Does anyone have a link to the articles detailing how Musk committed stock fraud by saying that everything was fine and that they were on track to meeting their 5000/month production this month, a few weeks before the conference call admitting production was screwed/pushed back a quarter? I can't find it, there were a couple of articles detailing it.

If you don't put the word "fraud" in google when you are searching, you should be able to find all the articles about TSLA not making its production targets.

You cannot be convicted of stock fraud for overpromising and under delivering, even if you do so consistently every other Monday afternoon for 10 years straight. Any article stating that such a thing is "committing stock fraud" should be ridiculed for not even knowing what "committing stock fraud" means. If you are reading such articles, make sure that you do a fact check on any ancillary claim the article makes, since such a silly factual error shouldn't have gotten past even the sleepiest editor.

It's not a case of not making production targets. It's a case of knowingly omitting material information, and lying to investors. Three weeks before Musk admitted that they were 3+ months behind their targets, they had not altered guidance to hit a run of 5000 M3s/week at the end of December, and had also said:
The state of production and tooling was such that at this point, meeting their targets was completely impossible; there was no possible way for them to even get half of the run rate claimed by December. As such, Musk omitted and lied to his shareholders. This isn't a case of excess exuberance. It's a case of knowing that production has fallen far behind, can't even come close to meeting previously given and not-updated targets, and giving a false picture of the state of production. There are lawsuits pending based on these falsehoods. Some people here no doubt lost 20+% of their investments because of Musk's lies (and the fact that they were too stupid to realize that $380 was a screaming sell, even when told).

Bitcoin to the moon, Tesla to Mars.

Maybe some news about Tesla that the bears aren't covering:
- Tesla met the 100+ MWh battery facility deadline
- Daimler test drove and "wrecked" a Tesla for seven weeks during the summer. Took the entire car apart and news covering it as Daimler being behind and trying to learn from Tesla.

Dude that was always a lock. He was using Samsung batteries, so there were no supply issues like Musk has when he tries and fails at manufacturing things in house. Did you know that the batteries were made by Samsung? Bet you didn't - weird that their "Gigafactory" still isn't' functioning properly years after it was built and supposed to be completed, no? And that he had to go crawling to a competitor and pay retail price rather than use his own cells? The contract was also set up such that it was half built by the time the 100 days was signed.

It was a PR gimmick, designed to fool rubes, like most things Musk does.
This is what car makers do (or any large industry) - test and evaluate the competition. There's nothing to see here.

No, what you've been misunderstanding is the difference between battery cells (which Tesla never produced, they've always been done by others - Panasonic is the partner for the Gigafactory) and battery packs such as the Powerwall and others. The cells are from Samsung because Panasonic (!) couldn't meet demand. Why do you always have so much trouble getting basic facts about the supply chain right? It's so absurd. This isn't even a hidden secret. Read about it here (a very pro-Tesla website):
https://electrek.co/2017/08/09/tesla...-cell-samsung/

I am flabbergasted that you think what Samsung and Panasonic are doing is exactly the same as Tesla. Tesla partnered with Panasonic on the Gigafactory (where the packs were assembled) to have a closer relationship.

Yes and no. They do buy (not rent, as it was here) in a lot of cases. But usually not years after the car was introduced and no major changes to the product.

I'm not misunderstanding. I'm pointing out how completely absurd it is that Tesla is in partnership with a battery maker, has built a multi-billion dollar factory together which was supposed to be in full production as of now, and is crawling to a different battery maker and competitor to fill orders. Do you think that is a good thing?

Oh, and Tesla energy products absolutely are competing with Samsung. Samsung SDI Energy Storage Systems produces everything from home battery packs to MWh grid storage.

http://www.samsungsdi.com/ess/index.html

Everything is exactly as I said it was so I'm not sure what your post is about?

Tesla has been extremely open about partnering with other cell manufacturers. We've had discussions when LG was supposed to be ahead in the game by miles (according to yours truly Toothsayer).

Samsung offers the full range but Tesla is not competing on battery cells. That's what I was trying to say. They will never build them and Samsung was not able to compete on price for the full packs.

I want you to stop and think how dumb this statement is.

Samsung makes the batteries (by far the largest component) and has the most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world. It is your claim that Samsung was not able to compete on price for the pack (citation?), which involves a controller and some plastic housing and some welds on top of the cells.

If Samsung had not been able to compete on price, why would this be the case?

a) Tesla lost money on this installation?
b) Tesla is so great at putting a plastic shell around and a controller in a battery pack and hiring contractors to wire it up that it could make them cheaper than Samsung despite paying Samsung a premium for the batteries (by far the largest cost)?

This is a test for whether your IQ is over 3. Choose wisely.

Batteries aren't commodities.

Need more direct contradictions.

Tesla US delivering were way down QoQ, maybe they are implementing spurious idea to stop selling in US to save the FIT credit

What I don't get, is that tesla has about 500m in working capital at the end of Q3, with deliveries slowing, are they just not paying vendors Now? They need to raise probably 3-4B easy to stay afloat through 2018 and that's probably best case.


Any chance they are holding off till February to pay the insider (musk) 100m loan then announcing a raise? .....idk, really can't figure out why they haven't announced the equity raise yet, so obvious they have to even if they did get 500m in deposits which I highly highly doubt

I'm 100% certain Tesla is already working on a capital raise in the very near future. They'll announce it as soon as they manage to get a piece of good news out (like Model 3 hitting 10k deliveries and/or 1k/week model 3 production (notice I am not even bothering with 5k. I don't think anyone, bulls included, believed that was happening in 2017 anyway.)

Things gonna reallly hit the fan if Tesla fails to reach mass production (which I arbitrarily say is 1000/week) by the end of March, which is probably what investors actually expected all along. If they can't get even 1000, or something resembling mass production (even 200 may be okay), after 8 months in production (really, probably more like 6, judging by how "manual" or primitive the first two months looked).

I think investors will be satisfied with 5000/wk by the end of 2018. They'd be super happy (like Tesla stock taking off happy) if 5000/week happens by June or something.

Again, it's the business knowledge that fails you. Just because assembling it might be relatively cheap, doesn't mean they could have delivered the entire thing. You know that this was including installation? You know that a business has other costs to account for like overhead, profit margin, etc.?

How do you know Tesla paid a premium for the batteries?

I assumed that Samsung had at least competed in the project given that Tesla beat 90 other competitors.

It's you who is utterly clueless about business. You come across to people here as a dope smoking uni student who has zero clue how the world works.

Samsung couldn't deliver the entire thing? lol?

Here's your idiotic claim above:
I'll offer you the choice again. It's not a difficult one:
It's like you want something to be true so you believe it is. Tesla cannot outcompete Samsung on the cost of building and installing this, especially when buying Samsung's cells. This is instantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain. What competitive advantages do Tesla have? Labor costs? No. Economies of scale? No. Making the components in-house (no, in fact Samsung have Tesla greatly beat on this). Component manufacture? No. Know how? No. They can however lose money for free PR.

I said compete - for whatever reason they beat Samsung is irrelevant. Samsung couldn't win it and they most likely competed.
You have this fantasy where large corporations are those super-efficient machines that destroy everyone who is smaller as soon as they enter the market. I am not sure where you get this idea from but there is a reason your projections on Tesla, Netflix and most likely some other "smaller" tech companies have been spectacularly wrong.

I can only encourage you to read my first post ITT when you claimed that Apple's entrance into the market would destroy Tesla. You see only black and it clouds your judgement. You post a Lamborghini article about a self-healing car and say this is awesome whereas the same claim by Musk would have you outraged.

I hope people don't short Tesla because you encouraged them to do so. The way you talk and feel about Tesla is certainly not shared by the boardrooms of large car manufacturers and other large corporations.

to me it seems like unofficially Samsung did win

It's hilarious that you just assume. And it's obvious that you got owned above.
No, but this is true for the car market. It's true for a quite a few markets actually.
Reality? How many car startups have grown to the size of a major in the last two decades? How many have surpassed the majors (the bull case for Tesla)?
My projections on Tesla have been excellent. They've been far better than Musk's. And he runs the company.
You're really not very bright. Here's what happened:

1) Multiple reliable media reported that Apple was likely entering the electric car space in force, throwing everything at it.
2) If those reports were true, Tesla was finished for sure, as Apple can afford to outspend Tesla for Valley talent of all kinds, and takes PR share away. The drain of talent at key points is enough to kill a startup. Indeed, Tesla ran into serious issues with Model X from talent drain.
3) A few months later, these reports of Apple developing its own turned out not to be true. Obviously, at this point the thesis is done. And Tesla went down during that period, so people made money.
If people traded Tesla on my say so, they made good money. My first post in this thread is exhorting people not to short. I never encouraged anyone to short Tesla. I did encourage them to sell it at $380 - called it a screaming sell in fact - while clowns like you kept pumping and drinking the Kool Aid. Whose advice was better?

Horrible advice, right? Tesla is now $308 (-25%) while QQQ is +10% over the same period. Imagine where Tesla would be if the tech market wasn't ripping higher every day. $200? It's extremely high beta.
So now you have insight into what is said in the boardrooms of large car manufacturers and other corporations, just like you claim insight into Samsung? You're insane. You just imagine what you want to be true - the largest stored power installer on Earth "can't compete" with Tesla (who buys the cells from them no less), the majors worth a trillion in capital while making a nice profit who outsell Tesla 10:1 on electrics "can't compete" with Tesla, the tax credit isn't a problem for M3 because "Tesla can just stop selling in North America for a while"

You are insane dude. The last one in particular has people rolling on the floors and wiping their eyes. You have zero clue how business works, you are a rolled gold fool. The last comment is proof.

I say this for your own good. Other people in this thread there is least some doubt. Perhaps Mikhel actually has a brain. People ChipRick is just uneducated/not very good thinking about things. But you don't know up from down. You're the Tesla thread equivalent of Karl Pilkington.

worth repeating

I mean are you dense? This is exactly not what happened. They turned out to be true and Musk called them out. They later one pivoted and now do something else. This is hilarious. You got owned and now try to cover up your obvious incorrect claim.

Nope, I was on the same trade as you were. The one that is currently at like -14% (not the one where you called Tesla a longterm worthless company at $180):
I never advocated to buy Tesla above $300.

Your trade ideas are worthless because you just keep on saying to sell, sell, sell and eventually you'll be right.

Unlike you, I don't need absurd websites to prove my claim (remember mass manufacturing of batteries or the blog that claimed something about the Gigafactory that was obviously false?).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-v...-idUSKBN1AK261
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1167633.html

It's so ****ing cheap to just attack, attack and attack. Why do you not even do a basic amount of research. Maybe the largest car maker in the world has those discussions exclusively but at least the largest car maker in the world has them.
Certainly other executives talk about Tesla.

If there is a binary contest and only one successful triumphant, it is obvious that they weren't able to compete at the prices offered.

Given that you still don't have a clue how the credits work and why I made this comment:
The credit works in two ways. The full credit is granted to 200'000 cars, afterwards the credit is halved for 6 months and then halved again for another 6 months. The first one makes no sense to slow down because it's on absolute numbers anyways. The second grace period makes absolutely sense to postpone. When you are starting the grace period while you are manufacturing 1500 cars per week and your optimum is at 7500 cars per week, you are losing 6'000 potential customers because they can't get the 50% credit. Same goes for the 25% credit. That's why I said and still claim that they should be postponing the NA sales in the first phase (the 200'000 period) if they use up the supply before they are ready. No one has been able to claim why this makes absolutely no sense or has any proof that this will not happen.

They did win the portion for the battery cells. Far from the entire contract and given the reason why Tesla chose them it's likely that they made money on it. It doesn't mean that they were able to compete on the prices or the timeline. Why is this so difficult to understand?

This is pretty good advice though. A big part of being plus +ev in trading/investing is not putting in money that's -ev.

More of this "trading record". I've already pointed out you openly lied about your "Trades" in another thread. I would venture whoever followed your trades ITT would be a massive loser.

Spurious,
I'm aware of everything that you listed and far more.

I have strongly advised to not short Tesla and to buy Tesla in this thread. My only bad sell recommendation was at $270; the rest have been spot on with a large move my way over the following weeks/months and time to take profits/get out/stop at breakeven.
See, this is how everyone knows you're a dope smoking uni student.

You can't just ****ing stop selling in your primary market. What the **** dude?

Are they going to stop offering the Model S and X too in North America under your brilliant plan? Because those will chew through the remaining credits in months, and you've achieved precisely nothing.

I mean, I get the logic (If they're supply constrained, why not save up the credit and sell in the other markets?) and this is what makes so completely hilarious - you're ignoring/not understanding 10+ basic business realities. You do this in everything Tesla related - it's all malleable in your head, everything can be bent so that Tesla comes out on top.

Citation please. I have you on ignore, don't read many of your posts. I have never lied about a trade, and have posted many in real time.

Was it the one where I made $50K profit in an hour trading Tesla, and posted the entry and exit points in real time (proving the trade was genuinely successful)?

And you thought the $50K profit in my screenshot was my account size and not the trade profits, because you're an Aspie moron who doesn't even trade and doesn't know what a trading screen looks like? Was it that one? If so, lol.

If not, please cite your claim that a trade I posted was a lie. I've never posted a false trade.