>It would be interesting to know if this employee was also shorting Tesla stock at the same time he was leaking these allegations.
I'm skeptical that some individual blue-collar worker would risk his financial well-being and possibly freedom to make a few thousand dollars from possibly causing financial harm to Tesla and causing the stock to drop some. Seems like a stretch to me. If the suit is as alleged (passing false information to journalists) he's an attention seeking low-life.
What is with the obsession with "shorts"? I've never seen so much over-reaction to short selling in my life.
I'm wondering what percentage of Tesla fanboys knew what short-selling was before Musk started ranting about it and now are seemingly knowledgeable on the topic.
Not disagreeing, but I'd also be interested in the percentage of Tesla fanboys who did not know what short selling was before Musk's ranting. I wonder if there's some meaningful inflection point in this metric that has significance to how hype is perceived and rationalized (or not)?
>Tesla is the stock with the highest amount of short interest at the moment.
Why? Because it's an off the charts volatile basket case.
You can't talk about shorts without talking about hedging, both stocks and (convertible) bonds. This is a complicated financial play. Unfortunately, as happens, retail chumps will get roasted either way.
That's because unlike a zero-revenue startup, whose potential revenue once they start monetization may be trillions of dollars, the potential revenue trajectory of Tesla is somewhat bounded.
Yet, their stock is valued like one of those startups.
Also, once the electric car market becomes big enough for the major manufacturers to care about, Tesla will be competing with Toyota, GM, etc. for market share. When people can buy electric vehicles from Toyota or Honda, which have an established reputation for reliability and have dealerships (with repair facilities) everywhere, making sales might get much harder for Tesla. Being able to succeed in a market driven by enthusiastic early adopters does not guarantee being able to succeed in an mature market.
Not only that, but traditional car companies are already producing vehicles that a lot of people want (as far as style of vehicle, etc). Many of them have their own fan base. For example, imagine if Ford delivers a plugin-hybrid Mustang (they're already planning a hybrid Mustang with high performance for 2020, but if they do a plugin hybrid with 60 - 100 miles EV range I'm there in an instant).
Funny part is that, as far as I can tell, that would be a mission accomplished for Musk one way or the other. I mean I’m sure he’d prefer Tesla to be the long term leader there, but if it just turned out that everyone else made affordable electric cars then that would work, too.
Well, they still benefit from a world where conscious action is taken in favour of the environment we live in if the averse is maximizing personal capital gain potential.
Not only is that not relevant to the original statement, it's almost certainly not true. And getting a base car at base car price is likely almost impossible.
The Audi and Lambo aren't in as high of demand as say, a Ferrari 488 (or whatever the latest mid-engined model is, I've lost track), but you can't actually buy a 488 if you don't already have a history of Ferrari ownership. So, while I doubt Audi and Lambo have the same restrictions on who they 'allow' to buy their car, good luck buying one off the lot or in any reasonable timeframe.
Are you seroius? Someone says the market cap of Tesla is "somewhat" bounded, and you ask how? Is it totally unbounded? Is what they are doing unprecedented beyond comparison?
Do you think the market cap of Tesla is infinity? It's already multiples of companies that produce a magnitude more cars and infinite more profit. Not good enough for you? What is it that you think Tesla does so well that justifies an unlimited market cap?
This is insane. Wish HackerNews existed during the DotCom bubble. It was bad enough being accused of sexism during the Theranos bubble.
They produce the most batteries in the world and have the most extensive global charging network and the most advanced solar panel tech. They're the number one horse in the race to dominate the post-oil world.
Their solar business is a rock around their necks, that is hemorrhaging money, and laying off employees.
Their charger network's nice, but in a post oil world, every gas station will have chargers. And for some reason, Ford doesn't feel the need to own Exxon-Mobil - probably because energy is an interchangeable commodity... And they are not in the commodity business. They are in the business of building cars.
The cells and the packs are different things. The packs aren't just a bunch of cells glued together. See this[1] fun teardown discussion. Another company building battery packs would have different costs even if they were buying the same exact cells from Panasonic, and it's likely Tesla had a hand in designing the cells so I don't know if that's particularly possible.
The reason for the Gigafactory is to compress supply chains, but more importantly because there isn't enough global demand/supply for batteries to support the volumes Tesla wants. Without building their own factory, the global supply would be a constraining factor for Tesla's plans. The Gigafactory is a long-term bet that they will need that much supply in the future. This is not a problem that other carmakers have where they would want to "vertically integrate" oil refineries and gas stations, because availability of gasoline is not a problem.
> The reason for the Gigafactory is to compress supply chains, but more importantly because there isn't enough global demand/supply for batteries to support the volumes Tesla wants.
It is mitigation for a early-adopter business risk that their competitors don't have.
In any sane pricing of their stock, that risk would have lowered its value, and mitigating it would have brought it up to that of an auto manufacturer with similar volumes and margins and growth potential.
For some reason, though, people think that mitigating a risk that their competitors don't have warrants a premium.
Gigafactories (second one coming soon) are a joint effort with Panasonic and Tesla enjoys the economies of scale from them. They just recently started delivering their solar tiles. Solar -> batteries -> chargers -> cars. This level of integration makes them potentially 10 times more valuable than other car companies.
Why? Do Teslas only get charged by Elontrons, produced by a vertically integrated SolarCity panel, stored in a PowerWall, as opposed to regular electrons? What next - is Elon Musk going to start buying iron and nickel mines, so that Tesla can mine iron, to smelt it into steel, to build robots that build Teslas? Maybe a chip fab, while it's at it? And a ranch, for the leather seats?
Why hasn't GM bought an oil company, and a couple thousand gas stations? Apparently, this vertical integration would have made them 10 times more valuable.
Maybe it's because I can get the exact same gas from the Shell across the street.
Also, half of this vertical integration only 'works' (If you squint a lot) due to subsidies/loopholes in how people are billed/credited for home solar installations. When those installations become widespread, these subsidies will go away, and we'll be back to buying power wholesale, from utilities. There is no universe in which putting solar panels on your roof will be cheaper, or more efficient, then buying power from a solar utility.
GM currently makes more cars in a week, then TSLA does in a year. And it does so on positive margins.
It's certainly possible for TSLA to get to that point, but it is anything but a sure thing. Why anyone would be surprised that it is one of the most shorted stocks in the world is beyond me. If they fail to grow to GM's size, the shorts will be justified.
To put it in tech terms, it's valuing Mozilla > Apple, because Mozilla sold a million Firefox OS phones. Except that in this imaginary world, Mozilla doesn't even ship a web browser, and keeps having to ask its landlord for an extension on the rent payment due date. Obviously, Firefox OS will sweep the world by storm! Who doesn't like freedom? Surely, the users will switch en masse, and leave the old dinosaurs like Apple and Google broke.
Tesla isn't trying to become like GM, any more than Apple was trying to become like Nokia.
There's so many factors in play with the stock. Personally though, I think a lot the short sentiment is conservative ideological blindness of the anti-Obama, anti-environmentalism variety. Tesla has always been highly shorted, even when its market cap was smaller.
Tesla is also one of the best-positioned players to get into the market for grid energy storage, and unlike cars, there are no large incumbents who could show up and crush them. That's got to be worth something -- and while Panasonic did supply most of the technology, that is only relevant if we're discussing Elon's contribution to society, not Tesla's revenue prospects. Panasonic wouldn't have partnered with Tesla on the Gigafactory if they thought it was a stupid idea.
What the hell businesses do you know of that have the potential to make trillions of dollars? Because I'm willing to quit my job and work for them if they exist.
In 1999, any 'we will change the world because everything internet' startup.
In 2008, any 'we will change the world because everything social' startup.
in 2016, any 'we will change the world because everything crypto' startup.
All you need is a slide deck about how the <Whatever> market has been growing X% YoY and is worth $XYZ billion dollars, and how your <Website/App/Coin> will change everything. Hell, these days, you don't even need a slide deck, just a whitepaper.
As long as you don't actually have any revenue, you can keep people hopeful. Maybe you will grow into Amazon. Most of the time, you will grow into pets.com.
>What is with the obsession with "shorts"? I've never seen so much over-reaction to short selling in my life.
I have a question for you.
But first there is so much attention lately on Tesla shorters because they bet 10 billion on Tesla stock going down, and instead it went up, and they are about to all get wiped out.
And because inspite of the fact that Tesla is overcoming its production problems, and SpaceX is going great, the media has been flooded with stories lately about how Musk is a fraud, he is losing his mind, and Tesla is about to go bankrupt, and so many people reasonably believe the shorters are trying to save themselves from disaster by attacking Musk.
Now here is the question. Do you believe the Tesla shorters were smart when they made a prediction Tesla stock was going to go down?
> I'm skeptical that some individual blue-collar worker would risk his financial well-being and possibly freedom to make a few thousand dollars from possibly causing financial harm to Tesla
Few thousand? With insider information, you can use the power of leverage to turn a few thousand into millions within seconds.
A leveraged account + options fun and you could go from thousandaire to a millionaire with a few key strokes.
> What is with the obsession with "shorts"? I've never seen so much over-reaction to short selling in my life.
I'm skeptical that some individual blue-collar worker would risk his financial well-being and possibly freedom to make a few thousand dollars from possibly causing financial harm to Tesla and causing the stock to drop some. Seems like a stretch to me. If the suit is as alleged (passing false information to journalists) he's an attention seeking low-life.
What is with the obsession with "shorts"? I've never seen so much over-reaction to short selling in my life.