Author Topic: TSLA - Tesla Motors  (Read 806586 times)

TwoCitiesCapital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3470 on: February 14, 2020, 06:38:46 AM »

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  Whatís your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

Yes - I think we disagree on the magnitude. 20-30% rise and issuing shares to be tactical means you might be issuing shares in any given year. I definitely think it requires more than that. In this case, Tesla nearly tripled which I think qualifies...but Elon invalidated that by making the statement that none was needed and none would be offered when the stock was at $600.

To recap our discussion:
1) You had said everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% increase.

2) I pointed out that means the vast majority of companies should've, at the very least, been considering issuance in 2013, 2017, and again in 2019 but were intead purchasing record amounts of their stock.

3) You retorted that it's not just the rise in the shares, but a combination of factors like environment, need, etc.

4) And then I pointed out, once again, that none of those had changed in 10 days.

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 06:44:53 AM by TwoCitiesCapital »


TwoCitiesCapital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3471 on: February 14, 2020, 06:53:27 AM »
13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

A 5-second Google search of their prior 13Fs demonstrates that Ren Tech held positions in both Enron and WorldCom in 2001....

Dalal.Holdings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3472 on: February 14, 2020, 08:10:24 AM »
13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

A 5-second Google search of their prior 13Fs demonstrates that Ren Tech held positions in both Enron and WorldCom in 2001....

Youíre probably right...Iím not verifying and I donít know the inner workings of RenTechóthey may not look at tickers at all, even for their 2nd largest position.

Doesnít change the fact that many suffer from Elon Derangement Syndrome and the comparisons to Enron and Ponzi schemes are not only wrong, but lazy.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 08:12:19 AM by Dalal.Holdings »

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12073
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3473 on: February 14, 2020, 09:01:32 AM »
Good video on EV charging infrastructure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBT5aXoJghY

Unrelated, but this channel is pretty cool. Never thought a video on the color brown would be this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | This podcast episode is a must-listen

Dalal.Holdings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3474 on: February 14, 2020, 12:21:38 PM »

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  Whatís your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.

Ohhh, now the argument is Musk is a bad capital allocator. Yes compare that to CEOs who repurchase when their shares are high and slow/stop them as the share price falls (GE under Immelt or GM under Barra).

Timing matters. A 30% rise over a week or two is vastly different than one over a few years...itís about price to intrinsic value. Price can change rapidly, intrinsic value more slowly. If a stock collapses 30% in a week without a change in intrinsic value, I would want my CEO out in the open market buying shares, regardless of what they said before that drop.

A good capital allocator issues stock at nosebleed valuation (isnít that the consensus in here about how TSLA is valued?) and buys back at low. Why would a shareholder care if a CEO changes their mind as long as they follow this principle?

Look at a 10 yr chart of Tesla vs GM and GE. Itís easy to pick on Musk because he seems so all over the place, but in the end TSLA shareholders have absolutely zero to complain about. GE and GM shareholders had polished, well spoken management, but what do they have to show for it???
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 12:24:37 PM by Dalal.Holdings »

TwoCitiesCapital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3475 on: February 14, 2020, 04:17:01 PM »

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  Whatís your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.

Ohhh, now the argument is Musk is a bad capital allocator. Yes compare that to CEOs who repurchase when their shares are high and slow/stop them as the share price falls (GE under Immelt or GM under Barra).

Timing matters. A 30% rise over a week or two is vastly different than one over a few years...itís about price to intrinsic value. Price can change rapidly, intrinsic value more slowly. If a stock collapses 30% in a week without a change in intrinsic value, I would want my CEO out in the open market buying shares, regardless of what they said before that drop.

A good capital allocator issues stock at nosebleed valuation (isnít that the consensus in here about how TSLA is valued?) and buys back at low. Why would a shareholder care if a CEO changes their mind as long as they follow this principle?

Look at a 10 yr chart of Tesla vs GM and GE. Itís easy to pick on Musk because he seems so all over the place, but in the end TSLA shareholders have absolutely zero to complain about. GE and GM shareholders had polished, well spoken management, but what do they have to show for it???

I'm certainly not supporting GE and GM, but it doesn't matter. As long as the Tesla stock price is up, I'm wrong. I get it.

I'm just going to mosey back out of this thread. Best of luck all.

Dalal.Holdings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3476 on: February 16, 2020, 07:52:55 AM »
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-tsla-sec-rules-short-sellers-tslaq

Two professors of Columbia Law School specializing in corporate governance file a complaint...not against TSLA, but against TSLAQ:

Quote
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a request from a group of law professors to enforce stricter rules on short-sellers, like TSLAQ. The law professors specifically requested that SEC urge shorts to be more transparent when it comes to their trading activity...Examples of negative activism in the lawyersí petition included shorts using fake names to spread antagonistic information about a company in the hopes of driving its stock down.

Important to remember that short sellers have resorted to less than noble tactics to drive down securities in the past...including this Forum's very own namesake Fairfax Holdings, going after not just the business, but the personal reputation management including Prem Watsa (as highlighted in "The Divide" by Taibbi where infallible TSLAQ hero Jim Chanos was involved):

Quote
Spyro Contogouris sat down at his computer in August 2005 typing out reassurances to his boss. Spyro worked for a hedge fund. He would be arrested for felony embezzlement in a real estate scam the next year but of course didnít know that at the time. Spyro had been hired to destroy Fairfax Financial Holdings, a Canadian insurance company. His billionaire boss not only wanted the company to fail, he wanted its Indian CEO and Canadian immigrant Prem Watsa to be disgraced. On that day Spyro was assuring his impatient boss that he would fulfill his duties. The vindictive hedge fund boss was a fixture in high society and received the adulation of the press for his great taste in art and his vast art collection.

Funny how as objective investors we all claim to be aware of misinformation on Twitter/social media, but give TSLAQ a pass. There surely must have been no bots or other shady tactics being used to manipulate TSLA over the past years despite there being a major financial incentive to do so by certain money managers...let's believe everything we read from TSLAQ on Twitter (like when they file unintended acceleration claims with NHTSA despite never owning a Tesla themselves), but take everything we hear from *fraud* Elon Musk (who parlayed millions from Paypal into into a rocket and EV co now worth tens if not hundreds of billions) with a huge grain of salt.

Given all this less-than-noble behavior, Elon has good reason to keep SpaceX away from public markets.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 07:54:39 AM by Dalal.Holdings »

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12073
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | This podcast episode is a must-listen

Dalal.Holdings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3478 on: February 17, 2020, 01:44:32 PM »
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Tesla-teardown-finds-electronics-6-years-ahead-of-Toyota-and-VW2

No moat and no brand equity. Nothing to see here, folks.

Just wait till porsche taycan comesóa whopping 200 mi range for the low low price of $150k. Customers will lust after this like the Windows Mobile phones. That superbowl ad money was well spent unlike zero marketing budget Tesla over here...
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 01:46:22 PM by Dalal.Holdings »

A Dhandho Investor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Reply #3479 on: February 17, 2020, 11:27:39 PM »
I stopped reading the article after the second paragraph. An article loses a lot of its credibility if you don't even bother to look up the correct price tag of the Model 3..

Quote
This is the takeaway from Nikkei Business Publications' teardown of the Model 3, the most affordable car in the U.S. automaker's all-electric lineup, starting at about $33,000.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 11:42:46 PM by A Dhandho Investor »