is on the wall. i thought i should short sears 20 years ago. id still be waiting for a profit.

just as a general rule, the maximum profit on a short is 100%, while the maximum profit on a long is unlimited. so any long term strategy should be long, never short.

shorting is strictly a short term trade, a speculation, never an investment. so the writer of that article is clueless. its no wonder he's writing articles on yahoo instead of having a real finance job.

[Joshua G]

as far as the long term on tesla, it is up in the air. it depends on hydrogen more than anything. If fuel cells are able to be cheaper than electricity, tesla will be making nothing but home batteries in 2030. if electricity wins the war for the replacement of gasoline, then tesla is a bargain today.

best bet is to short-term-trade the fucker, whether it be long or short. invest in oil. gamble on tesla.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I stopped reading when I got to here .... "While we were able to recover the lost production by end of the quarter, delivering those cars was physically impossible due to a combination of customers being on vacation ... " Huh?


.

suit yourself.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Also worth noting a lot of Musk fans are outspoken critic's of "big business" and the special treatment afforded them by a certain political party, just look here for a few choice examples. Yet Musk relies so heavily on government subsidies himself.


.

You are missing the point of govt subsidies. Most of us whom are against govt subsidies to big business are against those subsidies being given to old extremely profitable companies, whom already have unfair market advantages.

Meanwhile Elon Musk is advancing several "new" technologies of the future. His company has single handily created a viable electric car market in the US added to this is company has again built the infrastructure across this country to make his and other electric cars a viable option.

His companies are advancing the solar industry.

His companies are advancing battery technology.

His companies are pushing forward un-manned and maned space travel.

This vs Coal companies whom destroy our environment by destroying entire landscapes digging coal out of mountains, not to mention all the pollution and waste they create.. For what? once it's burned it gone leaving entire mountain landscapes destroyed.

Oil companies are making record profits year after year and they don't give us any break on the cost of fuel. We as tax payer pay market value set on the global market. There is zero reason for tax payers to subsidize that. If we were given a break at the pump then sure subsidize them, but when we pay the same market price as everyone else, then why are they given my tax dollars?

If you can't see the difference in what his companies are doing vs these other leeches of tax payer's money, then you will forever be lost to denial.

What Musk is doing, is exactly what govt subsidies "should" be used for.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are missing the point of govt subsidies. Most of us whom are against govt subsidies to big business are against those subsidies being given to old extremely profitable companies.

H

So keeping old established companies profitable and employing people is different than subsiding new "hip" companies? Your bias is always showing.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are missing the point of govt subsidies. Most of us whom are against govt subsidies to big business are against those subsidies being given to old extremely profitable companies, whom already have unfair market advantages.

Meanwhile Elon Musk is advancing several "new" technologies of the future. His company has single handily created a viable electric car market in the US added to this is company has again built the infrastructure across this country to make his and other electric cars a viable option.

His companies are advancing the solar industry.

His companies are advancing battery technology.

His companies are pushing forward un-manned and maned space travel.

This vs Coal companies whom destroy our environment by destroying entire landscapes digging coal out of mountains, not to mention all the pollution and waste they create.. For what? once it's burned it gone leaving entire mountain landscapes destroyed.

Oil companies are making record profits year after year and they don't give us any break on the cost of fuel. We as tax payer pay market value set on the global market. There is zero reason for tax payers to subsidize that. If we were given a break at the pump then sure subsidize them, but when we pay the same market price and everyone else, then why are they given my tax dollars?

If you can't see the difference in what his companies are doing vs these other leeches of tax payer's money, then you will forever be lost to denial.

What Musk is doing, is exactly what govt subsidies "should" be used for.

you may want to read that link sly posted on nevada giving 1.5b in subsidies

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

So keeping old established companies profitable and employing people is different than subsiding new "hip" companies? Your bias is always showing.

Those oil companies are profitable with or with out my tax dollars and your tax dollars. My bias is what advances the future for myself and people I care about.

Question for you, would you be against govt subsidies being used to make college education free for all US citizens? What about free healthcare for all Us citizens?

Would you be against your tax dollars being used for that? Free healthcare & free education sure would create a lot of jobs as well as secure our nation's future with lots of fresh innovation. Is that a worthwhile investment to you?

[hadden]

Not at all

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are missing the point of govt subsidies.

what was the point of the washington state government subsidizing Boeing for 8 billion $$?

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

Those oil companies are profitable with or with out my tax dollars and your tax dollars. My bias is what advances the future for myself and people I care about.

Question for you, would you be against govt subsidies being used to make college education free for all US citizens? What about free healthcare for all Us citizens?

Would you be against your tax dollars being used for that? Free healthcare & free education sure would create a lot of jobs as well as secure our nation's future with lots of fresh innovation. Is that a worthwhile investment to you?

What the hell are you rambling off topic about now?

Subsiding a company with it's own space program and selling exotic cars to upper income people for $100,000 makes as little sense as any other tax break. Corporate welfare is corporate welfare no matter who receives it in any form.

Picking and choosing what's acceptable becomes a political issue. And we all know which way you blindly lean.

.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

suit yourself.

You don't find blaming a sales shortfall on customers being on vacation slightly off the charts?

[Sly]

Subsidizing any company is a bribe for that company to give the government or the people something back. You can call it whatever you want, but it boils down to being a bribe.

States want oil companies. States want tech companies. States want medical companies. Why? Because these are expensive industries that generate high-class jobs that generate high-class spending that generate high-class taxes and happy people.

What is the job of a politician? Making people happy so that they can get reelected.

Subsidies are not given out of the goodness of anyone's heart. They are not given as a blessing to advance society. They are given as a bribe to bring something back to the home team.

This is why a handful of states were willing to spread their ass cheeks for Tesla. Jobs and taxes. Not the environment and "feel good" notions.

I don't have any problem with this at all, it's a business move, it makes perfect sense for all parties. If it makes sense for Nevada to give Tesla massive subsidies, it makes sense for Texas to give XYZ oil company massive subsidies. Let's not lie about what subsidies are.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

What the hell are you rambling off topic about now?

Subsiding a company with it's own space program and selling exotic cars to upper income people for $100,000 makes as little sense as any other tax break. Corporate welfare is corporate welfare no matter who receives it in any form.

Picking and choosing what's acceptable becomes a political issue. And we all know which way you blindly lean.

.

He isn't just selling cars.. He is developing new battery technology that will be used in his cars and countless other things. From RV's to your home. IE he's spurring innovation which is what subsides have always been used for, long before big business lobbyist figured out how to use them to pad their profits.

I was asking about healthcare, because to give free insurance to every single US citizen would cost roughly $3k per person per year if you go by the average cost of other countries whom provide free healthcare.

That equals roughly 956 billion dollars a year.. Do you know how much subsidies were given to the fossil fuel industry in 2010? just over 30 billion dollars. It's one third of the cost to give free healthcare to every American, including yourself and your family.

Now add in that 8 billion which Dyna Mo just mentioned to Boeing from a "single" state. Now think about that.. Do you think those subsides add up to the amount of jobs created if every American could go to the doctor when ever they wanted for free?

This isn't even touching base on the money we would save as tax payers for medical costs of uninsured and the drastic drop in cost of medicare expenditure and so on.

Now think about that for just a min and then ask your self, why is it ok to give Big oil free tax dollars or Boeing or even Telsa.. ect..ect.. What benefits are the average Americans getting for those subsidies dollars vs what would they get if that money went to healthcare & education.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

He isn't just selling cars.. He is developing new battery technology that will be used in his cars and countless other things. From RV's to your home.

I was asking about healthcare, because to give free insurance to every single US citizen would cost roughly $3k per person per year if you go by the average cost of other countries whom provide free healthcare.

That equals roughly 956 billion dollars a year.. Do you know how much subsidies were given to the fossil fuel industry in 2010? just over 30 billion dollars. It's one third of the cost to give free healthcare to every American, including yourself and your family.

Now add in that 8 billion which Dyna Mo just mentioned to Boeing from a "single" state. Now think about that.. Do you think those subsides add up to the amount of jobs created if every American could go to the doctor when ever they wanted for free?

This isn't even touching base on the money we would save as tax payers for medical costs of uninsured and the drastic drop in cost of medicare expenditure and so on.

Now think about that for just a min and then ask your self, why is it ok to give Big oil free tax dollars or Boeing.. ect..ect.. What benefits are the average Americans getting for those subsidies dollars vs what would they get if that money went to healthcare & education.

Deciding what corporate subsidy/tax break is "valid" is nothing but a personal/political view. Arguing is pointless and self serving .......


.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

You don't find blaming a sales shortfall on customers being on vacation slightly off the charts?

I think there is always a bit of things are rosy and things that are not rosy are not our fault in any letter to shareholders but at the same time, they are legally bound to not bullshit or speculate while providing the actual $ figures in the letter.

so sure, I'm not sure what to make of that particular statement but on the whole, tesla isn't deteriorating, it's growing, as revealed in the letter, which to me, is what to look for when shorting.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

He is developing new battery technology

that's just simply not true at all.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's just simply not true at all.

What do you mean it's not true? How do you think he is expanding the range of his cars? He's now working on a 500 mile range battery using Graphene.

They will soon be releasing the battery for homes and that will likely lead to new battery systems for your RV or my van..

If that's not developing new battery technology, what would you call it? Developing new technology doesn't just mean inventing something new, it also means taking existing technology and making it better.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Deciding what corporate subsidy/tax break is "valid" is nothing but a personal/political view. Arguing is pointless and self serving .......


.

The point I was getting at is there are a few reasons to give companies subsidies which tend to be viable, however most subsidies go in this pecking order..


1) The company benefits US interests, security/economy ect.
2) The company benefits tax payers
3) To create new technologies or spur innovation

Tesla fits in the 3rd group and is the lowest in the pecking order in which govt money is handed out. However just like Google for instance Tesla has the possibility to make that jump into being "good" for the economy & US interests if successful. Jumping it up from that lower tier to the first tier.. This is why it's not that important if they are making money right now. It's that fostering of the technology which will serve American's needs in the future which we are paying for.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

The point I was getting at is there are a few reasons to give companies subsidies which tend to be viable, however most subsidies go in this pecking order..

And who determines what's "viable" You? Me? Mitch McConnell? Jerry Brown? BrassMonkey? Harmon? Sister Teresa? EVERYONE has their own bias, their own self-interest.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And who determines what's "viable" You? Me? Mitch McConnell? Jerry Brown? BrassMonkey? Harmon? Sister Teresa? EVERYONE has their own bias, their own self-interest.

Usually lobbyist in Washington, which is why "public interest" and future technology fall way behind to stuff like big oil and defense.. Hence the reason Tesla is such a rare example of getting it right. That's mostly due to Musk having so much of his own money and public power to throw behind it.

I dunno why you are so against it. I for one am happy to see tax dollars being spent on something new and positive for our future vs giving more to greedy old fuckers to top off their profit margins..

At least Musk is doing stuff that will benefit humans and our future vs just trying to fatten his wallet. There are any number of business options Musk could have jumped into with his money and made much more money than he's making by doing what he's doing.

He could of just been another greedy investor keeping his money in investments living the high life off the returns. Instead he's prompting positive change across a few spectrum's.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

What do you mean it's not true? How do you think he is expanding the range of his cars? He's now working on a 500 mile range battery using Graphene.

They will soon be releasing the battery for homes and that will likely lead to new battery systems for your RV or my van..

If that's not developing new battery technology, what would you call it? Developing new technology doesn't just mean inventing something new, it also means taking existing technology and making it better.

that's entirely hearsay. Tesla is making a breaktrhough on graphene in private (with no real funding) when no one has yet to do it in public? not likely. when real research is being done on battery tech it makes the news. and musk/tesla haven't taken any current tech and made it better.

[dyna mo]

look at it this way crockett, regardless of subsidies, tesla is betting their future on LI-ion batteries. If not, they would not be investing in the gigafactory, whose sole purpose is to manufacture li-ion bats and doesn't even go online until 2020.

tesla is counting on the status-quo of current bat tech.

[SilentKnight]

Ask Ronald Wayne about shorting.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

look at it this way crockett, regardless of subsidies, tesla is betting their future on LI-ion batteries. If not, they would not be investing in the gigafactory, whose sole purpose is to manufacture li-ion bats and doesn't even go online until 2020.

tesla is counting on the status-quo of current bat tech.

The status-quo is their stop gap which allows them to sell cars and build a company. Claiming they aren't building new batteries would be like saying GM isn't developing new engines..

The simple fact is the ion batteries are cheaper to produce, but that doesn't mean they are not working on the other batteries. Musk himself has said that they have to be proven first before he puts them in cars.

Hence the reason the ion batteries will remain the defacto.. Just because he's not using them in cars doesn't mean they are not working on them. You don't just rush the next new things out to production it takes years.

He is trying to push the cost of the car down, hence the usage of the ion batteries at this time. That doesn't mean they aren't working on a replacement.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by MrBottomTooth

This thread is not Mark Prince approved!

Bump for MP
L-Pink, do not do anything until MP posted his opinion

[Mr Pheer]

I've been refraining from making a post about shorting Teslas, and exploding batteries, and cars on fire ever since this thread started.