This seems relevant

http://www.dssk.press/elon-musk-is-an-obvious-fraud/

He actually nailed it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL posting a weev article

Question. Are any of the Tesla apologists actually evaluating the company as a company for investment or just defending the Church of Musk? Subfallen has already admitted to just shamelessly trolling about Musk and derailing the thread into a discussion about Elon Musk's greatness rather than the viability of Tesla to show a decent growth rate at their 30b market value.

Don't there exist people/institutions who recently bought ~$750M of TSLA @ $240? They probably had some reason(s) that you could discover via googling.

Like I've already said, I think that if you buy TSLA at a $30B valuation (or, for that matter, Uber at a $60B valuation), it has be roughly because:

1. You are confident that the car mobility market is about to go through a massive, massive disruption due to electrification and autonomy. (In particular, you believe electrification and autonomy will be the primary value levers in next-generation car mobility products.)
2. You are confident that the car mobility incumbents are built on incentives and business models that are misaligned with these value levers. Like, "Wal-Mart-and-online-shopping" levels of misalignment.
3. You are extremely confident that cultural inertia will keep the incumbents from changing their incentives and business models in time.
4. You are extremely confident that Tesla will continue to execute well, building products and business models that maximize the user experience enabled by electrification and autonomy.

So all told, to buy TSLA at $240, you just need an extremely extremely extremely high level of confidence that you understand the future---and nothing inspires confidence like knowing that ELON is on your side, amirite?

Tsla is a great sell right now imo.

All these companies are extremely overvalued and imo we are close to the end of the bull run.

Sub,

I don't know why you'd think Uber and Tesla are remotely comparable in terms of valuation. They are not issued with remotely the same terms. It is literally like comparing a Model T and a Model S under the logic that they're both cars.

I'd educate myself before making such an enormous and silly error. (Hint: To lose money with the last round of funding in Uber, it'd almost certainly need to dip below 2b.)

Also, I like how you articulate the position of others as "Church of Elon" followers as well. I guess that pretty much sums it up. Why bother with financials when the Church will keep giving him money whenever he begs?

I don't understand your point about Uber's valuation. What do you mean: "To lose money with the last round of funding in Uber, it'd almost certainly need to dip below 2b." (You are correct that I don't know how VC funding differs from public equity offerings.)

I was just saying that---in my opinion---people who invest in Tesla and Uber at these valuations are, above all else, really confident that the incumbents in car mobility are going to be neutralized by their obsolete incentive structures/business models.

Like in the early 2000s, if you were betting on Amazon, you needed to be really confident that Wal-Mart had a set of intangible problems that would prevent it from executing well in e-commerce.

Why do you think people buy TSLA at current prices? Just because (1) Elon started a cult and (2) most people are idiots?

I'm glad you admit you have no understanding of the financial aspects of these companies.

Uber is a private company. Tesla is public. Rather than googling to speculate on the motivations of investors as you suggested to me. I'd advise you to google to learn the basics of how companies are structured and stock is issued. It may help you to engage in another thread on the topic. (To be honest, I think you have great insight on the technological side of things. However, you know literally nothing about finance.... So I find that to be the weird and trollish aspect of your posting in b- FINANCE - i)

I think a lot is greater fool. I think a lot is deception by tesla that I've explained earlier with their ... unique ... reporting. I think a lot is Cult of Elon. I don't think a lot of people are idiots. Musk has attracted 30b in market value. There are clearly that many idiots in the world. This is 10% of facebook. Essentially nothing for a scammer. Madoff had bigger scams based on less.

How many more fundraising rounds do you think they'll need before the reach self-sufficiency? I'm gonna go with five. But that is totally made up. They are closer to a zombie company than profitable. I'd invest in them at a variety of levels based on greater fool. Maybe 2-3b based on actual long term merit?

TSLA will soon have 2 cars producing revenue. 800M in R&D produced current 2 cars and will make the model 3 which might already be done. The gigafactory is ahead of schedule thus capex should drop with additional revenues.
http://www.autoworldnews.com/article...d-schedule.htm

Now consider SIRI, they were like $70 in 2000 but dropped to $0.05 in March 2009 and today they are $4 or so. p/s of TSLA are 8 and p/s of GM is about 0.4. But profit margin should be higher. In 3 years they will have 3 models. A gigafactory built. A Fremont plant. And some of the lowest cost li-on batteries. One of the most exciting products is the substation storage where a city could have all the storage it wants in the city at less than $0.10 a kwh.

wait.

MBLY -8% TSLA +6% after this article came out:
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/20...f-driving-car/

MobileEye's move had nothing to do with that article. It went down because of a tweet by famous short seller Andrew Left (Citron Research, same guy as Valeant) at 11:25am where he called it "the short of 2016". It had nothing to do with Tesla, and MobileEye was in fact up for the day until that time. Look at the timing of the tweet vs the move in the stock.

Tesla's move up also had nothing to do with the article. It was caused by solar/green sympathy traders after Paris, and news today about Congress liking continued major tax breaks for green power. Tesla has tracked major SCTY moves quite well in the past, and SolarCity was up 35% today on the back of that news.

Those factors plus a robustly up market for the past two days explain the move. The article is irrelevant, apart from it showing how terrible Tesla's autopilot is.

That the moves happened on the same day is a coincidence.

Also, for the moonbat groupies, there was a recent, well written letter to shareholders by a hedge fund researcher laying out many of the widespread delusions about Tesla, many of which Musk flames dishonestly, with copious references disproving them:



It's worth reading. Follow the links to get a little balance on all the utter bull**** you guys believe. Musk is nothing if not a skilled PR man.

Article is awesome. Thanks for posting.

.

Again, the article and TSLA has nothing to do with the tanking. It tanked because Citron named MBLY the "2016 short of the year" and has been devastatingly right when doing so (DDD in 2015, for example). People and algos watch Citron tweets like a hawk. The move was identical whether or not he posted the article; the article itself is irrelevant.

Let me show you the timeline:

6am: Bloomberg Business posts their article about Tesla wanting to crush/dump MobileEye, which is widely read and goes out to all traders.

9:30am: Mobile opens up 1% for the day, and stays flat at 1-1.5% up. There is zero response to the Bloomberg article whatsoever. In fact, it holds up in a declining market, outperforming. The article makes the rounds of various tech republishing places like Verge and Eletrek. Zero response.

11:25:33: Left tweets that MBLY - a stock he's been bearish on for a while - is his "short of 2016"

11:28: In under 3 minutes, beginning the exact millisecond of the Tweet, MobileEye has lost 85% of the value it'll lose that day:



Now I think even the mentally challenged Musk fanboys (not you - I wouldn't insult you like that) can see that the article or Tesla's stance on MobileEye had zero effect on the stock. I trade this stuff for a living man.

The tweet:
https://twitter.com/CitronResearch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The bolded link is to a repost of the article.

I understand that. Read my post above again:
Your opinion is simply wrong; the article itself or the information it contained had nothing to do with MBLY tanking (or Tesla going up), as evidenced by the fact that this information was fully known by the entire market for hours, during which time the MBLY outperformed the market and was up 1% until the exact moment Citron named it "short of the year 2016".

You're either stupid or trolling. I don't know which.

https://www.teslamotors.com/support/...lf-driving-car

Yeah, someone from MobileEye obviously called up and complained. The article also made Musk's supposedly amazing AutoPilot (in fact far behind the competition if you follow the links in this article) look like a bit of a joke. Ashlee Vance is now in the doghouse. He should have run it by Musk for his approval first.

I've looked through every link in the letter, not sure where you are getting the conclusion far behind from. Even the letter doesn't really claim it.

The sources are just citing every carmaker developing a self driving program.

In everything Tesla does, people come up with stuff that others are developing but not yet market. It's a tiresome discussion.

The car industry is not worth discussing on a weekly basis.

I agree that it's irrelevant and tiresome. Tesla are years away from doing anything worthy of discussion. However, Musk is driving the discussion with his constant tweets and PR, and since I trade that PR stream, it's relevant.

Constant excitement for each new feature and promised feature is how Musk keeps the stock up. Constant speculation about whether Tesla are now ahead or are going to beat everything is what keeps this story going. It's remarkable how good Musk is at PR.

On autonomous driving, for example, there's no one in the industry who thinks Tesla is anything but far behind in this space. Read the first link, for example. Yet half of America - including people in this thread - thinks they're ahead, thanks to very clever PR.

Well without seeing the metrics, it's difficult to judge. They are being paid by the automotive industry and have a biased view. Also, they are talking about mass production in 5 to 10 years. I think they are way off on that one.

But of course it could be the case that Tesla is far behind. But at least they have something on the market for me to judge.

Yeah, people who disagree with you tend to be that right?

Maybe the message in the article was known, but maybe the tweet changed the estimation, by the market, of the Fisher information?

In a few seconds? The dump was algo driven. Have a look at that graph again. That is the classic dump that happens when Citron mentions a ticker for short. The only people who are managing to get a market order off in <3 seconds after a Citron tweet are tweet watching algorithms. The only people selling in the first minute are ones set up near automated trades on tweets. 85% of the entire dump was done in less than three minutes. None of this is people saying "gee, I better take this article seriously now". The article and its content are irrelevant.

You could argue that it stayed lowed after dumping because "the tweet changed the estimation". I think that's a very weak argument, but the recovery today of MobileEye after Tesla's blog post is evidence in your favor.