I just posted this link to my Facebook page. I paid to promote the link. I figure I owe that to Elon and crew at Tesla Motors.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2013
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
- Status
I just posted this link to my Facebook page. I paid to promote the link. I figure I owe that to Elon and crew at Tesla Motors.
mershaw2001
I'm short the short sellers
I don't think people sell their winners at the end of the year if they will be taxed with short term cap gains. They only sell losers at the end of the year.
That’s a nice conservative choice for risk averse investors. It should be useful to many readers. But the methodology in that book will never show one how to spot a ten-bagger. That’s a stock that could grow ten-fold in a very few years and is initially priced low because investors like that book’s authors shun it. If I had heeded its advice, I would not have bought all my TSLA shares at $38 earlier this year when the short sellers and value investors were snickering that it would soon go bankrupt.
Despite the recent drop, TSLA still sitting at $120 makes it far and away the most profitable investment I’ve ever made. Any of my past losses in risky investments are miniscule compared with my TSLA profits. During the last couple of months, I’ve been protecting my position by writing covered call options rather than face the short-term tax consequences. Those are rather like huge dividends that I can keep.
I’m in TSLA for the long term, and with good reason anticipate that it will become my ten-bagger. Tesla Motors is leading an electric car revolution that could make it the world’s largest and most profitable automaker. All the FUD that big oil and Detroit try to spew isn’t likely to stop that. However, I can understand if the advice in that book provides comfort to you and others. Your suggestion may be particularly good for the poster to whom you directed it.
You make a good point about valuation at the current levels. Even Elon stated that he's much more comfortable with TSLA at these levels. The only caveat is that TSLA can still have some hard swings in either direction.
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback.
I think intraday price action is what it is especially with a stock as volatile as TSLA. The sudden spikes could be due to a number of reasons such as a bot's algorithms, day traders' price targets being met, scalpers, short covering, rumors hitting the web, possibly OPEX (as you saw), etc. Do remember that there is a much larger picture so any gains seen today could easily be tomorrow's losses. Even with yesterday's price action, if you look at a daily chart, TSLA pretty much finished flat yesterday while narrowing the wild swings seen earlier in the week.
TSLA finished the week at a pivot point, actually in between the pivot and level 1 (near term) resistance, which also happens to be the resistance line of the channel. If a reversal were to happen, TSLA would need to finish above 123.70 on Monday and continue above that on Tuesday. Though any kind of rally may be short lived as there'll be profit takers and a closing of positions along the way thus possibly creating a lot of resistance at in the upper 120s (~128) and we can easily find ourselves at this level the week after.
On the flip side, TSLA has been trading in a very tight channel lately and there is too much downward pressure on TSLA with plenty of room to drop to the 200-day MA, about 109 as of yesterday's close. Which subsequently is in line with the latest technicals. Because of this, I don't think we'll see any kind of meaningful upside until late December or early January. One scenario I've looked at is a cup and handle formation where TSLA can dip well below the 200-day MA, bottom out in the low 90s/upper 80s in mid-late December, start picking up in January and run up all the way to 150-160 by Q4 earnings in February. Not saying that it will happen but one possible outcome.
sleepyhead posted on here in the last couple weeks that TSLA is a good value right now but he's still not buying, and I'm with him on that due to the amount of possible downside. I would personally like to take a long position here but I don't want to lose my shirt and see a today's gains are tomorrow's losses scenario like we saw this past Tuesday and Wednesday. Just to put it out there, I nearly scalped yesterday with buying at 118 when I saw it then planning to sell at the end of yesterday. I didn't do it because we're too close to the resistance line and I want to have the cash available on a much larger dip. Overall, I'm very bullish about TSLA and we'll see a $300 stock price in the next three years. But in the meantime, I intend to play the swings along the way.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm all for the electrification of all automobiles, what ever it takes. Whether it's with Tesla being the forerunner or forcing the 100 year old car makers to change (or both), anything to stop burning dinosaurs (yes dinosaurs) in internal combustion engines all over the world.
My personal opinion is that the Model S is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of technology, design, and aesthetics from anyone else out there. I plan to get a Model E (gen III) one day or a Model S if I can somehow make the money sooner than later but I don't care what others get for themselves so long as it's one less ICE car on the road.
- - - Updated - - -
Once we were over 160, I thought we had kissed goodbye to the levels we're seeing now. I've stated before that there is a lot of downward pressure on TSLA at the moment and it can be months before we see 150 again.
I can't tell you what to do with your money but what I usually tell people who bought at a high price and got dinged like this is it might be a time when you buy and forget. Unless of course, you need the cash now. Then again, take what I say with a grain of salt as I made defensive moves to lock in profits I made with TSLA and I'm currently looking to buy in at a bargain price as a short term play.
Just to clarify, I wrote that when TSLA was a $140, but then when it dipped back into the 130s, I made a small purchase just in case. I have been buying a little more around 120, because TSLA is a good value at that price. I still think that the risk is to the downside. I have put it on record that TSLA will bottom out at $109-$110 and that is the lowest is will go. Unless there is another material negative event, in which case it may head a lot lower. I am ready to buy more TSLA if it goes down more from here. I am waiting for the $110 mark before making a big purchase. If a negative event causes the stock to go to $110, then it might not be a good time to buy though.
The risk is to the downside, but just in case some very positive news comes out, I have already taken a substantial TSLA position. I am waiting for a better opportunity though, that should come over the next couple of weeks, to buy a lot more TSLA.
Not any longer (bought back in two tranches last week). Earlier, I was even long on TSLA.
But what has your question got to do with my book recommendation on value investing?
Considering a single buy/sell roundtrip at many electronic brokers costs as much as the book, I urge every investor to buy the book (get a new, revised edition, it includes annotations on the dotcom bubbles etc.). It's the best book on investing among many that I read. Even if readers don't ultimately follow that school of investing (value). BTW, I'm also not related to Jason Zweig...but I doubt he or Warren Buffett need money from the book proceeds
- - - Updated - - -
Agreed, there are many different schools, each investor/trader should pick the strategy that suits them.
Picking multi-baggers is tricky in my opinion (but if it works fine for you, all the better). Here's my reasoning: Most venture capitalists doing this for a living are in the same game, trying to pick the next game changer or disruptor. Out of 10 picks investors will possibly get 1 big winner, or maybe even less.
If anyone can succeed in this again and again, hats off. Granted, companies post-IPO have already survived the early stages and may be a little more secure with more capital cushion than early-stage companies looking for VC funding.
Still I know quite a few people who were lucky (even a few times) but then lost it all on their next big bet. I would never make a "young" company like TSLA a major part of my portfolio (as much as I like following disrupters). In general, I would never make a single stock position larger than 5 or 10% of my entire portfolio. But that's just my diversification. Everyone can apply their own risk tolerance...
I know value investing sounds boring. But it works well over time. There are many studies showing that it beats most other active investing methods (especially among the strategies available and executable by "normal" retail investors, e.g. without a server farm at the exchange or other insider advantages available to the Big Boys).
Last edited:
While there is risk to the downside, there are too many buyers at this range for TSLA to amble down to 109. A material bad event could tank the stock well below that, but the stock can go up as fast as it has come down. Certainly, we've seen it go up and down pretty fast. The momentum will take the stock to its next level. I doubt it will amble upward either. It will likely rocket back up if it goes up.
Ok, assuming future dilution, TSLA (even after the recent price drop) is still at a cap around $20 billion. That would become $200 billion, basically the largest car maker by cap as you pointed out.
I highly question this scenario given Tesla's move into the mass market and the margin challenges and competition there.
Beyond this scaling the battery supply is likely a long-term challenge for over a decade (I posted many entries on battery supply figures vs global capacity in other threads with more details, please see there if interested). But that's just my view.
Out of curiosity, how many cars will TSLA sell per year in your opinion to achieve a market cap of around $200 billion? And in which year will it overtake Nissan-Renault as the world's largest EV maker before that?
Just a rough estimate is ok, thank you.
Last edited:
mitch672
Active Member
tftf, if you read Curt's post carefully he states he bought his entire position at $38, so a "10 bagger" for him is $380, that's only about double TSLAs recent high of $194.50, around a $45B market cap to be a 10 bagger for him, no one has said a $200B valuation for a Tesla, though it could be possible, eventually.
Ok, that makes sense from his point of view. I used the $200 billion because he wrote the following:
Since Toyota happens to be #1 and sit at around $200 billion cap at the moment, I made the comparison to TSLA at around $20 billion including future dilution (TSLA as a ten-bagger would equal Toyota). I defined "world's largest" by market cap.
If one defines "largest" by unit sales, TSLA would have to sell more than 10 million cars/year (assuming other car manufacturers can't improve on their sales in the future. GM, VW Group and Toyota each sell about 10 million cars at the moment each year). Most "profitable" would probably be Porsche (as part of VW Group) afaik.
Highly unrealistic scenarios in my opinion given the current battery supply constraints.
Last edited:
tftf, I've provided my real name, where I am located and placed rather complete information in my TMC profile. In fact, if you follow the link to my website you will find a bio and learn both my home address and email address. I've made it clear that I am holding TSLA for the long term after having bought at a much lower price in February. I joined this message board in March and have provided my reasons for holding TSLA many times.
Yet as a rather active newcomer you provide only a cryptic screen name along with a location as "caution" and interest in "herds". If you wish to continue a discussion with me as a credible participant, then please provide your name along with background information similar to what I have given, and explain why you are so energetically taking up your time to influence TSLA investors, especially if you do not have a long or short position.
Yet as a rather active newcomer you provide only a cryptic screen name along with a location as "caution" and interest in "herds". If you wish to continue a discussion with me as a credible participant, then please provide your name along with background information similar to what I have given, and explain why you are so energetically taking up your time to influence TSLA investors, especially if you do not have a long or short position.
I guess tftf finally found his way here, he's been spreading FUD (IMO) on Seeking Alpha for a year or so.
Ok, I value your opinion. I think credibility (online) is based on content, not a bio.
@Larken: I can only offer you content (which you may call FUD), including many links to additional sources to do your own diligence. Disregard it if you don't like it/don't find it useful.
tftf
PS: People still interested in my views on TSLA etc. can read them over at SeekingAlpha (same as here, but collected in Instablog format). Will no longer post here as pointed out in LT thread.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I have to agree with tftf that I'm more interested in content than the poster's identity. The content is often more revealing. I like to think I've provided some useful content over the years but I have no intention of posting personal information, including my home address :scared: , on the World Wide Web. There are a lot of wackos out there :wink:
, on the World Wide Web. There are a lot of wackos out there :wink:Content and reputation is not an either/or. Content is about ideas. Reputation is about whether those ideas can be trusted in the absence of other validation.
If you provide good content over time, you enhance a positive reputation. If you troll, that follows you as well. Trolls often prefer a new alias rather than owning the reputation that they forged.
Curt's play for non-anonymity is a statement that he is proud of his reputation. And its an attempt to flush out those who cycle through aliases.
I've seen the non-anonymity card played as a bullying tactic as well. Sort of a "meet me in the alley" threat.
If you provide good content over time, you enhance a positive reputation. If you troll, that follows you as well. Trolls often prefer a new alias rather than owning the reputation that they forged.
Curt's play for non-anonymity is a statement that he is proud of his reputation. And its an attempt to flush out those who cycle through aliases.
I've seen the non-anonymity card played as a bullying tactic as well. Sort of a "meet me in the alley" threat.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Owners Love Their Teslas And Volts, So Why Doesn't The Media?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/11/24/owners-love-their-teslas-and-volts-so-why-doesnt-the-media/?partner=yahootix
From the above linked article:
"Why? Because the company has already achieved remarkable things that many thought impossible."
Last edited:
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
The thing about content and reputation is that Curt Rentz has several decades to back whatever he says while tftf only has 3 months. So when tftf makes wild claims without explanation backing up his theory, or even when with explanation, there are more people who is going to listen to Curt.
As for RPR, you've already established your reputation from several years of contribution, it is very different from tftf. Same for me, I've been online for more than a decade and my pen name is more well known than my real name. I am hoping that by keeping a consistent user name I can bring some weight to my argument without having to re-build my credibility everywhere I go.
I don't have a problem with shorts. For example, Realist puts his money where his mouth is and came to this forum knowing he is going to be attacked by Tesla lovers. It is something I emphasize with as I do that myself to test out whether or not my short will work and how passionate the user base is. However when someone with no skin in the game just constantly pushes an agenda, I often wonder why bother? There is skin in the game for everybody, the skin just isn't revealed. Otherwise, you could be spending those hours wasted posting somewhere else to earn money. Why waste your time? So it is this hidden agenda that's always on my mind that wasn't clarified whenever I read tftf's posts, or people with similar writing styles.
Tftf, you've proven your point, the stock went from 197 to 121, what is next? Is the goal to convince everyone that TSLA will declare bankruptcy and save all of us from losing our money? Or is it to drive it down more so you can also accumulate? What is in it for you for you to dedicate so much time? This question is why people don't doubt Curt Rentz, we already know because he's been public for so long.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
