No point in trading swings if your thesis is BK imo

Sure there is, because you can make even more than you would shorting it at a constant level. The swings allow you to get 2 or more scores for each new price level it drops to.

Bankruptcy pays from a 100 bagger (one month) to an 8 bagger (1.3 years), and is impossible to predict when. Makes it a way better trade than swing trading. Although obviously the payoff was a lot better when the option prices were a lot lower when Tesla was 20% higher than now. Swing trading also opens up to possibility of major losses and mistakes. Most of the shorts in Tesla trade it terribly.

If you think Tesla is done by 2020 then swing trading doesn't make much sense unless you know what you're doing.

Let me rephrase


The risk reward of me entering and exiting positions is likely -EV at my current skill level


I have hedged twice w way OTM calls, 0/2 on that

Lots of stuff about a DIP financing agreement being negotiated on twitter for ~10b


Bulls are lauding this as good news, i love tesla bulls so much

In case its not obvious, the rumor is on twitter not the actual negotiation

Yeah. Some if the tsla bull accounts on twtr must be parodies , no way people are that obtuse.

You can't blame them, all they've been hearing is "buy the DIP".

The ignorance of finance among Tesla bulls is amazing. I'm no accountant but you pick up basic stuff just by observation reading the paper if nothing else. To not have that basic common knowledge is pretty sad.

If the scoop below is true, Tesla is in preliminary Chapter 11 bankruptcy talks right now.
The company clearly has some value and some believers and some will believe it can come out of Ch11, maybe even enough to finance continuing operations for a while. Stock holders are gonna get raped though.

I wouldn't write off dumb money doing some financing but the scenario quoted above is Ch11 stuff.

I've had luck recently with oom weekly puts, the last couple of weeks especially. Even with leap puts, I still think it's close to free money being in weekly puts rn.

Related, I so hope that somehow $tsla spikes after Q3 results. No brainer fade as of now, just like the past few spikes have been sold hard.

Thursday far OOTM has paid a 200 bagger and a 20 bagger last two weeks. I agree it's +EV going forward. But you can't really take size due to the risk.

This would explain Musk's recent behavior.

That's not preliminary BK talks. That's standard IBanking waterfall modeling.

Good thread on disclosure issues and regulation

https://twitter.com/BSA19741/status/...958369281?s=19

What are Nov 9 or Nov 16 OOTM calls paying?

Anyone else following Faraday Future (electric car manufacturer)?

They had a production sample car run a pre-programmed track at CES 2017 for a supposedly fully-autonomous car. A few months later, they hit a cash crunch. The company's founder Jia then lost his streaming TV/internet business after China froze that business and ordered him back to China, but Jia defied that order and is running the company here in the USA.

Somehow he convinced a Chinese real estate firm to invest $800 million in Faraday Future. Jia spent that on making their factory production-ready, and producing one car. That car then caught fire and he had employees sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Then he convinced the same Chinese real estate firm to invest another $700 million, although the firm said Jia used manipulating tactics in a lawsuit.

Elon Musk has nothing on Jia Yueting.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/7/1...a-yueting-fire

Anything that's "green", it's a fair bet to assume fraud and huge drain of taxpayer/investor dollars. And usually failure at being green. Tesla for example has only succeeded in making a small number of heavily taxpayer subsidized sports car for rich people, which is the opposite of green.

Green industries attract nasty people and conmen because there are large subsidies to soak up, poor oversight of those subsidies, an aura of holiness/saving the planet (conmen love this), little serious competition, and investor forgiveness due to the "mission" of "saving the planet", which lots of ******s lap up.

Musk has had two green frauds, SolarCity (bankrupt without Tesla investors bailing them out after Musk committed fraud to deceive Tesla investors into buying it), and Tesla, soon to come undone.

The large-scale battery Tesla developed in Australia has been a huge success and we may see similar projects from this company.

Tesla's Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million in Four Months

Tesla’s Australian Battery Shows It Can Also Make Huge Profits

Nope. Green power mandates (they shut down a perfectly good coal power station that provided reliable cheap baseload) destroyed the state's electricity security, causing rolling blackouts and price spikes. The battery is a small scale expensive load leveler, not green power. It's the opposite of green and the opposite of cost effective.

Basically:
1. Government destroyed the reliability of the electricity supply with stupid, pointless green mandates
2. This cost billions of dollars in extra consumer costs and lost productivity
3. An expensive, environmentally damaging spiking load battery (made by Samsung and sold at a loss for PR) that can handle a meaningless fraction of power needs was installed into this ****ed up system (that was needlessly ****ed up by green policies) as a band aid on a messed up system, and makes money from consumers ultimately paying for expensive peaking power and (subsidized) input from a wind farm.

Any other course of action would have been superior. This isn't a fix or cost effective product for anything except for electricity systems destroyed by rash "green" governments. Fast load gas turbines are far more cost effective and environmentally friendly, as is maintaining proper baseload.

I'm not sure any of that challenges the idea that Tesla could roll out more of these and make a lot of money. ... The rest of it ... Batteries are typically considered clean energy resources, and they are going to be a key to integrating more renewable energy onto grids.

I don't know the history of Australia's energy system, but lots of people believe shutting down "a perfectly good coal power station" is a good idea.

Tesla isn't doing much that other companies are not. They've got sexy name recognition, but everyone is looking at batteries these days.

There isn't widespread demand for this, is my point. Batteries are not a needed addition to well planned power systems. They're very very expensive.

And it's a pure commodity (large scale battery manufacturing) of which Tesla couldn't even get their own supplier's cells for (they took Samsung's), or sell at a profit (they took a loss on this).

Shutting down coal and putting up the price of power increases CO2 emissions. China is building two coal power stations per week (per week!) as they West makes its manufacturing power inputs more expensive and less reliable which further shifts manufacturing to dirty, highly energy ineffiicent China.

It's all bull**** having the opposite effect to that intended.

There is definitely a future in batteries for niche uses, but it's completely a commodity item and Tesla owns no technology of worth outside of a small niche capability in cars. Panasonic has control and profits over everything, including car batteries which they retain the right to sell to others. Tesla energy is far far behind bull projections, running at <10% of projections made in 2015 & 16 by bulls.

Battery tech is a complement to any power generating tech that doesn’t flex well with demand. That includes coal, nuclear, and other “baseload” plants.

Places that are really hot during the day but cool off rapidly after sunset are natural fit for batteries due to the predictable simultaneous spike in demand and drop in supply (see duck curve).

If the batteries are free, sure. Using solar power to ground flour to feed thousand of midgets who then turn turbines for peaking load when there's no power is also a "natural fit" to the problem of intermittent green inflows. It's the price that's the problem.

A switch to sustainable energy would obviously require massive investment in energy storage infrastructure. Not sure how anyone could argue otherwise. And it's equally obvious that many countries are increasingly serious about switching to sustainable energy.

This isn't right. However, I didn't post intending to derail from Tesla.

As you said, and I did, I don't think Tesla has any real advantage in the battery storage area. But battery prices are falling, rapidly. Wind+Storage can now show up in solicitations as the cheapest form of new supply, beating out gas. Gas plants are now being constructed with batteries built into them. Energy and capacity markets are being reorganized so batteries can compete. States are giving utilities mandates to add energy storage to their systems. Large corporations are looking to batteries, not just for backup but to make their operations more green and as secondary revenue sources from market participation. A growing % of folks interested in going solar are now considering a battery alongside.

And battery prices continue to fall, and the need for a cleaner energy system continues to rise.

Batteries are the future of the electric grid.

Yeah, Tesla may or may not be well positioned to profit from the coming energy storage investment bonanza. I have no idea. But the idea that energy storage in general and batteries in particular are irrelevant to the electric grid in coming years is a huge misreading of the current political and economic climate.