Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[aznt1217]

I was so mad when reading that thing. Anyway here are some facts that we really need to be reminded of when reading this... context as Elon said. Let's even exclude oil and gas ones.

Here are some cold hard facts. The LA Times editor really needs to check his ego at the door and make it less of a hit piece of they claim the reporting to be neutral. The data outlined below is from Good Jobs First.

 

[imherkimer]

Thanks for compiling this, aznt. Can we ask the L.A. Times to please publish this chart alongside the article by Mr. Hirsch, and include this on CNBC, as well, when discussing subsidies used by Elon's companies?

 

[aznt1217]

Thanks for compiling this, aznt. Can we ask the L.A. Times to please publish this chart alongside the article by Mr. Hirsch, and include this on CNBC, as well, when discussing subsidies used by Elon's companies?

Of course, but to be fair this data was also compiled by the Washington Post & the economist, they just didn't update their chart with their corrected data. The big issue for me is Tesla becomes this target because of Elon's celebrity for some particular reason. Instead of championing engineering and the fact that it's the first remotely successful car start up they try to kill it for reasons unbeknownst to me.

What I also cannot stand is the fact that we allow GM (sorry to call them out) who made crappy products for a very long time and didn't start to dig themselves out of a hole till recently off the hook. I mean they're still doing ignition switch recalls. It's like come on you have got to be kidding me. Also my response to "why is Model 3 taking so long" people is, have you made anything in your life? Like... ever?

Clearly you can see my disgust for the LA Times article. It annoys me that he didn't check his sources for credibility. The Spiegel guy who is a "hedgefund" manager is literally running a portfolio from his apartment or some rinky dinky office. Curt went over this in great detail and I know way too many people in Finance who describe themselves as hedgefund managers but all they do is take their capital from Mom, Dad, and Friends and trade it on their own under some stupid name that is registered by some LLC creation company. I might as well make my own hedgefund with my PA and call it Thunderbolt Investment Management, Aries Capital LP, or some other cool sounding name and make myself a "hedgefund" manager.

 

[Drax7]

Bob lutz , on CNBC this morning , claims tesla will never achieve cost reduction in battery .
This man was responsible for GMs product development , he also thinks tesla
stock should be sold after his analysis, though he claims not to be an analyst.

Dont know where to start, there is so much misinformation , but he should see a professional

 

[Hogfighter]

Bob lutz , on CNBC this morning , claims tesla will never achieve cost reduction in battery .
This man was responsible for GMs product development , he also thinks tesla
stock should be sold after his analysis, though he claims not to be an analyst.

Dont know where to start, there is so much misinformation , but he should see a professional

I enjoy hearing bearish arguments regarding TSLA. It solidifies my bullishness. Lutz's arguments are:

1) Batteries for stationary storage is stupid.

2) TSLA's car business is losing money.

3) Any old car company can jump into the EV world quickly and easily.

4) If Elon can corner the market on the raw materials, then maybe he will do well.


My retorts:

1) Batteries for stationary storage is all about economics. If it makes economic sense then people will purchase them. And it makes economic sense for many applications today.

2) TSLA claims they will be cash flow positive in Q4.

3) No way, for a myriad of reasons.

4) Let's hope Elon is looking into cornering the market on the raw materials!

 

[eepic]

I enjoy hearing bearish arguments regarding TSLA. It solidifies my bullishness. Lutz's arguments are:

1) Batteries for stationary storage is stupid.

2) TSLA's car business is losing money.

3) Any old car company can jump into the EV world quickly and easily.

4) If Elon can corner the market on the raw materials, then maybe he will do well.

#3 rebuttal takes two words against Lutz: "Cadillac ELR"

 

[AudubonB]

#4 is wrong for a host of reasons.

First, Lutz is incorrect in his assessment that doing same would, on first iteration, ensure the future safety of Tesla. It certainly could engender a safe-and-sloppy corporate mentality, about which General Motors knows a lot.

Second, any operator that amasses such a monopoly - or in this case, potentially a monopsony - would, in second iteration, eventually be forced to dis-integrate itself, either a la Teddy Roosevelt and the breakup of the Standard Oil Trust or other such deus ex machina activities.

Cornering a market does, in the long term, very little.

 

[EldestOyster]

Alternate response to #3: Bring it on! Tesla's purpose is to change the world. We want to see more EV's in mass production!

 

[Drax7]

In my view , Bob putz is the typical GM con man.

 

[JRP3]

Lulz is simply exposing his ignorance by claiming lead acid is a better choice, and by thinking that lithium is a significant cost factor, (4% of a cell by weight), that only a monopoly on the supply could control.

 

[SteveG3]

Does this mean the LA Times is going to now report every incentive and subsidy dollar Tesla receives and refer to their disingenuous $4.9 billion figure and false suggestion that Musk's approach to life is to get rich by creating schemes to sponge off government programs without breaking a sweat?

If they did this with every company receiving incentives (and dropped the absurdly false narrative re Musk), that would be one thing, but this smells like the kind of paid negative campaigning I'd imagine the Koch brothers specialize in.

Perhaps if we call out the LA Times on the falseness of their writing in the comments section, it will become widely apparent to readers that they have a disingenuous agenda, and writing these articles will become counterproductive to them. I posted a comment as "BrooksH"

Tesla in line for $15 million in California job creation tax credits - LA Times

 

[32no]

Anton Wahlman is at it again. New article titled "Chevrolet Bolt EV Spotted On Test Track; Does GM Have A 1-2 Year Lead On Tesla's Model 3?"

The article includes statements like:

In news that should send chills up the spine of everyone who is long Tesla

He has a very clear agenda, and I'd be surprised if he has no relationship with GM.

 

[Jonathan Hewitt]

Anton Wahlman is at it again. New article titled "Chevrolet Bolt EV Spotted On Test Track; Does GM Have A 1-2 Year Lead On Tesla's Model 3?"

The article includes statements like:



He has a very clear agenda, and I'd be surprised if he has no relationship with GM.

I love this thread. It makes buying and holding TSLA almost too easy. It's funny that no one can write a bear article that actually has real teeth.

 

[JRP3]

He has a very clear agenda, and I'd be surprised if he has no relationship with GM.

He does have a short position in TSLA, so that's gotta hurt.

 

[Drax7]

Wahlman writes for Cramer , they live next to each other in short hills , NJ. Tepper knows them and lives in same area.
Gotta wonder if there is collusion of some sort.

 

[Johan]

Does this mean the LA Times is going to now report every incentive and subsidy dollar Tesla receives and refer to their disingenuous $4.9 billion figure and false suggestion that Musk's approach to life is to get rich by creating schemes to sponge off government programs without breaking a sweat?

If they did this with every company receiving incentives (and dropped the absurdly false narrative re Musk), that would be one thing, but this smells like the kind of paid negative campaigning I'd imagine the Koch brothers specialize in.

Perhaps if we call out the LA Times on the falseness of their writing in the comments section, it will become widely apparent to readers that they have a disingenuous agenda, and writing these articles will become counterproductive to them. I posted a comment as "BrooksH"

Tesla in line for $15 million in California job creation tax credits - LA Times

Yeah because it's usually what's in the comments that gets fed around the globe as headlines

No, seriously, well done Steve. But in reality in our ADHD world people read the headline and maybe the first paragraph.

Their agenda is VOLUME (of Tesla negative articles) not proper content. This keeps filling the headline feeds and promotes the narrative "there's always trouble around the corner for Tesla".

It's all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Never about Facts.

 

[SteveG3]

Yeah because it's usually what's in the comments that gets fed around the globe as headlines

No, seriously, well done Steve. But in reality in our ADHD world people read the headline and maybe the first paragraph.

Their agenda is VOLUME (of Tesla negative articles) not proper content. This keeps filling the headline feeds and promotes the narrative "there's always trouble around the corner for Tesla".

It's all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Never about Facts.

Johan, I understand what you are saying, and unfortunately I largely agree with it. However, I sense that the LA Times and this one individual reporter are setting up to make this a continuing effort. At a certain point, I do think they will feel some sense that they are sacrificing their credibility if their consistent targeted propaganda gibberish is consistently receiving the same debunking in the comments section. I think the flow of comments to the Broder gibberish piece in the NY Times had an impact on their Public Editor stepping in and reviewing the situation. Elon writing his blogs was almost certainly the biggest factor, but I suspect seeing Broder's nonsense repeatedly called for what it was in the comments section had an impact on the NY Times not completely trying to brush off the whole situation. If Jerry Hirsch of the LA Times finds his name is becoming as synonymous with mucking around with Tesla as Broder's name became, I think that's a strong disincentive to quit writing these pieces. As another example, I think it's also worth noting that Fox News eliminated comments sections for their stories in May of 2012. Let's just say Fox News is quite good at what they do, but despite this apparently found that having a comments section was not helpful to their goals.

Update: just read a little about Fox and their comments section. apparently, at least in part, they've returned to having comments sections in their articles.

 

[austinEV]

Anton Wahlman is at it again. New article titled "Chevrolet Bolt EV Spotted On Test Track; Does GM Have A 1-2 Year Lead On Tesla's Model 3?"

The article includes statements like:



He has a very clear agenda, and I'd be surprised if he has no relationship with GM.

That Bolt sure is one great looking car. /s

 

[CALGARYARSENAL]

General Motors Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson (left) meets w… | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

HERE IS THE INFAMOUS ANTON HOBNOBBLING WITH FORMER GM CEO

 

[32no]

General Motors Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson (left) meets w… | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

HERE IS THE INFAMOUS ANTON HOBNOBBLING WITH FORMER GM CEO

I'm not the biggest fan of Anton, but he is a damn good journalist/researcher, and is definitely competent with rhetoric, and we shouldn't demonize him.

As far as I'm concerned, he seems to be a pawn for everyone in the industry, and in return for all the perks automobile companies give him, he tries to point to their individual strengths (unless things are really bad, like some infotainment systems out there). Of course Tesla doesn't give him anything. However, he really has no choice other than to admit the Model S is a great car (Balanced article here), but he can keep good relations (and reassure) with other auto companies by criticizing Tesla in other areas, like the way they do business and their stock price. He also seems to have this mindset that inexpensive cars are just as good as expensive cars, and seems to believe that there really isn't a good reason to spend more than $50-$60k on a car, which is why he is okay with comparing Tesla to other cars that aren't comparable at all (He doesn't see the value of novelty in the traditional way). He has his own idea of the auto industry and he pushes it in his articles. I think his larger scale argument about the auto industry isn't compelling at all (especially the way he is presenting it), but he's pretty good on the smaller scale, even though I mostly don't agree with what he writes about Tesla. What frustrates me though about him is how stubborn he is about his view, the fact that he tries to put down Tesla business/stock with every chance he gets by writing articles that only have a slight connection with Tesla (instead of writing a long article about GM, he writes a Short article about Tesla), and his general style of manipulative and often specious rhetoric. That said, he is probably the most rational and competent of all the shorts whose writing I have read.