Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
the new trading range

For a profitable company growing fast I’m not sure that static “trading range” is a thing. It would need to include some function of time. A year from now the cake will be 50% bigger. There is no logic to drawing horizontal lines on a stock chart, or even diagonal straight lines, since the growth compounds.

Edit: perhaps diagonal straight lines on a log chart would work.
 
Has this been posted yet? I think this is the first time 'skabooshka' has publicly spoken with his true identity. A really strange story, this guy.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I read that article earlier this evening. It’s a bizarre piece from Dana Hull downplaying the guy’s involvement in TSLAQ shenanigans and portraying him as an obsessive, but innocent, detractor. What she fails to mention is that while the Skabooshka account has been dormant, he is still very active both as TeslaCharts and with the TCChartcast podcast.
 
OT
Jonas is currently pumping a small space travel company. He is really skillful at pumping. But in 2 years SpaceX is likely to compete in the same market at 1/50 of the cost with much better travel experience. At the moment he needs to push the stock higher, so he conveniently forget what SpaceX will do. Now I understand how the analyst play the game, seems to me it's disgusting. I have no position. I'm just curious who is paying him for this pumping service.
 
Those are all very good use points and for the person using the pick up truck for actual construction work those accessories would definitely be necessary. From my observation of the pick ups around me in North Texas, I would say 70% are not being used for any work at all and they are just basically a male SUV.
Yeah, I could agree with that, maybe slightly higher here but I would still say under 50% have the accessories I mentioned.

Just as a "male SUV", for whatever reason it makes more sense to me from a practical point of view to have a vehicle with a truck bed opposed to say a model 3. The model 3 will be more efficient no doubt, but now the cost of the practicality is shifted from $50 small car $110 med truck per fill up to $15 small EV to $30 EV truck, Really spitballing the numbers here but the operational cost for the added utility is MUCH lower per mile driven.

(at 500,000 KM in my medium sized truck, est $111,000 in fuel) You could save, hold the phone.... $74000? by getting an EV truck. Hmmmmmmm. Oh and did somebody say these trucks will go a million Miles? So you could save $355,000 and you should throw in the cost of two more ICEV's because they'll be long in the scrapyard before 1million miles. If these dollar values seem whack its CAD so it's fine (that's not the important part!) Not to mention less servicing and everything else. Tesla is just so unreal how do people not get that. You can't afford not to have a Tesla.
 
Last edited:
With Cybertruck, my gut feel all along is that it is a slow burner,,,, it will take time for the benefits to be fully appreciated, and perhaps time for it to be adapted to particular trades, or for trades to work out how best to use it..
That is why I favour spinning up lower volume production (50K) with the minimum Capex ASAP, get them built and on the road.
Then the message will start spreading. As well Tesla and others can start refining the truck, in response to customer feedback..
If demand seems solid then build a higher volume plant, a lot of the design kinks and component issues can be sorted in the smaller plant, ramp of the bigger plant should then go much smoother.....
I'm expecting we may hear something about this at earnings, at a lower initial volume of production, demand is no concern at all, packs and components are easier to source, this also means starting production takes less time and money ..
 
I read that article earlier this evening. It’s a bizarre piece from Dana Hull downplaying the guy’s involvement in TSLAQ shenanigans and portraying him as an obsessive, but innocent, detractor. What she fails to mention is that while the Skabooshka account has been dormant, he is still very active both as TeslaCharts and with the TCChartcast podcast.
Do we have confirmation that TeslaCharts is Randeep Hothi (Skabooshka)?
 
Yeah, I could agree with that, maybe slightly higher here but I would still say under 50% have the accessories I mentioned.

Just as a "male SUV", for whatever reason it makes more sense to me from a practical point of view to have a vehicle with a truck bed opposed to say a model 3. The model 3 will be more efficient no doubt, but now the cost of the practicality is shifted from $50 small car $110 med truck per fill up to $15 small EV to $30 EV truck, Really spitballing the numbers here but the operational cost for the added utility is MUCH lower per mile driven.

(at 400,000 KM in my medium sized truck, est $111,000 in fuel) You could save, hold the phone.... $74000? by getting an EV truck. Hmmmmmmm. Oh and did somebody say these trucks will go a million Miles? So you could save $355,000 and you should throw in the cost of two more ICEV's because they'll be long in the scrapyard before 1million miles. If these dollar values seem whack its CAD so it's fine (that's not the important part!) Not to mention less servicing and everything else. Tesla is just so unreal how do people not get that. You can't afford not to have a Tesla.
Great post. In Austin we only pay $1 per day for most of our charging needs. (for unlimited miles, basically... as much as you can drive in a day)

https://austinenergy.com/ae/green-power/plug-in-austin/home-charging/ev360

If other cities offer anything like this it will make filling up an ICE truck look really dumb.
 
I think the F150 is very blue collar, tradesperson type. It's not the [cybertruck] that's the problem, its the accessories that turn a regular truck into your job specific utility vehicle. Need to haul 20' long material? Contractors rack. Firewood or large quantities of studs/sheet goods? Headache rack. Need to keep material or tools dry? safe from theft? Canopy. If you want half the space of a canopy... ??!? seems illogical - get a Tonneu cover, my least favorite and what is more or less on the cybertruck. **Without the option of having the other accessories**

Thanks for your comment. We don't know yet what accessories will be available for cybertruck. I read something about brackets inside the bed. I don't see why a rack frame could not be anchored using them, similar to a F-150.

If Tesla doesn't make the accessory you want, I'm sure third parties will, like the Industry that has grown up around Apple products. Thus far, Tesla has given only a few hints of what is possible, such as...

Tesla-Cybertruck-169FullWidth-7d2088fd-1650192.jpg
 
Great post. In Austin we only pay $1 per day for most of our charging needs. (for unlimited miles, basically... as much as you can drive in a day)

https://austinenergy.com/ae/green-power/plug-in-austin/home-charging/ev360

If other cities offer anything like this it will make filling up an ICE truck look really dumb.
:( I'm throwing $20 plus per day into the wind. gas sucks. Not to mention diesel fumes literally gave me a respiratory issue :mad:
But to reaffirm what I was trying to say, I doubt you'd mind too much spending $2 a day for the utility of a truck (if needed) where if you had to pay $18 per day, you'd start to think....do I really need a truck?


Thanks for your comment. We don't know yet what accessories will be available for cybertruck. I read something about brackets inside the bed. I don't see why a rack frame could not be anchored using them, similar to a F-150.

If Tesla doesn't make the accessory you want, I'm sure third parties will, like the Industry that has grown up around Apple products. Thus far, Tesla has given only a few hints of what is possible, such as...

Tesla-Cybertruck-169FullWidth-7d2088fd-1650192.jpg

Indeed! that is very true and could be a complete game changer for some. Always excited to see what awaits us with this company, I could invest in other things but they just don't interest me as much.
 
Do we have confirmation that TeslaCharts is Randeep Hothi (Skabooshka)?

No absolute confirmation, but the Twitter dossier mentioned that he and his brother started the TC account. Having listened to one of the podcast episodes, I believe we have a match.

Mod: perilously close to doxxing, which is against terms of service. No more speculation one way or the other. --ggr,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not the truck that's the problem, its the accessories that turn a regular truck into your job specific utility vehicle. Need to haul 20' long material? Contractors rack. Firewood or large quantities of studs/sheet goods? Headache rack. Need to keep material or tools dry? safe from theft? Canopy. If you want half the space of a canopy... ??!? seems illogical - get a Tonneu cover, my least favorite and what is more or less on the cybertruck. **Without the option of having the other accessories**

If the Cybertruck catches on, it just might be more amenable to accessorize than you give it credit for. Don't forget the L track on both sides of the bed and T-slots in the floor. It's designed to hook accessories onto.
 
OT
Jonas is currently pumping a small space travel company. He is really skillful at pumping. But in 2 years SpaceX is likely to compete in the same market at 1/50 of the cost with much better travel experience. At the moment he needs to push the stock higher, so he conveniently forget what SpaceX will do. Now I understand how the analyst play the game, seems to me it's disgusting. I have no position. I'm just curious who is paying him for this pumping service.
I don't think SpaceX cares about space tourism nor are they willing to use their rockets in the near term as point-to-point Earth travel vehicles because they have so much work launching satellites. Insofar as Virgin Galactic is concerned, Richard Branson is the only guy pushing the particular niche that company is trying to occupy, and since they are literally the only publicly traded space travel company, it's basically them or nothing if you want to invest in this. None of this makes me convinced to buy $SPCE myself but that is what it is.
 
There is absolutely no way that retail traders moved around $10b of volume in one stock. No way

Yeah, that's not the point. The POINT is that almost NO retail traders are even able to conduct trades with these non-FINRA entities. These large Hedge Funds and Market makers did MOST of the trading today (over 56%). They operating under the Market Makers short selling exemption (MMs naked short selling is allowed "because liquidity"). Paging @Hock1

This is artificial price manipulation and should be illegal. In fact it was illegal from 1933 until 1999, when Wall St. was able to use its influence over Congress to repeal the Glass Steegal Legislation which had successfully protected investors for decades.

In particular, the Market Makers short selling exemption short curcuits the law of supply and demand for shares, allowing MMs to instantly create an unlimited supply of shares to sell at the top even even if not a single legitimate shareholder is willing to sell.

Then, as MMs consume all the buying interest at any given SP, they begin to walk down the SP to their intended target. At that point MMs start to slowly buy back those shares at a profit without driving up the SP to where its started. Rince repeat until they're rich and retail shareholders have zero gains for the day, like exactly what happened today.

And they have 13 trading days to cover those naked shorts before they even have to file an FTD report to the SEC. Or two MMs can just sell back and forth to each other as necessary, avoiding all reporting requirements indefinately. Inevitably, a macro slump finally comes along, and MMs are able to cover in the dark. No one is the wiser; MMs are the richer.

A disgusting situation which would never be tolerated in Europe, or in any version of America that was not wallowing in regulatiory capture fueled by dirty money from vested interests.

You may be able to make money in this environment, and so are willing to remain silent. But real people are being fleeced by this scheme, mom and pop investors without the knowledge, time, and appetite for risk that you have. The Gov't services they pay for should not be used to assist the fraud being conducted against them.

TL;dr The Players (MMs) shouldn't be the ones paying the Referee's salaries (SEC).
 
It's more like the other insurance companies will charge $2000 a year, while Tesla could afford to charge $1200 a year still end up with nice profit.

Yes this is an interesting move. Tesla can undercut the competition by avoiding huge advertising costs and by carrying out their own repairs. Offering less expensive insurance would be a way to sell more cars. Some people don’t buy Teslas because of exorbitant ins rates.

Tesla sure has its finger in a lot of pies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TradingInvest
shareholders have zero gains for the day, like exactly what happened today.

I don't know how accurate or not this all is. But without question calling a 4% gain as following similar gain the day before "zero gains" is a little rediculous. Yes I had some Feb 20 1000 strike calls that went lost 50% of their gains from the days that I'm a little sad about lol. But seriously. In what world is 4% = 0
 
Yeah, that's not the point. The POINT is that almost NO retail traders are even able to conduct trades with these non-FINRA entities. These large Hedge Funds and Market makers did MOST of the trading today (over 56%). They operating under the Market Makers short selling exemption (MMs naked short selling is allowed "because liquidity"). Paging @Hock1

This is artificial price manipulation and should be illegal. In fact it was illegal from 1933 until 1999, when Wall St. was able to use its influence over Congress to repeal the Glass Steegal Legislation which had successfully protected investors for decades.

In particular, the Market Makers short selling exemption short curcuits the law of supply and demand for shares, allowing MMs to instantly create an unlimited supply of shares to sell at the top even even if not a single legitimate shareholder is willing to sell.

Then, as MMs consume all the buying interest at any given SP, they begin to walk down the SP to their intended target. At that point MMs start to slowly buy back those shares at a profit without driving up the SP to where its started. Rince repeat until they're rich and retail shareholders have zero gains for the day, like exactly what happened today.

And they have 13 trading days to cover those naked shorts before they even have to file an FTD report to the SEC. Or two MMs can just sell back and forth to each other as necessary, avoiding all reporting requirements indefinately. Inevitably, a macro slump finally comes along, and MMs are able to cover in the dark. No one is the wiser; MMs are the richer.

A disgusting situation which would never be tolerated in Europe, or in any version of America that was not wallowing in regulatiory capture fueled by dirty money from vested interests.

You may be able to make money in this environment, and so are willing to remain silent. But real people are being fleeced by this scheme, mom and pop investors without the knowledge, time, and appetite for risk that you have. The Gov't services they pay for should not be used to assist the fraud being conducted against them.

TL;dr The Players (MMs) shouldn't be the ones paying the Referee's salaries (SEC).

I'm so unbelievably disturbed by this. Disgusted, almost even sickened.

It seems then that there's a "meta" set of rules governing actual stock prices that market makers are allowed to play. And it seems like this could be the exact mechanism underlying max pain theory? (Did max pain become much more of a thing after 1999?) Are there other constraints governing market makers' objectives that are completely orthogonal to the interests of market takers? In other words, what are the objectives that market makers are optimizing for? Why did they stop at just above $560 today with pushing the SP down, instead of taking it even further?

Also, all of this seems to be a pretty dramatic departure from @ReflexFunds' description of how share prices are "supposed" to work in

Given it’s a Sunday and Tesla share price is at new highs, I thought it worth elaborating on my prior post and explaining more about my views of what a share price actually is and what needs to happen to drive a share price on to a new level.

I generally find theory, papers and studies in finance are of a far lower quality than those I read in Science or Machine Learning. Nearly always I can almost immediately find absurd assumptions or failure to account for or isolate key variables which make most of the conclusions largely meaningless. In particular I find many of these papers start with the ridiculous assumption that the efficient market hypothesis is correct and this leads them to make big mistakes when setting up their analysis.

Even outside of the financial academic community and their efficient market dream world, I find very few people actually working in financial markets ever take a moment to think from first principles what is actually happening and what terms in finance actually mean.

For example many Short Investors and market makers seem to have never considered what shorting actually is. In my previous post I talked about this process and described Shorts creating new synthetic shares when they short a stock, but that is a term I made up because I don’t even know if finance has a word for it.

Similarly, few people in finance seem to have actually thought about what a Share Price actually is. And I can’t even find a reasonable answer for it when googling.
Wikipedia’s first sentence includes the obviously false: “In layman's terms, the stock price is the highest amount someone is willing to pay for the stock, or the lowest amount that it can be bought for.” Yes it is the lowest amount it can currently be bought for, but it is not the highest amount someone would be willing to pay.
Investopedia tells you: “Most people believe a stock's value is determined by its price. That's only true to a certain extent. But there is a real big difference between the two. The stock's price only tells you a company's current value or its market value.” Yes this is true, but it is not a functionally useful definition when considering what will actually drive changes in the price.​

A company’s stock price is not the true value of a company’s equity. Nobody knows the true value of a company’s equity, not an individual investor, not company management and not the market as a whole. A company’s true value is the discounted value of its real future cash flows. We can make educated guesses what these future cash flows will be, but we cannot know for certain, and hence it is impossible to know a company’s true value.

On my definition, a share price is:
The equilibrium point where the available capital owned by Active Investors with a company valuation estimate greater than the current share price is equal to the number of shares (plus synthetic shares) available for active investors to purchase.


Hence a share price is changed by 3 key things:
  • Changes in fair value estimates of individual investors that are currently invested in or valuing the company. These valuation estimates/share price targets do not have to be rational, analytical or even conscious. This could be investors that think that a stock is currently undervalued based on gut feel, it could be people that bought because they see upcoming positive catalysts which they think will increase the price (such as S&P 500 inclusion or M&A), it could be people buying based on signals from technical analysis. For people that do build a firm valuation model, there is still huge disagreement on which valuation methodologies to use and which fundamental assumptions to make about future cash flow. Some investors may make all their investment decisions based on multiples of historic financials. Some may make a single base case model and perform a discounted cash flow analysis. Some may make many or even hundreds of different models for future results and take a probability weighted average valuation. These valuations or gut feels will mostly be changed by changes to a company’s fundamentals, technicals or upcoming catalysts. Often there is a strong correlation between an investor's valuation and the actual stock price. For example at any moment the investor may always think the stock should be worth 30% more, and as the stock goes up they subtly tweak their models to justify this higher valuation. This is because emotion and gut feel is a far larger driver of investment decisions than investors like to admit (even to themselves).
  • Increased or decreased pool of capital considering the stock & making fair value estimates. The pool of investors may increase because people simply had not heard about the stock before. It could increase because some investors had previously dismissed the stock based off a media narrative or equity analyst reports without ever forming their own valuation opinion, but when the narrative changed they decided to do some work. It could increase because investors had previously been unable to invest based on fund mandate requirements such as only profitable companies or only companies in the S&P or only dividend paying companies etc, and one of these factors now changed. The pool of investors may decrease because a fund decided to cut all exposure to a particular sector, or because the stock was too volatile and they decided it wasn’t worth the stress etc. Note that each individual investor only has a certain amount of their wealth or fund available to invest in a particular stock. So the pool of capital considering a particular stock is also constrained by position or risk limits, but these could also change up and down, particularly if a stock starts to be considered less risky.
  • Changes to number of shares available for active investors to purchase.This can change due to share buybacks, changes in short interest, share issuance, purchases by passive index funds (which reduce the share pool available for active investors to use for their valuation based investments), share lock up expiry, changes in shares held by Options or Convert Delta Hedging etc. A reduction in these shares reduces the pool of shares that active investors are competing to buy and hence lowers the threshold of investor capital needed for the company to reach a particular share price.

To illustrate this with regards to Tesla.
  • There is a certain pool of available capital available (for a single stock) controlled by Active Investors who have considered a Tesla investment and have formed their own view of valuation. Perhaps this is $150bn, perhaps $200bn, we don’t know. But each of these investors will have a view on whether Tesla is under or over-valued based off a financial model, technicals or gut feel etc.
  • Currently there are 206m Tesla shares available for longs to buy – 180m real shares and 26m synthetic shares created by shorts. In reality Elon’s 34m shares are not available for active investors to purchase, so this leaves just 172m shares worth ~$69bn. Again, some of these shares are already held by passive funds tracking an index such as Russell, Nasdaq or MSCI, perhaps this is 10m shares, so again these are not available for Active investors to purchase. This leaves $65bn of Tesla long exposure available for Active investors to purchase.
  • Of the say $200bn available capital controlled by Active Investors who have considered a Tesla investment, $65bn need to think Tesla is undervalued for us to achieve the current share price. Within the $200bn of potentially Tesla friendly capital there will be a wide distribution of views on valuation. $135bn thinks Tesla is worth less than $400 so would only invest if the share price fell below this level. Maybe $25bn thinks it is worth more than $600 so would only begin to sell if the share price rises above $600. $40bn have valuations between $400-600 and each would sell when share price rises above their valuation (unless they have changed their view on valuation in the meantime). These numbers are not estimates by the way, they are completely made up just for illustration.
So from here share price can change for 3 reasons:
  • Change to the valuations made by this current $200bn pool of capital. This could be due to company specific or market wide reasons. For simplicity, if some event caused every single investor to increase their valuation by the same amount, say $50, then investors that were previously uninvested because they thought Tesla was worth $350-400, now think Tesla is undervalued (with valuations now ranging from $400-450. So these investors will now buy shares until a new equilibrium price is found. What exact price this moves to will depend on the distribution of different investor’s value estimates, but it will not likely be as high as $450.
  • New investors considering a Tesla investment and adding to the $200bn pool of capital. This will change the whole distribution of valuations and will change the equilibrium point where the value of available Tesla shares is equal to the amount of capital valuing the company above the current share price. So this can change the share price even if no individual ever changed their Tesla valuation.
  • Changes to the pool of shares available for active investors to purchase. For example since May the number of synthetic shares created by shorts has reduced by around 17 million. This has reduced the pool of shares available for active investors to purchase, and hence reduced the amount of Active investor capital needed to reach a particular share price. Similarly, if 20 million shares get bought by passive S&P 500 trackers, these shares will be removed from the pool of shares available for Active investors to compete over. These passive funds effectively have an infinite price target on Tesla because nothing will cause them to sell aside from changes in the size of their funds. So these things can permanently change the share price even if no investor changed their valuation and even if no new investor started considering an investment.


Just as a note. Instead, on the efficient market definition, which forms the foundation for much of financial theory and models, a share price is:
The true value of the company given all available information (presumably where the market has magically arrived at the correct answer because it is an infallible and emotion free superintelligence).

Hence a share price is changed by 1 thing: New information which changes the fundamental value of the company and is immediately perfectly reflected in the share price.
So on this definition a share price cannot be impacted by supply and demand. The change in available shares driven by changes in short interest, share buybacks, purchases by index funds, new investors, share lock up expiry etc cannot change the share price.