Can Tesla Survive?

You make a good point. Infrastructure is key, because the general public won't buy something they can't use. Yes, people can charge their car at home or work, but they'll want to ability to charge the car when they're out as well. The other thing they need to do is increase the number of dealerships (distribution) and service centers. And, they need to continue to service the existing owners cars.

The reason I'm looking for a short entry is the $1.9B in losses and things don't seem to be turning around. If they become profitable, they still have to pay off $12B in debt. At an average profit of $10K per unit (I'm being generous), that means 1.2M sales. Can it be done? Is there enough demand? What if we hit a recession in 2019? Do we as taxpayers want to subsidize Tesla and their buyers ($7.5K/unit in tax credits or $8B total)? Finally, if there is $10K profit per unit, there will be a lot of upstarts going after the piece of the pie.

I don't see a solution for the company and that's why I'm looking to short.

average profit of $10K per unit

don't let the 10K per unit scare one that its not conceivable...

Still, putting it that way, for it to be possible, automation is the key.

If you ask me, it's a reckless bet...but there is a chance it could retest it's low of 252...it has resistance to the upside at about 305. which it bounced off of recently, my guess is that a short here would be good for around 270., I would close the short at 270...It should at least form a triangle going forward, whether ascending or descending, you should be safe at 270....The problem with small investor trading is that the big players can squeeze you whenever they want, it's a losing game for small players...

https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+chart&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS775US781&oq=tesla+chart&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5845j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

How did you come up with 270? I would think that retesting the low would be more likely. I don't see the significance of 270. Can you let me know what you see.

And you are right about us small players getting eaten by the big guys. They manipulate the market and stack the deck in their favor. Years ago, I got my head taken off in the stock market. I was much too ambitious and loose with my money. Maybe now I'm too conservative, but at least I don't take huge losses anymore.

You think you might be too conservative? How can you say that when you're still competing with the big traders....What you should be looking for is the safest bet with a decent return... Buy and Hold

https://www.investopedia.com/university/charts/charts5.asp

Stop trying to get rich quick and resolve to get rich slow...

My situation is a lot different than other investors. 80% of my investments are in real estate and have been for many years. The other 20% is moved to places where I feel I can get a big return. A 15-30% quick hit is very possible with a TSLA short. This is what I throw quick money at. My other businesses consume a lot of time and effort, so I get investment ideas from people I respect, then do research vs trying to find investment ideas on my own. It works best for me at this time.

At this time, I'm not a believer in buy and hold, because I believe rates are going up, I anticipate a recession to begin anywhere from late this year until 2020, inflation is coming and as boomers retire, money will be flowing out of mutual funds. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'm just missing out of an opportunity.

The shorts would seem to be in a precarious position...even if Tesla is as well.

Institutional ownership is near 60%. Musk owns over 20%. There is some portion of stock held by people better described as devotees than investors.

Almost 30% short suggests a poyential huhe short squeeze. Just a rumor of someone like the UAE fund buying shares could be enough to initiate the squeeze and get shorts to begin buying to cover.

Good point. There are so many shorts out there, that a few big player could pull it's shares from the pool of shares that can be shorted. That could cause a huge short squeeze and run the price up.

That's what I'm waiting for. Something like this or some good news to push the stock close to the highs, but not taking them out. That would give me the signal to short. My other concern is that the company will keep screwing up and the longs may start bailing. I'd then miss out on my opportunity.

I don't see a good long term future with them, due to the massive debt and the fact that they still haven't made a penny of profit - heck, they're closing in on $5B in losses charged off to owners equity.

The other side of this is that having Tesla as a going concern is important to some influential players who could step in with capital or loans or loan guarantees.

Tesla employs 37,000+ people.

Tesla is the posterboy for new US manufacturing.

Tesla is leading electric car technogy and is a big player in solar and energy storage.

Revenue around $12B last year .... $5B in debt is not great, especially with looming maturities, but it isn't impossible.

I suspect if some new occurs that causes the stock to approach the highs again in the near term, it may be enough to scare a good portion of the shorts. Being on the wrong side of irrational exuberance, no matter how irrational can be painful.

Great analysis! Your point is well taken and I agree with what you write.

Good news should propel this stock, since nearly all that's come out lately has been bad and the stock is still holding 300!

Thank you.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4160840-tesla-short-interest-decline

I wouldn't bet against Elon Musk , he's definitely a winner....When you trade the market you want the odds in your favor, so you try to bet on the most sure things you can find, that being said in a volatile market and a new company you want to hedge your position, that means you buy puts to cover your position as insurance, it doesn't mean you're betting against the company, only that you understand the market...

So the shorts are nowhere near 30%....only about half that. Still pretty high though.

Here are the official numbers from NASDAQ.

104.85M shares of float

31.73M shares short

30.3% short

Note that there are 168.92M shares of stock, but 64.07M are locked up, so they should not be included in the short percentage. Remember that locked up shares can't be traded, therefore they can't be lent out to shorts.

You are stating the percentage of short interest incorrectly....whether part of the shares are locked up or not makes no difference....

..."When expressed as a percentage, short interest is the number of shorted shares divided by the number of shares outstanding...."...

outstanding shares =

..."Outstanding shares refer to a company's stock currently held by all its shareholders, including share blocks held by institutional investors and restricted shares owned by the company’s officers and insiders. "...

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/082201.asp

Technically, you are correct, but that figure isn't of use to investors. The reason is that the locked up shares can't be used in either long or short investing. They're taken off the table, so we don't consider them in the equation. Instead, we look at the number of shares short compared to the float. That tells us what the market (shares that can be traded) feels about the company.

In the case of TSLA, a large number of shares are locked up. We don't know if they're in weak or strong hands (we can assume most are insiders or early investors). What we do know is that they're out of the market. I use those shares to calculate market value, since there is value to them as they are owners. I also consider when they're coming out of lock up, because there's a good chance the shares will be sold. Not a guarantee, but typically the owners of the locked up shares have a large profit. The underwriter of the IPO typically doesn't want all those shares to be dumped on the market right away, so they can't sell for a set amount of time - hence locked up.

In TSLA's case, the high short interest (using float) and with future locked up shares coming to market isn't a good sign. However the big guys can squeeze us small players out of a position, so I'm cautious.

I am a licensed trader for over 30 years...imo you know very little...wait till you get some experience under your belt before you start preaching to the choir....If you weren't so anxious to tell me how much you know, you might learn something....

Yep, Crash and Burn

Well, I have been actively trading stocks and options since the mid 90's. Overall, I've completed thousands of trades during this time and moved quite a bit of money (8 figures) and I've had over +$100K days, so I do consider myself knowledgeable. My brokers treat me very well and they've offered me thousands and thousands of shares of IPO's (at the offer price), which most I've accepted and have done pretty well. I am an individual investor and I know that I'm very small potatoes when it comes to the pros, but I do understand the market and the dynamics of it.

I am not a licensed trader and I don't have my Series 7, so I'll cede to you on expertise and being in the middle of things.

That being said, I am always open to learning. I also use logic to understand the data I'm receiving. My question to you is why do you use total shares outstanding vs float in your analysis? If the shares are locked up, nobody can trade them, short or long. Am I missing something here?

You can think about it any way you want, but if you're talking to somebody else you have to use the accepted definition to be understood...and moving money and making money are two different things....day to day profits and losses mean nothing, it's how much you made at the end of the year that counts, and more importantly how much you've averaged over the last 10 years....If you consistently beat the S&P for the last 10 years, then you've done something, and you don't need my help, or anybody else's for that matter....If you haven't, then you've been spinning your tires, and would do just as good in an index fund, if not better...

Solar, I enjoy reading your posts and most times I agree with you. Even when I don't, I appreciate your point of view. I did not mean to come off as an expert and I apologize if it seemed like I did. I'm not here to start fights or make enemies.

Here's a little insight into where I'm at in my investments. I don't trade as often as the past - not even close. I have less than 1/1,000 of my money in the market, compared to in the past. I've had some very good non-stock market investments offered in the last decade and they made a lot of sense so my funds were moved. They've been very lucrative and have substantially outperformed the S&P. Add to that the tax writeoffs and definitely no complaints.

I'm considering a TSLA short based on some advice I received. It makes a lot of sense to me, however my analysis is based on information I was given and my own due dilligence. My post here is to acquire information from the technical side. I hope to gather more information which I'll use to make my final decision.

My plan is a hit and run approach - short the stock when it looks toppy, then get out when it hits my target. How do I know? I watch the charts and look for a signal. News can move this stock, so I'll get out if it doesn't go as planned. I know it's a risky proposition, but based on my analysis, I see the risk/reward to be very high.

Someone here may post something that changes my mind - information I didn't know or think about. There are some very smart people here and they have some great insight on technical issues.

Shorting Facebook at this time seems to make more sense....It's in the cross hairs of the Federal Trade Commission and will probably take a big hit, more than it already has...

http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui

Hi Solar,

Hope you had a good day trading this crazy market! I'm still waiting for my trigger point with TSLA (shorting).

FB had really good earning after the bell. It'll be interesting to see what the shorts do tomorrow. I believe they're going to get hit with some sort of regulation, so it'll be a good short. Maybe hit it after a rally from the earning report.

I wish TSLA had some good news to push the stock closer to 320-325. That's my target range for a short. Here's an interesting article I just read about the short interest increasing for TSLA. Note that they use float when calculating short interest - something I've been doing for a long time. Wondering what your take is on this article? Also, Tesla got slammed by some more bad news - Sandy Munro took a Model 3 apart and reported poor build quality, poor engineering and poorly trained assembly workers. He praised the battery and electronics and said others should look at what Tesla is doing. I've heard about the poor build quality and engineering on the Model S and X - Tesla is following their tradition with the new Model 3.

The funny thing is that most people don't have a clue about build quality or engineering. For instance, the masses love Range Rovers and dream about owning one. I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but I think Range Rovers are poorly made, poorly engineered, overweight, overpriced SUV's. I get that it's a status symbol, but I think there are much better choices out there.

Here's the shorting article: Shorting interest increases

This could just be some big players manipulating the stock...most of this is probably people buying puts to protect their position...

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2918951-g-hudson/1026551-how-the-big-players-manipulate-the-stock-market

with people like Rockefeller, if you weren't out of the way, they'd crush you and throw you to the wind.

In that era, the industry leaders did just what you say! Times were harder and they were pretty ruthless.

Quite frankly I agree with you, that TSLA is struggling, but you have failed to make a business case to support your assumptions. You've thrown around a lot of personal opinions, but not backed them with any credible industry research. I'm also troubled by a lack of a timeframe for your target, or at least a hold period for your bet trade; and let's not forget the entry, exit, and stoploss points. Plus I'm not much on using fundamental analysis for short term trading, preferring technical analysis instead.

If I were interested in shorting a $300 stock, I'd buy Puts. Instead of tying up approximately $30,000 per hundred shares, you could buy May 270 Puts for about $700 per contract (100 shares per). The faster TSLA drops, the quicker you'll make money, and you'll only be out $700 if it isn't below 270 at expiration.

Thanks for the feedback.

I have a lot more data than I provided in my post. I've analyzed this to death and I'm wondering what I'm missing. I do have a timeframe for my target, entry and exit points. I also don't like buying options. I like selling them though. Or doing a spread - I'm okay with that too.

My TA tells me there's a good chance this stock will test the recent lows, so I'm looking for a trigger point to make my move. There has been a ton of bad news on the company, yet it's held close to 300. I also see there are a lot of the big guys holding large amounts of this stock. Obviously, they're seeing something I'm not.

What they're seeing is the fact that their pockets are a lot deeper than yours, by orders of magnitude! They've also been holding founder's stock, or IPO shares at $17-24 per, quite a gain at today's price. Theoretically they can ride through a steep drop, get out at say $50, and still have doubled or tripled their money.

I'm not sure what TA (Technical Analysis) techniques you're using, but I've been a member of some great trading study groups in NYC, and getting a consensus on a chart can be a real challenge; however, even contrarians are right occasionally.

I'm going to put TSLA on my watchlist, good trading!

You make a good point. I'll add a little more to what you've posted. Many holders may have very early shares - pre-IPO and their acq price could be less than $1.

When you have some time, take a look at Murray Math. TA based on Fibonnaci. A friend of mine showed me it. He's a futures trader and successfully picks off $500 - $1,000 a day.

I think we'll see quite a bit of volatility, so I have my eyes on TVIX. I'm thinking of buying in the 7-8 range and selling at 11-12. Let it drop on the rallies, then repeat. What do you think?

"Telsa has no presence outside the US" is a bit extreme. The Western European sales are half those in the USA to a population nearly twice the size, but I'd still rate that as a presence. In the UK the Model S is easily the most popular electric vehicle. I believe that there are more Tesla superchargers in Norway per head of population than anywhere else in the world.

An average of approximately 0.08% of the European market over the last 5 years peaking at 0.18% last year hardly constitutes a presence. Strip out Norway which has taken a third of all the Telsas shipped to Europe because it offers a massive tax incentive equating to 20% of the list price and the figures look much worse.

Well, the market share for all Tesla models in the USA for 2017 was 0.29%. in Europe the comparable figure was 0.18%. If there is a full presence in the USA then there is perhaps 62% of a presence in Europe.

I didn't realise that the sales figure in the US was so low. I could only find a breakdown of sales by US state going up to 2016 but it showed that over 45% of US sales went into California. So Telsa doesn't even have a sales presence across the US, only in California. The combined sales for 31 states over 5 years is only 47,313 cars. That averages to 305 cars/state/year _{Statistics from cleantechnica.com} Your idea of what constitutes a presence and mine seem to differ widely.

News update: A proposal by the Norway's government to remove the subsidy on electric vehicles weighing over two metric tonnes (Telsa X SUV has high sales in Norway's mountainous terrain) will add 70,000 kroner ($8,850) to the price. This proposal is in anticipation of electric drive trains on commercial vehicles and the government doesn't want to get stuck with subsidising HGVs, or of being seen to penalise them, so it is likely to become law well in advance of electric HGVs being introduced.

Your presence starts with the USA and then limits to California. Do you mind if i just wait until you settle down, or should I go ahead and confirm the Tesla presence is big in Birmingham UK?

So Telsa doesn't even have a sales presence across the US, only in California.

It comes down to infrastructure.... the United States has vast open regions, where there is virtually no support infrastructure for electric vehicles such as Tesla in states such as Montana, North Dakota or as far south as New Mexico.

I think EV's would be best suited for cities with congested traffic. Sitting at a stop light isn't efficient for gas engines, so EV's are the way to go. But, city driving most times means congested parking lots, so a small EV like the Leaf should be a winner. If it were competitive on price ($15K), then I'd see it being a big hit. If you live in the city and work in the city, then it could make sense. BUT, many city dwellers park their car on the street and there are no charging stations on the street, so we'll need charging infrastructure first. It's a catch 22!

Great points! I've hear people hypothesize that Tesla is the way our government gets the charging station infrastructure needed to fuel the next generation of vehicles, EV's. Debt will rise to the point where the company will fold and the investors/bond holders will take the hit. If this is true, then the government will get what they want by supporting Tesla - at least for the time being.

I recall a company called Global Crossing that was used to connect the world via fiber optic lines. They went belly up and the assets were sold at fire sale prices. I remember reading the press releases - all hype, yet the company kept piling on the debt and losing money.

You make a good point. We do need to show that we're trying to be environmentally friendly, which includes a push for EV cars. The world is trying to reduce CO2 emissions and what better way for America to show the world that we're leading the way.

Thanks for sharing!

Nano crystal Electricity technology and Tesla the namesake, if he can put these together in time he wins. There is definitely a production problem in the mix, I expect we see a shakeup in the management crew, he is getting bad advice which is translating into a market that is playing short on him. I suspect some of his costs are out of line because of the name Tesla, which has become synonymous with throw money at it and we can fix anything. The $10,000.00 earning per vehicle is a little bit low for where he needs to be in respect to volume , and this is where I suspect we see some of the bad advice coming in. Henry built his vehicle for the people, Elon needs to readjust to fit the needs of the people.

Nano Crystal Electricity? Do you think we'll be able to make it feasible for industrial use and consumer use?

New management will be the key to turning the company around. I believe Tesla will need to bring in a new CEO who understands how to run a car business, yet is open to a new way of doing things. Musk is a brilliant man, but I think he has too much on his plate.

Elon is an exceptional guy, and when he puts his full energy to a problem, he seems like he usually solves it. Although he has failed to hit his production goals to date, there isn't any lack of demand for his model 3. He's recently admitted that he tried to over-automate the process and he's now getting more workers in the process.

A lot of the hold up has been due to the failures of third party contractors to provide the parts at the specs they promised within the time they promised. Musk is currently aggressively reviewing these contractors and making the necessary changes to get things on track.

Tesla is currently producing 2,000 cars a week. Elon has indicated he'd like to get to 6,000 cars a week, which would be 312,000 cars a year. At 35,000 per car, that is ten billion dollars in revenue. Do I think he will hit all these goals? No. However, I think people are forgetting that he's not just making cars, he's selling cars. So as model 3 production increases, the cash flow issues you describe will go away.

I'd be a lot more worried if he couldn't sell the cars. Production problems can be solved. People not wanting to buy your car is a hard problem to fix.

The company will be fine in my opinion. The stock sells at a high premium so I expect it will be pretty volatile over the next few years. Just be careful deferring to common sense when dealing with uncommon talent. Elon is undeniably a highly motivated, uncommon talent. I think it's a bad idea to bet against him.

One thing is,... like all entrepreneurs if they fully knew before hand what they have to go through to solve the issues... there's a good chance we'd still be living in caves hoping someone will invent something to keep us warm.

Lol, I definitely agree. I'll say this, I admire the heck out of Elon Musk, but I wouldn't want to be him.

same here...

Bayes, I enjoyed reading your post. Great information and I'm on board with Elon being an exceptional guy. I believe he has too much on his plate and as brilliant as he is, I think he's in over his head. Only time will tell.

The next question is can he sell 312,000 Model 3's in a year? Not including pick up trucks, there were only seven cars that sold over 312,000 copies in 2017. The Prius wasn't even close at 108K units.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan have an extensive dealer network to sell the cars and maintain them. Not to mention take care of warranty repairs and customer service issues. Currently, Tesla doesn't have the infrastructure to take care of these important functions, so there will be more hiring and additional cost. The $10K profit per copy will dwindle down as these expenses are added. This is another reason why I believe it's a good short.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

There has been a lot of food for thought by many intelligent people on this forum.

My two cents worth. Amazon lost millions when first started now look at it. However

electric cars are a whole different ballgame. They are the future, hopefully the price will come down where it is affordable for the commoner before Mr. Musk goes broke.

oilcan13

Amazon lost millions when first started now look at it.

Amazon first started out in the founders car garage....

in all seriousness, did Amazon lose millions, or was the return on its investments just delayed.

I think Amazon is a whole different issue. They could have been profitable very early on but were deferring profits while they invested in drones, hollowed out volcanoes, rockets, and listening devices that people would willingly put in their houses (Alexa). Notice only one of the things I listed was made up. Jeff Bezos is up to something. We should keep an eye on that guy.

Seriously though, I think a better comparison to Tesla would be SpaceX. There was a clear vision, a ton of risk, some daunting obstacles that needed to be overcome, and it almost went bankrupt due to spiraling costs and only the promise of future revenues. Somehow Musk made it work (barely) and now the company is incredibly strong. Of course, SpaceX's success is no guarantee for Tesla or even SpaceX's continued success.

Space X is a good example,... I read a story about how the Russians treated Musk when he wanted to purchase rocket engines from them, and Musk response.

If you find that story can you send me it? I'd like to read that.

Don't know if this is the specific article referred to....

https://www.inverse.com/article/34976-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-tried-to-buy-icbm-rockets-from-russia

That's very close what I had read.

lol, I love the individual vodka bottle for each guy. Even if you're only doing half shots that's about 15 drinks in an hour. I would have passed out too.

I would have loved to see Musk passed out on the table...

How can you say that the electric car is the future. It seems to me that you are a victim of the propaganda machine that is currently advocating to replace free market and capitalism with an socialistic system. See the present political platform of the Democrats (capitalism cannot solve wealth creation etc. and is pure evil) To make CO2 the culprit for Global Warming and therefore a need to ban it is nothing more than to bring the western societies down and redistribute global wealth. The push for this comes form the UN, the EU and the very rich, including Jeff Bezos who owns the Washington Post. To me a very despicable paper.

Luckily, at least so far, global socialism was not achievable.

Without fossil fuels you can't even make steel. There is no replacement for crude oil, it is the only fuel that provides us with cheap, plenty and reliable energy. CO2 at 1 molecule vs about 2500 molecules of water vapor at ground level (at high altitude it is even less) can have a temperature changing impact? Come on, now. Also, it is accepted that CO2 is a weak green house gas. Mixing a weak substance (CO2) to a composition (air, water vapor and others) should make the overall strength of that composition weaker not stronger as is claimed. Does this not make sense? In chemistry it does.

CO2 is heavier than air by a factor of 1.5 and stays mostly at ground level where it is needed for plant growth including food crops. Nature gave us the renewable crude oil as it is constantly formed by high temperature an pressure underground.

Volcanoes are also for the purpose of spewing out CO2 to keep the planet's vegetation and animal life alive. (At a very low level of CO2 people and animals die, plants of curse too).

Even the advocates of Climate Change says it does not matter if CO2 is good or bad as long as the public believes it is bad and therefor must be banned. The scare of sea level rise and else is nothing more than people control, a socialistic tool. After all, we would not like to live like being in Russia or China of old under a communistic system with no private ownership or free enterprise and where the state tells you what you do and what your job is. Millions died under Mao, in Russia too, not to mention Mussolini, Hitler, Paul Pot and more.

Is it possible in the 'free' USA? You bet it is. We all must wake up.

As a comment to the original poster, I think once the general public knows that more CO2 is needed rather than less as it is beneficial, electrification of transport will die and Tesla too.

hey,... innovations come from dreams... let them dream...

I like this one....

This is blatantly off topic, political drivel, or propaganda.

There used to be a blow hard know-it-all member, tmctech, who shared your views.

He boasted many times that because he, "had run the numbers,*" advocates of climate change (never mind the fact that the Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years [NOT just 6,000]) were simply ignorant and the more CO² the Earth's atmosphere/gravity could accumulate the better off we'd all be.

Electric vehicles are here to stay, so are electric aircraft, at least until Yellowstone blows and obliterates most of us.

We'll all be dead before the ugly truth rears its head.

* Don't recall ever seeing those numbers.

Lyn,

you are not really commenting to anything I said but only issue opposing statements. The propaganda you refer to is coming form the main media.

You believe the main stream statements, the politician Al Gore and the paid IPCC's 'scientist' of the UN who's only mandate it is to show that CO2 is bad. The activity of the sun, which provides our temperature, and many other factors are totally excluded. Just see the many predictions by Al Gore and none have even become remotely true. Computer models cannot predict future temperatures. Garbage in garbage out. By 'garbage' I mean incomplete information.

My comments are not off topic at all as it answers the underlying question of the poster.

I see however, that more posters on this forum are on your side which is unfortunate for a scientifically minded and hopefully critical thinking community.

If you are an engineer or scientist then check out the website of the Heartland Institute on Global Warming / Climate Change. There you find proof that CO2 is good and more is better. CO2 has nothing to do with warming the planet. CO2 is a result of warming. BTW, we have a pause in warming for close to 20 years which is normal as temperature is cyclic. We are more likely to get a downturn in temperature rather then warming. This is why Global Warming has been changed to Climate Change which is an even more useless definition. If climates would not change the earth would be dead.

Not that you ever had any credibility, but your reference to a conservative propaganda machine just proves that you have no knowledge of the Earth, how it acts with time nor any intelligent argument of fact.

This organization is a scam and a fount of lies, known by your ilk as alternative facts.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.^{[2][3]:233–34[4]} In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.^[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,^[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.^[8]

Don't waste your breath; 500 years after Columbus and a 1000 after the Norse flat earthers still got to believe in sea monsters and sailing off the edge.

Well, I totally disagree with you.

In my view you have absolutely no credibility either just like I have none in your view. It is a matter what science is real and which is fake. For one, consensus is not science. Science is establishing a theses and then to prove or disprove it. On your side, there is no discussion allowed, no proving or disproving, the science is settled, you guys won't even dare to discuss it. Afraid of something?

You are a believer of the Liberal / Leftist propaganda machine. It needs to be proven if the left or the conservative propaganda machine is right.

At least we have scientific rhyme and reason for our statements while you have Al Gore and the IPCC, an instrument by the left founded by the UN who wants to redistribute the wealth. To do so the masses have to be scared into submission. You are a perfect example of a wonderful sheep just like the left wants everybody to be to be manipulated to their liking.

Here is another link you may want to consider watching. It outlines how it works by DeWeese. Did you ever here of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030? The conservative are trying their best to move the masses out of the present trend to a socialistic world and a one world government. Once that happens it will be too late to change your mind.

Tom DeWeese presents the history and purpose of Agenda 21/30 and how this internationally-driven policy is transforming America.

https://americanpolicy.org/2017/10/31/tom-deweese-presents-the-history-and-purpose-of-agenda-2130-and-how-this-internationally-driven-policy-is-transforming-america/

Do you consider Prof. Ivar Giaever also senile?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?2v=SXxHfb66ZgM 32 Nobel Laureate in Physics, from Norway, Professor Ivar Giaever,

or these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRpZivQDHw&t=90s Willie Soon good 63 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbo8Ods8M0 Tim Ball 2016, 58 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXSRam6XPDI 20min Lord Monckton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDNcWxvy4ds 64 min Lord Monckton data details, Moral talk ending,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGY_vicEG3w Will Happer, 36 min, A bit boring in between but ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdZmj-GaK6E 41 min Geo engineering, Jim Lee, weather mods,

I know there are many sites on both sides of the argument. It is hardly worth listing them. At least for scientifically minded people my links make sense, your side only make opposing statements without any merit or scientific basis. The followers of the leftist propaganda are devoid of critical thinking.

One more, the platform of the Democratic Platform vs the Communist Manifesto,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAXVZGog2DY 3:14 min Ami Horowitz, Democratic Platform vs Communist Manifesto,

and this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/18/trap-was-set-well-trump-won/

A good article, saying the trouble for Trump began way before he was elected. The establishment wants its power back.

All as back up to the question if Tesla can survive.

You said, "Do you consider Prof. Ivar Giaever also senile?"

Absolutely, and a quack too! Fools rush in to follow other fools like this clown!

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate ...

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

Ivar Giaever: Nobel Icon For Climate Deniers, and Philip Morris ...

The Nobel prize has really lost its luster.

Lyn,

thanks for the links. I had not seen any of these before. All they do is belittle the scientist and make him look bad.

However, not a thread of counter evidence, only character assassination. That is so typical of the scare mongers. Make every skeptic look bad, but never any technical or scientific evidence or analysis of why he is wrong or pointing out evidence to the contrary. It is all trash talk.

As far as the speech by Obama goes, yes he was 100% wrong and a traitor to the country. It was a political speech without any scientific basis whatsoever.

By you listening to and believing these character assassination of real scientists I know you have absolutely no technical or scientific understanding. It is worse than I had thought. How can you in good faith write what you write and believe in the links you send? That is beyond comprehension.

A Nobel prize is not a guarantee of universal competence, and we are entitled to be sceptical when a scientist moves from his own area. Tunnelling phenomena and climate change are two totally disparate sciences.

He is not the only Nobel laureate to have got it wrong in another discipline, Linus Pauling and vitamin C being another example.

Good point.

I am offsetting the OT vote you received as it seems like a vote of disagreement rather than a statement about on-topic-ness. It is off topic, but no less so than several other comments that have not attracted the anti-good-answer rating.

It's good to see when progress is made. But, so many times, people just jump in head first into the deep-end without testing the waters/ability. Elon Musk seems to balancing a lot of spinning-plates-on-poles without ever getting any of them stable. My gut feeling, is that a lot of people jumped on some glittery-band-wagons too quickly, and now they're feeling the growing pains. They can all still recover, as long as they do an honest reality-check once in awhile.

There is definitely a bit of what you're saying with Elon Musk. He is notorious for underestimating the difficulty and overpromising on timelines and benchmarks.

Yes, he still overpromises. I think this is what got Tesla in trouble. Can he get Tesla out of trouble? That's the big question.

So true. Entrepreneurs are known to underestimate the difficulties involved in their venture. I believe it's okay, since these "visionaries" create progress and innovation.

As the company grows, most entrepreneurs need to step out of the way and let the operations experts take over. Most times.

Personally, I would not bet against him at this stage.

In the history of America, progress occurs when an exceptional individual decided to do something everyone else says can't be done. (like landing rockets on boats) I heard a lot of people say it couldn't be done.

Granted, in the good old days we didn't have the government acting as agents of chaos for those companies that got caught flat footed resting on their infallibility by interfering with the start ups development.

Also, the financials change with every single car that rolls out, because unlike other car companies, Tesla does not have inventory. When they roll one out the door it is already sold.

Thanks for your input. Even though a short looks like a no brainer, there's the success of SpaceX that must be considered.

Why would the success of SpaceX a consideration of significant relating to a short position on Tesla stock?

SpaceX is a private company. SpaceX is not a supplier nor notable customer for Tesla, AFAIK. Shares of Tesla shouldn't show much effect from SpaceX performance.

It has to do with the success of SpaceX and the founder. Elon Musk almost lost Tesla a few years ago, but he brought it back from near death. SpaceX was on the brink of collapsing at the same time and he brought it back too.

I believe a lot of people made the decision to buy TSLA, due to Elon. It can go both ways. To be long on TSLA, you have to believe in Elon and his ability to get the job done. What if Elon isn't the superman they believe him to be? Or as I've posted, he just has too much on his plate? This is one of the reasons I believe a short could be a big winner. The longs are too bullish and I believe the stock is overvalued. I believe they're wrong, so that's why I think it's good short.

Elon will agree with you on that. He too believes the stock is over valued. But that just makes the game more interesting. I am one of those who bought low, 47.00 a share. I intend to hold this one. Not due to it's ridiculous rise or it's short potential but, as you note, I believe he will make it work. Activist investing if you will.

It is good to remember that SpaceX would not be where it is today had it been publicly held. Sometimes its better to go it alone. Far fewer armchair quarterbacks to deal with and your companies value is based only on what your company can and can't do, not on what third party kibitzers say.

Wow, you got in at a great place. You know, options are also overpriced too. Have you thought about selling call options (out of the money) and reaping the premiums? For instance, you could sell Jan 2019 400 calls for $14 or $1,400 per contract (100 options). If it goes over 400 at the end of the option (Jan 2019), you will get called out and have to give them your stock at $400/share, or you can buy the option at whatever the new price is. If it's below $400/share, the option expires worthless. One other play is to sell the option at $14 and watch the stock. If it's at $380 in December and you think it may hit $400 and you don't want to lose your shares, you can buy the option back at market, which should be $8. Then you can sell the Jan 2020 500 call for $16 or so.

When you sell an option, you get the money right away and it's your to keep. Consider it as collecting rent on an asset you own.

I agree - SpaceX wouldn't be where it is if it were publicly held. It's much easier to get things done and move quickly. Much less red tape and jumping through hoops!

Elon Musk has publicly stated that the Tesla cars are as much a loss leader as a profit center. They are his promotion and technology development tool for the totally unsexy batteries needed for household/ business plant (fly over Indianapolis someday to see a multitude of the "40-acres and a mule size" business plant solar farms) power walls and grid level electric storage infrastructure farms. Like the now ever present data farms that drive the various clouds there is an infrastructure demand lead time involved. In 2004 I saw my first data farm being built for a national scale banking/ finance corporation. It was gigantic beyond anything you could imagine. By the end of 2005 that corporation had 3 in the State of Texas alone. Now these are run-of-the-mill moderate in size. The question of Tesla's survival is will grid infrastructure demand, in particular solar power storage as every wind production K-volt is in instantaneous demand, comes on line at a rapid enough rate to make his lithium battery mega-plant profitable? At the craps and roulette tables in Vegas it's called "betting on the come"; the casinos love that sort of gambler.

Can you provide some links for some of the claims you have made you above comment?

Specifically for:

"... Elon Musk has publicly stated that the Tesla cars are as much a loss leader as a profit center. ..."

And

"... every wind production K-volt is in instantaneous demand, ..."

.

The first statement is absurd and if Musk is saying that type of thing, perhaps Tesla really is in far more trouble. A loss leader is by definition not sold at a profit and so cannot be a 'profit center'.

The second statement seems odd but I'm interested to learn more. Your specification of 'K-volt' leaves me less than enthusiastic about the prospects of you having this right though.

=

??????

oooo,... I forgot about that.

Tesla may not make it, just as many car manufacturers went under or were swallowed up by larger concerns.

But when charging and service facilities become as numerous as those for ICE's, electric cars WILL become "practical".

It'll be interesting to see that many charging stations and who will pay the cost to build them. The alternative will be to increase the range, so not as many stations are needed and cars can be charged at home or at work. And be charged easily - people won't want to plug in their car every night and unplug in the morning (and the same at work), so induction charging may be the future - like the Qi phone charger in cars.

Until the infrastructure is built, EV's will have a hard time being accepted by the masses and 312,000 units of production will be hard to get rid of when all the first adopters have Tesla's in their garages.

What do you guys think of these three EV's.

Faraday Future:

Nio

Lucid

Here's an update from a Bloomberg analyst who has flipped from bull to bear...

Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see TSLA rally back to over 300, but it doesn't hold for this stock. Seems like something keeps pulling it below 300. Could be the shorts, longs taking profits or insider selling.

I did wind up shorting the stock and then covering for a quick profit. I hope I didn't make a mistake, but I sold puts naked trying to make a little more profit. The premium is so high on these options, so I saw what I think is an opportunity. My plan is based on the stock holding above the last low of 252 until after the next earnings. If it works, the puts will expire worthless and I'm out of TSLA.

In hindsight, what I should've done is to either cover the puts when the stock got over 300 or buy some puts and create a put spread.

I think I'm okay with the naked puts, since 270 has held and even with all the bad news, TSLA still is in the 300 range.

Wish me luck!

First, I have to say that I don't know a thing about traditional investing. But, for some reason, I was interested in these comments. For me, the only strategy one needs, is invest in what you want to succeed, and buy-out what isn't succeeding. That way, the best survives (regardless of profit). What I don't understand, is why someone would want to take short-term profits from a struggling good-thing and cause a premature death. In that sense, the puttz will expire worthless and I'm out of the game. Comments?

What I don't understand, is why someone would want to take short-term profits from a struggling good-thing and cause a premature death.

The answer to that is GREED. Where there is no emotion or attachment.

Hi Dennis,

I have learned over the years that the "traditional" way of investing isn't for me. I have learned what works best for me is to find "holes" in the market and hit them fast and hard. My success rate is pretty good and I only trade when I find these anomalies.

I don't trust Wall Street. I feel the game is rigged, so instead of doing what they advise, which is buy and hold, I've learned to do something different.

The "holes" I look for are when the fundamentals and news doesn't match what the industry experts say. For instance, Tesla has made numerous claims that the company couldn't fulfill. The news was mostly bad, yet the stock was holding in the 300 range. Also, the industry data shows that they were not performing as expected, so the "numbers" were going to be weak. I used this information and made a choice to short the stock. With some help from those here, I chose a place to close out my position and when I watched the action after the earnings report came out (next day trading), I knew the shorts had run out of gas, so I closed my position and took my profit.

The other thing I did is to look at the put option prices. I felt they are overpriced, so it's an opportunity to sell the options to someone who feels they are fairly priced.

The trade could've gone wrong and the company could've posted strong earnings, but I had an exit plan if it happened. Luckily for me, it didn't.

The situation surrounding Tesla makes this an even more interesting game. Obviously large amounts of money are moving in the background. There are forces working to derail and destroy Tesla because it is a fundamental threat to their income levels even as they hike the prices to gouge that extra billion out of us over the summer. Thanks so much.

There is yet another powerful group working against Tesla as well. All those who were caught flat footed when the Electric car finally caught on. Now they are trying to preserve market share by attacking instead of innovating. This is a clear example that we, as an industrial nation, have lost our way.

How many pure electrics are out there from the big three?

How many from the Japanese big three?

How about Europe?

Then there is China.

As a result, I tend to trust the reports from those trade publications that deal with innovation, progress and the future. I have found far too many inaccuracies (that’s being generous) in certain mainstream financial publications. Not surprisingly they are heavily advertised in by oil, gas, fossil energy supply, and auto companies.

Ultimately it is up to what your purpose for investing in Tesla was.

I like the fact that Tesla has created a "new" brand that's an alternative to the existing auto companies. I think it's a major undertaking and I applaud Elon Musk for attempting something that so many have failed to do in the past.

I understand that there are many flaws in the design and build quality of the Tesla cars. When I read the story about the man who disassembled a Model 3. His critique is correct and there are many issues with the car. The initial first adopters love it, because that's who those people are. They don't see the flaws and instead see the car for more than it is. As long as we all understand that's how these people see things, we're okay. The problem will arise when the general public starts buying these cars. They may not be as forgiving and when they have problems or they run out of electricity, we'll see lots and lots of them coming back on trade in. Also, I see many orders being cancelled too, as the novelty of owning a Tesla wear off.

Add to this the Chinese companies who are in the process of building/designing EV's, which will bring competition and price wars ... and sometime in the future, the government is going to drop the tax credits; this is not a good sign for Tesla.

For the longer term, I see the cracks in the foundation. Will the company go under? I don't know. What I do know is that this company isn't worth as much as Ford. That's why this is a good short and selling out of the money puts and calls is a pretty good strategy. It all depends on the timing, which one can get insight from reading the charts.

For those who aren't experienced investors, please don't follow what I do. It's very risky if you don't have the experience or the understanding of how Wall Street works.