-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Still long and strong. No negativity from me this time round!
CAD and computer simulations can speed up development and maybe replace early prototypes, but some things take time. Like getting x miles on real road testing or simulating the environmental effect on the car over 4 or 8 years to for example make sure there are no big rust issues - even if you have some environmental test chamber you won't get those results in a few days. And some things like driving dynamics in certain conditions probably need "real life" testing.
IIRC, that was mid-January 2014 at the North America Auto Show in Detroit. It was the about the same time that Elon said Telsa would be GAAP profitable in 2020, and Franz hinted that the M3 proto-type might be revealed at the same show the following year.
;Your observations seem to indicate the next capital raise will not occur until after the 3Q16 10Q. 2019 LEAPS start trading in mid-November.
OT Viewing the Northern Lights are at the top of my bucket list. Any thoughts on THE best locale and time-frame to travel your direction?
You were right last time. I hope you're right this time.
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Guaranteed something positive will come out of left field. A positive shocker that nobody sees coming. Time will tell.
Thumper
Active Member
Another fast growing industry ready to reap immediate benefits from solar plus storage. The Marijuana Boom Is Contributing to the Climate Crisis
dc_h
Active Member
His ranking doesn't tell you what he says to leave, but obviously anything he recommends, on average, falls by 45%. I have to think his downgrade is very bullish.
doggusfluffy
Closed
So much for the old a win should feel like a win...
dc_h
Active Member
It would be if the company making 80,000 cars in 2016, if that wasn't up from 50,000, 33,000, 20,000 and 5,000. It would be if they weren't on track to have 40% of a Gigafactory online in 2017, and making bigger margins on TE then TA. It would be if they weren't ending 2016 on track for 100,000 cars a year and in position to make at least 150,000 cars in 2017. When missing is 50-70% growth, and you have orders for 500,000 cars that you don't even have an assembly line for, estimating growth down to 25% annually seems less than generous.
I am just shocked to witness large institutions being so conscientious and responsible citizens of the financial community.
Meh, I'll take this back - not conscientious, just slow due to inefficiencies in their processes. Between this Monday and midday today the short interest went up by about 1.5 million of shares ($300MM). So the recalled shares do start to be available for shorting and short sellers apparently do not shy away from using them.
Tag of war - to be continued...
Last edited:
Short interest of $5.2 Billion equates to about 25.9M shares, which is about 2M shares less than Oct15, when it was 27.9M shares. On the other hand, shorts who sold in today came in after a gap down from $208 to about $202, so they're sitting at a rather undesirable entry point, especially considering the potential of an earnings report with 24,500 vehicles delivered. I think the new entrants today, and those who come in during the near future are going to be mighty uncomfortable when this stock starts heading up again.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Clearly GS and this new lead analyst wanted to knock it down today...
Think of it the other way... If they really wanted to remain long but needed to get some concerns addressed and clarified, you'd wait for the earnings release and ask your questions and do your callback after the public call.
GS knew that their downgrade in itself would knock the stock down, so that's clearly want they wanted.
Should be entertaining to see what they do with their PT AFTER the earnings call. It would be kinda silly to dial the PT back above $220 once they update their model post EC.
My concern is that if many more millions of shares become available over the next several weeks and there is enough irrational short sellers who continue to pile on we might face continuing SP slide that has nothing to do with the company's fundamentals. It literally becomes a tag of war, a serious game designed to terminate the opponent. The time of reckoning will come, but according to well known maxim, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
I am wondering if Elon can try to repeat profitable Q3 in Q4 and guide accordingly. I think that guidance for profit in Q4 would carry a lot of weight if they became convincingly profitable in Q3.
Sorry to disagree, but this wouldn't be possible and send the wrong message. They need to spend capex on the model 3 production line, and gigafactory cell production line. They've already guided for massive capex spending in q4 AND q4 loss. Changing the goal to profitability will raise questions about whether they're spending enough to meet model 3 timelines. It also would show them being more interested in wall street sentiment than model 3 execution.
They already have permission to spend like mad, let them do it.
Goldman Sachs analysts frequently get wrong. I know this from my past experience. Sometimes it's because their analysts don't know what they are talking about, sometimes they intentionally give misleading predictions. The intentional part is my speculation, I don't have proof.
Anyway, based on this new GS analyst's track record, and based on his reasoning, I think he just doesn't know what he is dealing with. I don't mind if someone gives a price target of $150 or $50. The key is their reasoning has to make sense. In this case he just made onto my ignore list.
I checked the spreadsheet how GS got the previous $240 and today's $185. Both of their analysts don't know what they are talking about. ( I try hard to not use the word idiot). They are wrong on several major factors.
First, when EVs are shown better AND cheaper than ICEs, they will just take over like digital camera replace film camera. GS is missing a factor by 10 in this prediction. They think ICE will continue to dominate the market forever?
Second, they think there is a 2/3 chance Elon is just an ordinary CEO, Tesla will become an ordinary car company in a tiny EV market. In reality, there is less than 5% chance for that case. I think Elon Musk can not be compared to the names they listed. Elon is in his own league, way above any names they mentioned in the table. Tesla's intrinsic value as of today is several fold more than GS's price target. I have my own table and calculation. There is no need to argue with them. I take advantage and add shares.
However, recently I saw several posts saying they are 120% long, this sometimes leads to trouble.
My general rule is carefully study and pick 5 best stocks, 20% in each, watch and let them grow. If a case is really compelling, I can go up to 90% on one stock + 10% cash. That's assume stocks only represent half of my total asset. If someone hold 120% long one stock, suddenly for whatever reason, the market gives him a really great buying opportunity, he probably doesn't have fund to buy, and could be forced to sell. I am talking about 2002 and 2008 type of opportunities.
I have the belief nobody can predict short term with decent reliability. Otherwise he can quickly become a trillionaire using leverage. I guess Tesla has a few cards that could help the stock in near term. Just a guess, not a prediction.
Anyway, based on this new GS analyst's track record, and based on his reasoning, I think he just doesn't know what he is dealing with. I don't mind if someone gives a price target of $150 or $50. The key is their reasoning has to make sense. In this case he just made onto my ignore list.
I checked the spreadsheet how GS got the previous $240 and today's $185. Both of their analysts don't know what they are talking about. ( I try hard to not use the word idiot). They are wrong on several major factors.
First, when EVs are shown better AND cheaper than ICEs, they will just take over like digital camera replace film camera. GS is missing a factor by 10 in this prediction. They think ICE will continue to dominate the market forever?
Second, they think there is a 2/3 chance Elon is just an ordinary CEO, Tesla will become an ordinary car company in a tiny EV market. In reality, there is less than 5% chance for that case. I think Elon Musk can not be compared to the names they listed. Elon is in his own league, way above any names they mentioned in the table. Tesla's intrinsic value as of today is several fold more than GS's price target. I have my own table and calculation. There is no need to argue with them. I take advantage and add shares.
However, recently I saw several posts saying they are 120% long, this sometimes leads to trouble.
My general rule is carefully study and pick 5 best stocks, 20% in each, watch and let them grow. If a case is really compelling, I can go up to 90% on one stock + 10% cash. That's assume stocks only represent half of my total asset. If someone hold 120% long one stock, suddenly for whatever reason, the market gives him a really great buying opportunity, he probably doesn't have fund to buy, and could be forced to sell. I am talking about 2002 and 2008 type of opportunities.
I have the belief nobody can predict short term with decent reliability. Otherwise he can quickly become a trillionaire using leverage. I guess Tesla has a few cards that could help the stock in near term. Just a guess, not a prediction.
Q4 CapEx will not affect Q4 profitability, just cash flow. I am not suggesting to shoot for positive cash flow, just for profitability. Achieving profitability in Q4 will not limit CapEx in any way.
They guided for approximately $1,030MM of OpEx in 2016H2. There is no need to lower these planned expenses. Profitability is achievable if they empty the vehicles in transit pipeline.
EDIT: You are wrong to suggest that they guided for a loss in Q4 - they did not.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
