Not only that. Cheap local storage would allow to shave off grid demand allowing to use smaller grid infrastructure even in locations without solar. We could basically trickle-charge the home battery 24/7 over a smaller grid-connected wire and have the battery power the home. This also includes backup power and would allow to de-energize the grid if really needed. It would however need a lot of regulatory changes going against the entrenched interest of utilities ...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Paracelsus
Active Member
Here's my TSLA options report for next week expiry (February 14):
Code:PUT 450: 4,394 |######## | CALL 450: 199 |# | PUT 460: 515 |# | CALL 460: 220 |# | PUT 470: 621 |# | CALL 470: 370 |# | PUT 480: 1,438 |### | CALL 480: 302 |# | PUT 490: 834 |## | CALL 490: 273 |# | PUT 500: 5,820 |########## | CALL 500: 549 |# | PUT 510: 878 |## | CALL 510: 282 |# | PUT 520: 890 |## | CALL 520: 280 |# | PUT 530: 898 |## | CALL 530: 289 |# | PUT 540: 1,422 |### | CALL 540: 269 |# | PUT 550: 4,654 |######## | CALL 550: 495 |# | PUT 560: 1,320 |### | CALL 560: 327 |# | PUT 570: 1,598 |### | CALL 570: 494 |# | PUT 580: 3,093 |##### | CALL 580: 510 |# | PUT 590: 2,322 |#### | CALL 590: 323 |# | PUT 600: 6,665 |########### | CALL 600: 757 |## | PUT 610: 2,677 |##### | CALL 610: 865 |## | PUT 620: 1,777 |### | CALL 620: 730 |## | PUT 630: 1,272 |## | CALL 630: 731 |## | PUT 640: 1,112 |## | CALL 640: 616 |# | PUT 650: 4,040 |####### | CALL 650: 841 |## | PUT 660: 1,080 |## | CALL 660: 449 |# | PUT 670: 1,058 |## | CALL 670: 378 |# | PUT 680: 1,052 |## | CALL 680: 341 |# | PUT 690: 1,112 |## | CALL 690: 1,188 |## | PUT 700: 2,449 |#### | CALL 700: 4,616 |######## | PUT 710: 815 |## | CALL 710: 636 |# | PUT 720: 1,495 |### | CALL 720: 995 |## | PUT 730: 1,046 |## | CALL 730: 1,133 |## | PUT 740: 1,309 |### | CALL 740: 1,360 |### | PUT 750: 1,698 |### | CALL 750: 2,096 |#### | PUT 760: 1,120 |## | CALL 760: 1,302 |### | PUT 770: 582 |# | CALL 770: 1,139 |## | PUT 780: 2,553 |##### | CALL 780: 1,034 |## | PUT 790: 389 |# | CALL 790: 1,121 |## | PUT 800: 1,326 |### | CALL 800: 5,042 |######### | PUT 810: 367 |# | CALL 810: 829 |## | PUT 820: 185 |# | CALL 820: 1,130 |## | PUT 830: 376 |# | CALL 830: 958 |## | PUT 840: 267 |# | CALL 840: 930 |## | PUT 850: 336 |# | CALL 850: 2,125 |#### | PUT 860: 314 |# | CALL 860: 1,768 |### | PUT 870: 762 |## | CALL 870: 1,094 |## | PUT 880: 333 |# | CALL 880: 1,425 |### | PUT 890: 295 |# | CALL 890: 1,475 |### | PUT 900: 595 |# | CALL 900: 10,378 |################## | PUT 910: 227 |# | CALL 910: 1,196 |## | PUT 920: 170 |# | CALL 920: 1,539 |### | PUT 930: 401 |# | CALL 930: 1,146 |## | PUT 940: 256 |# | CALL 940: 2,152 |#### | PUT 950: 93 | | CALL 950: 2,920 |##### | PUT 960: 88 | | CALL 960: 857 |## | PUT 970: 62 | | CALL 970: 797 |## | PUT 980: 247 |# | CALL 980: 1,432 |### | PUT 990: 100 |# | CALL 990: 403 |# | PUT 1,000: 114 |# | CALL 1,000: 5,870 |########## | PUT 1,010: 14 | | CALL 1,010: 1,417 |### | PUT 1,020: 21 | | CALL 1,020: 740 |## | PUT 1,030: 38 | | CALL 1,030: 532 |# | PUT 1,040: 30 | | CALL 1,040: 560 |# | PUT 1,050: 56 | | CALL 1,050: 1,192 |## | PUT 1,060: 17 | | CALL 1,060: 609 |# | PUT 1,070: 19 | | CALL 1,070: 1,282 |## | PUT 1,080: 20 | | CALL 1,080: 231 |# | PUT 1,090: 22 | | CALL 1,090: 239 |# | PUT 1,100: 25 | | CALL 1,100: 3,854 |####### | PUT 1,110: 10 | | CALL 1,110: 351 |# | PUT 1,120: 20 | | CALL 1,120: 330 |# | PUT 1,130: 18 | | CALL 1,130: 317 |# | PUT 1,140: 24 | | CALL 1,140: 305 |# | PUT 1,150: 17 | | CALL 1,150: 555 |# | PUT 1,160: 26 | | CALL 1,160: 1,807 |### | PUT 1,170: 6 | | CALL 1,170: 105 |# | PUT 1,180: 25 | | CALL 1,180: 228 |# | PUT 1,190: 3 | | CALL 1,190: 127 |# | PUT 1,200: 17 | | CALL 1,200: 1,838 |### | 2020/Feb/14: PUTs: 96,471 ; CALLs: 115,780
Observations:
I'll update with a new post sometime next week, to see how things progress as Friday draws closer.
- It's a smaller open interest this week (211k contracts) than last week (509k contracts), so market-maker and options-writer influence should be lower, all other things equal.
- It's still a significant force, the TSLA derivatives space is large: there's over 2.7 million open TSLA options contracts of all expiries as of date, which is a maximum 270 million shares-equivalent derivatives delta hedging force that is 150% of all common TSLA shares outstanding, 190% the size of the estimated float and possibly 300%+ of the real effective float of shareholders willing to sell below $2,000...
- The wall of puts that the 'lucky' Nasdaq TSLA-flash-crash short sellers possibly created at $900, $800 and $750 strikes last week, with big downside delta hedging effects, is gone and apparently wasn't rolled over into next week. I am speculating that it was possibly a super short term play that earned them about ~200 million dollars short term profits on an about 20,000 contracts order of magnitude short bet, while also helping out $750-$1,000 call writers with an exposure of about 100,000 contracts expiring on Friday in that price range, which stunt saved options writers about 1.2 billion dollars had TSLA closed above $1,000 on Friday.
- But maybe @ReflexFunds can post his latest delta hedging charts, which are more accurate than my eyeball based estimates.
- So as the saying goes, last Tuesday's market manipulation crimes had plenty of motivation and about 1,400,000,000 good reasons to be committed.
That money was permanently taken out of the pockets of Tesla investors who owned those call contracts, so it's not paper losses.
- Next week the put/call ratio dropped below 1.0, which is pretty rare on TSLA, usually puts still dominate. Most puts center around $600 strikes, which at current price levels have limited delta hedging effects.
- Most open calls center around round expiry numbers: $800, $900, $1,000 and $1,100. Should the price rise on good GF3 production news on Monday there should be a significant delta hedging effect to the upside. Since the clustering is so strong around these round numbers I'd also expect there to be stronger than usual price reactions, should these levels be broken through decisively.
- It's too early to call 'max pain' yet, but on the downside $650 and $600 should be the battleground, and on the upside $900 and $1,000.
- There's a big cluster of optimistic 'short squeeze bet' calls at $1,500 and $1,880, just like there's a big sad cluster of $300 puts as well, the 'zombie apocalypse bets' .
Thank you for posting this, @Fact Checking. I was hoping that you and others here could shed some light on if/how this information and last week's price hammer at ~950 might possibly be related to the TSLA Bond offer that Tesla could now be able to begin to pay off in shares, cash, or a combination if they chose to as I understand it. The price held long enough above the 650 trigger and somehow managed to reach 950 before a lot of bets were placed to return that price to the Bond's 650 range - as your Max Pain Battleground on the downside suggests. Again, as I understand the TSLA bond offers no real additional value above 650. So wouldn't this create a situation where any Bond holder anticipating to be paid in shares could Short TSLA at 950 and then cover their naked Short for free with the TSLA shares they are anticipating to receive when they receive a share for their Bond in the 650 range (almost everybody would be anticipating Tesla to pay Bond holders with shares - which would of course cause some further dilution to the stock as well). So it seems like a very logical and safe play if Shorting companies is your thing). And it certainly offers an alternate explanation as to why Jim Cramer was suddenly pumping TSLA so hard on its way to 950.
Now for the possible hole in the Matrix......? 'What if' Tesla decided to pay the bond off in cash...............or even 'mostly' cash..........or perhaps even 'mostly cash and 1/2 shares'? They have enough money in the bank to do so right now even though nobody is expecting them to use it for this purpose..........and they are literally printing money on all other fronts with current 3, S, and X production, FCA credits, ZEV credits...........and of course a serendipitously timed Battery Investor Day just around the corner where even more cash will come flooding in. Elon would likely enjoy the opportunity to pay Bond holders in cash. It would make TSLA look hugely successful, it would still reward investors like Chamath that have been hugely supportive of Tesla, and of course, it would leave any hypothetical Bond holders that have Shorted TSLA up to 950 to hedge their 650 position in a situation where they now must cover.....by buying TSLA shares with the money they just received from the TSLA Bond......causing the share price to rise and creating a situation where the Shorts are squeezed while they are the seeds for the beginning of the real SBOTC
Even at 950 TSLA still had a 'reasonable' P/E ration of around 100 if valued as a growth company with software solutions...........and this is based on Q4 where TSLA was almost entirely Tesla Motors with only Model 3, S, and X. Now well into February we understand that 2020/2021 will bring Model Y, Semi, Cybertruck, and of course Battery Investor Day and more clarity of a path were TE = TM. Thus TSLA is soon to become significantly undervalued at 950 IMO - beyond the scope of autonomous solution debates (it is time for Cathy Wood & ARK to begin valuing and discussing TE). Tesla managers displayed a level of confidence on the Q4 call that I have not heard before, and I have been following closely since 2012. So perhaps TSLA is already well undervalued, and perhaps they are even better positioned to pay off the Bond with cash than the 2019 Q4 report suggests.
I mention everything in the last paragraph to suggest that we have not even begun a 'squeeze' IMO, because we have only now reached a fair valuation for the company. We are just walking up to the foothills before our ascent. The VW squeeze was a 4x - 5x lift off, and it took off from a reasonable valuation for VW. Perhaps the situation between VW at the beginning of that run & TSLA pricing now is not that much different. That is an assumption of course. It assumes that there may be some TSLA Bond holders that shorted TSLA stock between 650 - 950 anticipating to be paid with TSLA shares. But if this is true at a time when TSLA is already the most shorted stock, then they may have unknowingly lit the fuse as Porsche did to VW shares if TSLA surprises everyone and pays them in cash that they must reinvest in TSLA shares to close their Short position.
All this is just fun speculation on a Sunday morning............and of course 'not an advice'..........but it also seems to be well within the bounds of fair play and not to be discounted in the field of possible solutions, particularly given that your Max Pain levels return the share price to a price near the ideal value for the TSLA Bond? Do you think the fuse is lit for a squeeze if Tesla breaks out the checkbook and pays these folks? I would sure appreciate the thoughts of others on this as well.
At least you have the advantage of google here. I use it often.More and more people speaking Greek in this thread. It’s like having dinner at the spouse’s Oma’s and everyone jabbering in German and me be
Here I have to interpret the written word, which is just
How far do you think energy density would need to improve for longer range shipping to become viable?
larmor
Active Member
Alot of densely congested developing countries would benefit immensely from this, and utility infrastructure in the US is not improving-- example pg&e (i think that was the utility name) shutting down power during California wind events electively, to avoid problems, and avoid future lawsuits....
within 2 years larger companies will struggle from a lack of resources as well.
Just started reading it. In addition to being informative, it is also hilarious! Thank you for the recommendation
Oh ye, of too much faith......
The solution lies in recharging or swapping batteries in the middle of the ocean. Large scale energy generation is easy and cheap there with wind, solar, and waves. Setting up swapping stations or gigachargers is more complex, but it is inherently solvable problem.
He is neither. He is a financial advisor. I.e. salesman for those needing hand holding and reassuring voice for those with money and lack of self-confidence to manage their own finances.
Atleast for now ships need a massive amount of energy to cross the seas. Perhaps a hybrid solution could be implemented where ships use electricity close to harbour and traditional engines mid sea.
Combine this with shore power cables when in harbour. And with modern sail ships.
I belive this could reduce emissions quite a bit. And saving owners money too.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Are you willing to change your mind based on contrary evidence?
Such as email evidence from a leading executive of Merrill Lynch, recently found by @Artful Dodger:
Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling' | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
The lawsuit between Overstock and the banks concerned a phenomenon called naked short-selling, a kind of high-finance counterfeiting that, especially prior to the introduction of new regulations in 2008, short-sellers could use to artificially depress the value of the stocks they’ve bet against. The subject of naked short-selling is a) highly technical, and b) very controversial on Wall Street, with many pundits in the financial press for years treating the phenomenon as the stuff of myths and conspiracy theories.
Now, however, through the magic of this unredacted document, the public will be able to see for itself what the banks’ attitudes are not just toward the "mythical" practice of naked short selling (hint: they volubly confess to the activity, in writing), but toward regulations and laws in general.
Here, the plaintiff’s motion refers to an "exhibit 96,” which refers to “an email from [Goldman executive] John Masterson that sends nonpublic data concerning customer short positions in Overstock and four other hard-to-borrow stocks to Maverick Capital, a large hedge fund that sells stocks short.”
The lawsuit between Overstock and the banks concerned a phenomenon called naked short-selling, a kind of high-finance counterfeiting that, especially prior to the introduction of new regulations in 2008, short-sellers could use to artificially depress the value of the stocks they’ve bet against. The subject of naked short-selling is a) highly technical, and b) very controversial on Wall Street, with many pundits in the financial press for years treating the phenomenon as the stuff of myths and conspiracy theories.
Now, however, through the magic of this unredacted document, the public will be able to see for itself what the banks’ attitudes are not just toward the "mythical" practice of naked short selling (hint: they volubly confess to the activity, in writing), but toward regulations and laws in general.
"F*ck the compliance area – procedures, schmecedures," chirps Peter Melz, former president of Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. (a.k.a. Merrill Pro), when a subordinate worries about the company failing to comply with the rules governing short sales.
We also find out here how Wall Street professionals manipulated public opinion by buying off and/or intimidating experts in their respective fields. In one email made public in this document, a lobbyist for SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, tells a Goldman executive how to engage an expert who otherwise would go work for “our more powerful enemies,” i.e. would work with Overstock on the company’s lawsuit.
"He should be someone we can work with, especially if he sees that cooperation results in resources, both data and funding," the lobbyist writes, "while resistance results in isolation."
There are even more troubling passages, some of which should raise a few eyebrows, in light of former Goldman executive Greg Smith's recent public resignation, in which he complained that the firm routinely screwed its own clients and denigrated them (by calling them "Muppets," among other things).
Here, the plaintiff’s motion refers to an "exhibit 96,” which refers to “an email from [Goldman executive] John Masterson that sends nonpublic data concerning customer short positions in Overstock and four other hard-to-borrow stocks to Maverick Capital, a large hedge fund that sells stocks short.”
The contents of these emails were not disputed by any of the parties. (They could hardly have done so, they were turned over in discovery and were put under seal.)
I.e. Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch didn't think much of the ban and regulations against naked short selling, and a Goldman executive sent a highly confidential list of their own clients to one of the large hedge funds that shorted Overstock.
And note that this email was from an executive at the Merrill Lynch clearing side, i.e. their back-office operations, i.e. their normally risk-averse conscience that is supposed to keep hot-headed traders and hedge funds in check...
I doubted @Hock1's views about naked short selling before, but I don't anymore: for example go and try to find out whether "Nasdaq Market Makers" specialist firms have any technological limits on intraday risk taking. You won't find any such limits (which is common on other exchanges), once they pay a couple tens of millions of dollars to be members of the Nasdaq old boy's network they can literally short out of the blue even if they don't have the collateral and borrowed stock to back it up, with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of positions if need to be, mark it SHO exempt, and when they move the market follows - and then they can cover, with nobody the wiser.
So please file a SEC complaint if you were a victim of these alleged illegal acts, to get it investigated by this or the next administration. Independently of that, Tesla investors might also want to seek legal advice regarding recovering the damages caused by this daylight robbery.
Last edited:
Tesla indeed can sell everything right now. But higher demand means higher prices and higher profit while surprisingly lower demand results in the opposite. So understanding demand is crucial for proper analysis.
So THAT"S why he dances like he does. Must be pretty tough in those shoes.LOL, Papa Musk is partying:
"What you probably didn't notice."
Check out Elon's shoes ...
Also, WSB's take on it:
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this (not the shoes) becoming available to the public. Tesla's website?
How can the SEC invistigate this when all their resources are busy digging into a tweet about a deal that someone honestly expected to happen and another about production numbers that had already been revealed publicly? /s
To build a compelling EV requires building an efficient vehicle. MPG to MPGe comparisons between traditional offerings and Teslas suggest legacy OEM’s haven’t been putting their backs into making vehicles efficient or, heaven forfend, have been goldbricking.
If legacy OEM’s were to start building efficient EV’s, presumably regulators around the globe would want to see that efficiency ported to their ICE vehicles.
If one were to take the uncharitable view that the primary goal of legacy automobiles is to burn as much oil as possible (with moving spare parts and then moving people and goods as the next and third most important goals respectively), it would be very easy to see a rather insuperable business impediment to change for the legacy automakers.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The lead litigator of the SEC who was pushing those bull-sugar confrontations with Tesla left the SEC last year (to be corporate lawyer at a Koch Industries linked utility company - it's a small world!
), so maybe the current SEC administration has different views about short-and-distort campaigns and blatant violations of regulation SHO.Also, President Trump said this about Elon Musk recently:
"You have to give [Elon Musk] credit," President Trump tells @JoeSquawk. "He's one of our great geniuses, and we have to protect our genius."
Maybe the current SEC administration will take this as policy instruction and will start protecting Tesla investors - not just Tesla anti-investors?
Or, since there's an election at the end of this year, the next administration might investigate these incidents more thoroughly. I heard neither Sanders nor Warren has a particularly favorable opinion about current Wall Street excesses ...
Last edited:
This is a false comparison. You don’t have FSD, you have lane keeping with lane changing. There is a big difference.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
