Ya, I don't understand how Tesla fanboys can support the narrative of "quality". Despite having infinitely less complexity than ICE vehicles they have significantly more problems. Weird.

That being said. Good time to lol at TS for his ~$150 prediction. God. I can't even imagine how much you'd be down if you actually traded.

A friend of mine that owns a Tesla just steps on the “gas” everyone someone asks him about quality.

Your friend is a moron

lolz

lol @ entertaining the TS trading fantasy.

O/u on Tesla weekly production of Model 3 that Musk will announce on Wednesday?

I'll take the under on whatever he says

Tesla first car in space

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...6tY1c#t=33m30s
Have to admit Elon's quite a showman

Haha i mean, he's burned through 10+bn in cash but no company on earth would've generated such hype and such a strong brand with just 10bn at their disposal. That's gotta be worth something.

Did enough to meet expectations.

Lol Tesla bears.

180m in ZEV credits, over $1 per share worth


So ya, enormous miss in reality

Elon just insulted how slow other car manufacturers make cars, then brought up they should need to consider air friction


So he is really doubling down on air friction analogies

What exactly did it do to meet expectations? They lost a fortune, worse than expected by far, including $1 on SCTY which was hidden in the accounting, and boosted $1 by temporary ZEV credits of $1.

We already knew the delivery numbers, they were reported a month ago. The only question/new information was the profit (disaster) and the run rate...and Musk dodged it multiple times, not answering. Because to tell the truth would crater the stock.

The conference call was a train wreck. Have a listen to it. This bit in particular is proof of securities fraud and everything I've been saying about Musk:

Here's his answer - he flat out ignored the question about the production run rate, despite quoting "1000 per week in the last week of December" last month.

At what point were shareholders informed that the underlined was the case? When Musk doubled down on "5000/week run rate by the end of 2017" just a few months before that target, this would have been known. Which means this was a deliberate lie to his shareholders, some of whom bought more or held at $380. When he shifted it out to Q1 2017, that was also never possible.

These weren't optimistic targets. They were never possible - not even 1/5th was possible - as Musk straight up admits above. Yet no disclosure of these problems, while doubling down on the impossible target.

This is just blatant stock fraud.

It's confusing the way he doubles down on air friction analogies while sending cars off into space.

listening to musk stutter and avoid the simplest questions on the webcast, i honestly have not the slightest clue how people can buy this stock at >300$ and expect it to be the best investment they can make.

tsla earning calls are absurd.

It all boils down to something very simple: It is far, far easier to make advances in rocket technology than it is to profitably mass produce cars.

The Musk cultists don't get that. Their redneck-level minds go "hurr durr rockets!!! cars easy! Tesla win!" Musk even did a shoutout to his rednecks with exactly this concept. In essence: "Guys, I put a car in space! I can certainly mass produce one! Trust me!"

When you do realize the difficulty differential, you realize what's going on and why these screw ups keep happening. A successful profitable volume car manufacturer is beyond Musk's competence. His hubris is so high he thinks he can vertically integrate low cost car manufacturing like he did with rockets.

Complex ecosystems with thin margins and little room for error are many many times more difficult to successfully design than a centrally controlled engineering project like rocket building. They also have far more opportunities for an obsessive, moderately intelligent but not highly intelligence CEO like Musk to make bad mistakes. If Bezos ran Tesla I'd give them a much higher chance. But a loser is in charge and that's not going to change soon.

So far his cult of personality and constant lies and sideshows and a record low volatility bull market have managed to sustain the stock, but at some point he has to deliver - and deliver a low defect product without huge cost - or it craters. Musk has never had a successful business mass manufacturing anything. Let that sink in. He does have the intelligence and ability to be a solid prototyper, or low volume producer of ultra expensive items. But that's a much much lower bar.

Which short - the one I recommended at $270 or the one I recommended as a "screaming sell" at $380 or the one in the trading thread at $350?

I'd have different stops for each...they were different thesis. The middle one was short to mid term thesis on overhyped run with M3 misses likely so I'd cover around $300. The other two were long term.

I'd exit Tesla around $80 I think. I would never sell if it moved against me. Tesla are incapable of taking on the majors and are going to go bankrupt or be bought out for their (non-executive) talent much lower.

Exactly where depends on a lot of things. If the economy stays strong and rates stay low and Tesla limps out some Model 3 that isn't pure AIDS and managed to stay ahead of end stage debt, they might survive to a buyout around $120.

If the economy turns or Model 3 is a disaster, I'd probably let it run closer to zero before covering.

If they brought in a non-loser CEO and kept Musk on for PR and as CEO of sexy car shell design, I might cover around $120. Because they have a small chance of success if Musk is replaced.

I'm starting to come around to the fact that TS is much more correct re:TSLA, or at least much less incorrect than I thought a year ago.

You are absolutely right that niche premium products are an entirely different engineering challenge, and I'd argue much easier, than mass market thin margin products. The problem is TSLA is staffed with people who's experience is in the former and they need to adopt an entirely different paradigm to be successful in the latter.

It's counterintuitive but TSLA's success with the Model S and to a lesser extent Musk's success at SpaceX I think is actually predictive that he will fail at profitably producing the Model 3 and mass market electric cars in general.

That's pretty much my thinking too since I went short @ $340 sometime last year. I'm pretty much willing to wrestle any pops for the time being.

I don't think the company is going to zero; it is certainly worth something but nowhere near where it is now and certainly not if they continue to have cluster****s like last quarter.

Even if they somehow pull out the mother of all miraculous saves out of their ass and hit their production metrics exactly as they stated, that still wouldn't justify the present valuation. As a comparable, Porsche, for example, makes 1.3 billion a year in profit and has a market cap of 29 billion, with over 220k vehicles sold per year.

Like most I cannot understand the value of this stock. I have a buddy though who is an ardent "Musk guy" and fawns over every thing he does. Hasn't a clue about margins or PE ratios. I think this is the biggest thing with this stock. You have these diehards who will never sell no matter what. That's the only explanation.

I did not listen to this call but did the last quarterly one and man does Musk ever stumble and bumble on his answers or straight out not answer a question directly. For such a smart guy he does not speak very eloquently.

In the last 4 posts, no one mentioned the fact that people actually LOVE the product they are producing. It is well documented that Tesla has a very loyal customer base.

Also, Tesla is synonymous with electric cars. When you ask a random person on the street about electric cars they will reply with Tesla. The fact that the bears don't understand this, is why they are so consistently wrong on the stock.

@TS:
- making rockets isn't easy, the saying "it's not rocket science" has been around for a reason.
- Everyone talks about your devastating shorts in the $100s.

I let it go the the first time, but it seems you're so butthurt at me pointing out the facts about Musk you turn into a lying piece of ****. That's what cultists do - it's like when you criticize Hubbard you get a bunch of mindless goons lying about you. The bolded is a flat out lie.

I was arguing against shorting at $100 (my very first post in this thread argues against a short) and have not advocated a long term short till $270. I recommended buying at $150 for a 30+% upward move. I recommended shorting at $380, $350 and $270. Guess how that's going?

In fact I've been dead on about this stock as you and others have actually explicitly said above last year "Good at trading it but wrong about the long term".

The only thing I didn't pick was the Trump rip over the past year which Tesla along will all other high betas have rocketed higher. The trash usually does that at the nutty end of bull runs - same thing happened in 2000 with pets.com and similar. That's the single thing I've been wrong about trading Tesla.

Musk also managed to pump the stock in this bull market by claiming purely fraudulent, impossible production targets that the bulls and analysts nonetheless swallowed.
Right, like the saying "you only use 10% of your brain". Awesome folk wisdom bro, devastating reefer comeback against my arguments and observations above.

P.S. When are you going to admit that Musk lied to you about his production timeline? That it wasn't "optimistic" or to rally the troops - that it was a flat out lie for no other reason than to defraud people. It's all laid out fully in his conference call.

Further reading:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-deposit-boost

None of his production targets were EVER possible starting from before August last year, and he knew it and deliberately lied. Seriously, read the article above.

You called TSLA a long-term 0. You have been wrong about shorting at 270 which would have lost you a lot of money by now (given borrowing rates for the stock).

I agree, it was wrong to call anything you've been recommending a loser. But most of it were significant losers.

The stock will go down in the near term, you will claim victory again but in the end your statement: "TSLA is long-term worth zero" the most important and dominant one and this will end up being completely false.

What does long term mean?
Borrow rates for the stock are 2%/year. So no. They haven't been insanely high since the first mega short squeeze which took it to $100.

Another false statement. My Tesla trades are overall winners. Even the recommended shorts are strong winners if you took them here.

Well if you want to argue that, sure. But you're not doing that.

Always up to the current datetime. So, when you call TSLA a long-term zero at $180 and the stock is at $300, your bet was really terrible.

Link to this, quick googling before my post showed me significantly higher rates.



No, they are large losers. Especially, if you were to take the reasoning into account.