TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[winfield100]

For liability reasons, none of the dealers would allow it. I know I would not have done it. I would also want control of the narrative. You lose that with volunteers without proper training.

@beachbum77

Anonymous stock-market manipulators behind $20B+ of "mispricing" can be tracked by their writing styles

A rigorous analysis of anonymous authors on Seeking Alpha and the money they make and how they get away with doing it over and over.

Short and Distort by Joshua Mitts :: SSRN

I'd recommend downloading and reading the entire paper. It's fascinating.

I wonder if you, Donn, were one of the several thousand articles analyzed on Seeking Alpha it the above research paper?
They _did_ separate the authors out into pseudonymous and real names, so perhaps not,
the author did an extensive statistical analysis of wording and writing style and options shennigans and price manipulations pre and post publication.

"..Pseudonymous attacks on public companies are followed by stock price declines and sharp reversals. I find these patterns are likely driven by manipulative stock options trading by pseudonymous authors.
Among 1,720 pseudonymous attacks on mid- and large-cap firms from 2010-2017, I identify over $20.1 billion of mispricing..."

just wondering and idle speculation. how many negative articles did you write regarding Tesla? 60? 70?
perhaps lucky for you, not under a pseudonym, eh
If SEC can investigate Elon for a tweet,........where's the "hammer of ghod"
edit:
i'm saying you are lucky you are not anonymous, and in relation to SA, fairly reasonable, for SA's inherent bias

 

[beachbum77]

This simply isn't true. Certain combinations of options appear to be available but aren't actually manufactured at all. Been there, dealt with that with mutiple brands.

How about some examples? I was a Ford dealer. Never had anything I could not order unless a particular option was supplier backed up due to high demand. Even then it was just delayed, not "unavailable".

 

[beachbum77]

@beachbum77

I wonder if you, Donn, were one of the several thousand articles analyzed on Seeking Alpha it the above research paper?
They _did_ separate the authors out into pseudonymous and real names, so perhaps not,
the author did an extensive statistical analysis of wording and writing style and options shennigans and price manipulations pre and post publication.

"..Pseudonymous attacks on public companies are followed by stock price declines and sharp reversals. I find these patterns are likely driven by manipulative stock options trading by pseudonymous authors.
Among 1,720 pseudonymous attacks on mid- and large-cap firms from 2010-2017, I identify over $20.1 billion of mispricing..."

just wondering and idle speculation. how many negative articles did you write regarding Tesla? 60? 70?
perhaps lucky for you, not under a pseudonym, eh
If SEC can investigate Elon for a tweet,........where's the "hammer of ghod"

I know you have read my articles. We both know many are not negative. They offer suggestions to fix issues, and many are statistical in nature where I examined the production and delivery reports and quarterly 10-Q's. By nature, I guess those were negative since Tesla has been doing a bang-up job of piling up unsold cars and burning investor's money in 2018.

One of my latest was why I felt Tesla needed a COO. You would call that negative too I guess?

FYI: My options holdings, both puts, and calls together, represent less than 1% of our portfolio. So if you think I am making big wagers on a risky company like Tesla you would be very mistaken.

 

[KarenRei]

When other manufacturers introduce a new model you can order any configuration you want from a "strippee" to a fully loaded unit with every option

Please cite what "other manufacturers" you're talking about that had so much demand that it would take two years for them to fill it all, so that we can be talking about specifics.

Oh wait, you were trying to bait-and-switch from a supply-limited case to a demand-limited case. Sorry, carry on.

Seriously, what's your argument here? That Tesla knew their scaleup last fall was going to go wrong? That everyone thought they were going to get the credit even if the scaleup worked perfectly? Wrong, and wrong.

 

[beachbum77]

Please cite what "other manufacturers" you're talking about that had so much demand that it would take two years for them to fill it all, so that we can be talking about specifics.

Oh wait, you were trying to bait-and-switch from a supply-limited case to a demand-limited case. Sorry, carry on.

Seriously, what's your argument here? That Tesla knew their scaleup last fall was going to go wrong? That everyone thought they were going to get the credit even if the scaleup worked perfectly? Wrong, and wrong.

Who said everyone? I would guess a large percentage of those 63,000 Model 3 cancellations as of last July thought so.

 

[KarenRei]

Who said everyone? I would guess a large percentage of those 63,000 Model 3 cancellations as of last July thought so.

You have no clue why any random person cancelled. Their need for a vehicle can change. They can go with a new or used Model S. Their financial situation can change. Lots of things happen over time. What I can tell you is this: whenever I hear a person on the net whining about "Where's the $35k Model 3??", 99% of the time it's concern trolling from someone who just wants something to attack Tesla over, but doesn't actually have any interest in a base Model 3 whatsoever. And - to reiterate - almost nobody buys fully unoptioned cars, of any model.

The reality is simple: Tesla keeps selling more and more LR+PUP vehicles with orders only open to 1/3rd of their global market. Wanting them to convert to selling their lower-margin vehicles when they're highly demand limited and will be for a long time is an absurdity.

And I'll repeat: please cite your "other manufacturers" who were so demand constrained that they took two years to catch up. Because surely you weren't doing a bait-and-switch, trying to change the conversation from a highly supply-constrained car to demand-constrained cars.

Lastly, re. your earlier assertion about scrubbing the website of mention of the base model: What are the two most likely places on the website to look for info about the Model 3? Surely either at the "Model 3" link or in the press kit. Okay, let's look at both of those. What do we see?

"Model 3" link: click on specs. Why, hello: "Standard Configuration". You know, that thing that supposedly doesn't exist anymore?

Press kit: "Combined with 220* to 310 miles of range and a starting price of $35,000 before incentives" ... "STANDARD EQUIPMENT
Base Price - $35,000... Standard Battery Range: 220 miles (EPA estimated)" ... "

 

[Unpilot]

Who said everyone? I would guess a large percentage of those 63,000 Model 3 cancellations as of last July thought so.

This must be an example of your SA style...using statistics..not negative
.O no ..just stating facts. I guess this is a positive Tesla post then?

 

[SO16]

We all know "demand" was twice as much because they promised a very stylish $35,000 BEV with a $7,500 U.S. tax credit. A car that will never exist unless they start delivering them in Q4. A $35,000 starting price is no longer on the website except in an old press release. "Bait and switch" comes to mind.

I have better odds of being the first man on Mars than I have of ever being able to buy a new $35,000 Model 3 plus tax and license (even in black with aeros).

LOL. Another one of those “never gonna have the 35k version available” people. I can’t wait to see who’s wrong in 6 to 9 months.

 

[beachbum77]

You have no clue why any random person cancelled. Their need for a vehicle can change. They can go with a new or used Model S. Their financial situation can change. Lots of things happen over time. What I can tell you is this: whenever I hear a person on the net whining about "Where's the $35k Model 3??", 99% of the time it's concern trolling from someone who just wants something to attack Tesla over, but doesn't actually have any interest in a base Model 3 whatsoever. And - to reiterate - almost nobody buys fully unoptioned cars, of any model.

The reality is simple: Tesla keeps selling more and more LR+PUP vehicles with orders only open to 1/3rd of their global market. Wanting them to convert to selling their lower-margin vehicles when they're highly demand limited and will be for a long time is an absurdity.

And I'll repeat: please cite your "other manufacturers" who were so demand constrained that they took two years to catch up. Because surely you weren't doing a bait-and-switch, trying to change the conversation from a highly supply-constrained car to demand-constrained cars.

Lastly, re. your earlier assertion about scrubbing the website of mention of the base model: What are the two most likely places on the website to look for info about the Model 3? Surely either at the "Model 3" link or in the press kit. Okay, let's look at both of those. What do we see?

"Model 3" link: click on specs. Why, hello: "Standard Configuration". You know, that thing that supposedly doesn't exist anymore?

Press kit: "Combined with 220* to 310 miles of range and a starting price of $35,000 before incentives" ... "STANDARD EQUIPMENT
Base Price - $35,000... Standard Battery Range: 220 miles (EPA estimated)" ... "

1) I gather a lot of my information by daily readings here on TMC and M3OC. A lot of threads have had posts about why people canceled. You should read them.
2) The $35,000 Model 3 would be far from a strip'd unit. It will have a decent size motor and battery pack. It will have 220 miles of range. It will have cloth interior and power windows and door locks. It will have A/C and a sound system. It will have 5-star crash protection. For many people (myself included) that is all I want for a commuter car.
3) I have my other more luxurious vehicles for weekends and dates. But I hate taking them to the airport parking lots or downtown street parking or just wasting miles on those vehicles for my daytime running around.
4) While a dealer I sold a TON of lower-priced cars and small trucks for just this type of use. As you know, here in the U.S. many of us are mutli-vehicle households with different vehicles for different purposes.
5) I just said that the old press kit is the only place you will find the reference to a $35,000 Model 3. Look at the date.

 

[winfield100]

I know you have read my articles. We both know many are not negative. They offer suggestions to fix issues, and many are statistical in nature where I examined the production and delivery reports and quarterly 10-Q's. By nature, I guess those were negative since Tesla has been doing a bang-up job of piling up unsold cars and burning investor's money in 2018.

One of my latest was why I felt Tesla needed a COO. You would call that negative too I guess?

FYI: My options holdings, both puts, and calls together, represent less than 1% of our portfolio. So if you think I am making big wagers on a risky company like Tesla you would be very mistaken.

@beachbum77
I have read most if not all of your Tesla articles, prey tell me which --->even one<-- was not negative of the 71?
this one? (here's 6 other recent ones)
Tesla's New, Unsold Inventory Is Soaring, Again
Tesla: Would An Annual Profit Be Good For Shareholders?
Tesla: Deliveries Trump Production
Tesla Needs A COO
Tesla's Q1 Numbers Have A Dark Side
Tesla: How One Short Makes Money
Tesla's Institutional Holdings See Upward Spike (Feb 2018)
how about the other 70? come on, don't be coy, don't pussyfoot around
edit:
i didnt accuse you of making big wagers,
i said you should be glad you were not an anonymous author on that snake pit of vipers (not the car) due to an analysis that seemed to show $20 Billion of market manipuation that SEC should investigate

 

[XHabjab]

...I have better odds of being the first man on Mars than I have of ever being able to buy a new $35,000 Model 3 plus tax and license (even in black with aeros).

You may be right. I think that there are more than a few people on this forum that would like to accommodate that thought.

 

[beachbum77]

LOL. Another one of those “never gonna have the 35k version available” people. I can’t wait to see who’s wrong in 6 to 9 months.

$10 says when the SR is introduced you will need to buy other options as well. Just as Tesla did with the LR. Have you been able to order a $44,000 Model 3 LR yet?

 

[neroden]

How about some examples? I was a Ford dealer. Never had anything I could not order unless a particular option was supplier backed up due to high demand. Even then it was just delayed, not "unavailable".

Audi, Toyota, Honda. (I particularly remember "That combination is not shipped to the US, but it's advertised because they make it for Japan".) Dunno about Ford. I do recall that you could get all advertised combinations from GM.

 

[aubreymcfato]

Haven't seen this posted here:
My experience "volunteering" to help with deliveries.
My experience "volunteering" to help with deliveries. : teslamotors
From Reddit.

TLDR: The guy showed up at a Tesla Delivery centre, he was asked to chat with people w

 

[SO16]

$10 says when the SR is introduced you will need to buy other options as well. Just as Tesla did with the LR. Have you been able to order a $44,000 Model 3 LR yet?

In what timeframe?

 

[pz1975]

I picked up my Model 3 in Vancouver today. It was quite well-organized and everything went smoothly. They did say that later in the day as the deliveries pile up, delays start to happen but for the most part everything has been going well.

The interesting fact I wanted to share was that my DS told me that originally they were planning to do 900 Model 3 deliveries in September in Vancouver. That was increased to 1,100 a week or so ago and now the plan is 1,300 for the month (almost 50% increase from original plan)! And this is with 1 week left so she thought that number may increase again. She expects they will be doing some 150 cars/day next week.

 

[KarenRei]

$10 says when the SR is introduced you will need to buy other options as well.

And?

I'm not sure what you're not getting about this "demand far exceeds supply" issue. Unless you're trying to argue that Tesla doesn't actually plan to make unoptioned vehicles even after supply catches up to demand....

They have limited production capacity. Please explain why they should not utilize that capacity to its maximum gain so that they can improve their production rates as fast as possible, and thus work through the whole overall backlog as quickly as possible.

 

[beachbum77]

@beachbum77
I have read most if not all of your Tesla articles, prey tell me which --->even one<-- was not negative of the 71?
this one? (here's 6 other recent ones)
Tesla's New, Unsold Inventory Is Soaring, Again
Tesla: Would An Annual Profit Be Good For Shareholders?
Tesla: Deliveries Trump Production
Tesla Needs A COO
Tesla's Q1 Numbers Have A Dark Side
Tesla: How One Short Makes Money
Tesla's Institutional Holdings See Upward Spike (Feb 2018)
how about the other 70? come on, don't be coy, don't pussyfoot around

My first article in June of last year was "Trucks: Is Tesla reaching too far?" It looked at the CapEx picture for Tesla and my conclusion was it would spread Tesla's resources too thin at a time when they were about to begin production of the Model 3 and were still trying to absorb SolarCity, expand the SC network and add more sales and delivery centers. It had not even been introduced yet but was already being touted. I still stand by my conclusion that the Semi should be or will be shelved or produced in very limited numbers. But in the end it will not produce enough profits to justify its development or recover its costs. The money could be better spent elsewhere. I did not consider the article a negative one, but many did. I guess you were one of them.

I write from a financial perspective. That is all that matters to me as a full time investor. I had been a put holder in SolarCity when I was shocked that Tesla was proposing to absorb SC. Fifteen other companies had looked and passed on SC, yet here was Tesla prepared to pay over $5 billion in stock and debt. Why? Then I did some digging on the shareholders and the institutions holding SCTY and TSLA. Suddenly the bailout made perfect sense for these parties. Good for them, bad for TSLA shareholders. Now TSLA was on my radar. I continued to watch the news and read the stories here and on other sites.

Then in 2017 I started writing about what I saw were missteps and information that shareholders were not seeing elsewhere. My quarterly production reviews are part of that. To date only Toni Saccanaghi at Bernstein and I have addressed the inventory issues publicly. Toni had his questions brushed off by Musk in a CC last year and has never raised them again. Now he may have to. I will not be surprised if unsold inventory (excluding in-transit units) exceeds 10,000 units on 9/30 up from 8,000 at the end of Q2. The Tesla website is showing over 500 brand new Model S units for sale in inventory here in the U.S. right now. Many have the minimum 50 miles on them. While there are actully many more available that is the most they have ever displayed at one time on the website. Every single unit has been discounted.

 

[Words of HABIT]

Thanks for explaining it. The plethora of disagrees I racked up on my post, wherein I specified that I was just musing, was starting to get to me just a little bit.

It would be awesome, and those that disagree seem to have a tenuous grasp of market dynamics and must not understand the position Tesla is in right now as a stock.

SpaceCash, in hindsight my reply to your post may have been a bit harsh. I did not agree with your muse for reasons stated, but could have phased it better. And yes, I realize it was just a muse. Cheers!

 

[elasalle]

For liability reasons, none of the dealers would allow it. I know I would not have done it. I would also want control of the narrative. You lose that with volunteers without proper training.

For transparency reasons, a dealer would never allow this to happen.period. What if the volunteers told the prospective buyers that the dealer had just sold the same car for 2K less just because the other client had haggled more.