It takes away from the myth of Musk and Tesla too, at some point even Zac and Jesse will start questioning their thesis

This. I joined a few tesla discussion groups and it's incredible how bad the "analysis" is on the bull side. It's all extreme fanboyism, always taking everything EV Jesus says at face value.

Tmc forum investors thread maybe the most active, everybody over there thinks FSD and 1 mil robotaxis in 2020 is a done deal

There is no bull case for Tesla. Any rational analysis gets you to "they're ****ed because competition will destroy them on price:feature ratio and the CEO is a hopelessly incompetent fraudster who's created a toxic corporate culture and everything they own is mortgaged with dying demand".
There are literally people buying extra Teslas right now because they think they'll be running robotaxi fleets in 2020 for free money and want to get in early. Imagine being the wife of one of these losers.

Musk is such a talented conman. And robotaxis was a great deflection from an awful quarter. The retail baggies keep buying while big money are dumping on them.

New Politics forum now open to deplorables.

It's not at all the same.

heltok was too incredibly stupid to even consider the notion that Musk was committing securities fraud. Any non-idiot put those odds at >50% by any rational analysis even with zero knowledge. Which means you have to have your head so far up Musk's ass and be so in love with him that you believe him unconditionally, as if he's your boyfriend or a cult daddy. I can't even begin to imagine how ****ed up in the head you'd have to be to not even question $420 "funding secured". especially for someone intelligent like heltok. There were so many clues even if you hadn't picked up that Musk is a liar and a fraud and I'd been laying out the evidence for. And consider: heltok is one of the guys writing self driving software. Yet he can't even do basic probability analysis. How scary is that? Maybe he actually works for Tesla?

So no. Shorts seeing their thesis coming true with multiple streams of hard evidence playing out exactly like they predicted, and celebrating it, is nothing like heltok.

Yo if he committed fraud the SEC lawyers would indict him. Musk's head would be great to have on some SEC prosecutors mantle. It's like the SDNY US attorney going after the poker sites. Looks great for the regulator and is a selling point in the future for the people who worked on the case. If there was a case they would have made it.

TL; DR. TS makes a stupid assumption.

Stock pumping off of news of a potential Chinese financing for giga factory expansion.

Still makes no sense to spend billions on expansion for demand that isn't there

They don't need demand, each car they make will make a fortune next year as a robotaxi! So now they don't care about sales, ez game.

I may have asked this in this thread before, but who are the most convincing Tesla bulls?

For the record, I'm convinced that the EV market will grow quickly and will dominate automotive markets in the near future. I recognize that Tesla has a great (but deteriorating due to service and quality control negligence) brand. I buy that they have an edge with battery range and efficiency with their motors.

But I think (know?) their FSD claims are bull****. I know there isn't going to be a giant robotaxi fleet operating in 2020. I know Elon's production and sales projections are horse****. I know the cash situation is desperate and have no idea why they haven't raised yet with a massively inflated stock price.

So please, point me toward bulls who are professional investors and can present a convincing case that Tesla is currently undervalued or fairly valued.

There are none. They _all_ believe in the 90-100k sales in Q2 or the robotaxi fleet. Usually both.

Huh? There was literally a securities fraud settlement between Musk and the SEC on the original issue and he paid a fine/was supposed to have his Twitter use restricted. Have you been following this at all?

I did this as well, even the ones who have some level of financial literacy just assume things like backlog exhaustion and credit cuts don’t matter

Uh......

Tesla shifting to online only solar sales and having customers perform some of their own repair work (lol?)

https://twitter.com/polixenes13/stat...158765057?s=21

The language change in the Q from in compliance with debt covenants to in “material” compliance is really weird


I’ve never heard of immaterial non compliance, or even levels of compliance. I have no experience with public debt instruments but....this seems important

https://twitter.com/orthereaboot/sta...841390595?s=21

No hope left. The only question is how to trade the fall. Any short when it was bouncing around 260-360 captured the extreme disconnect of [market:fundamental] value. If you were just riding the short down, getting in at 260 vs 360 doesn't even change your profit much/at all. Once they run out of money and the growth story is dead to most everyone a disconnect of [unavoidable and plain reality:die hard fanboy dreams] should come up that might offer an even better trade.

I'm planning to close most of my position sometime after they file and the SP is sub 50. The true believers will still be around at this point, even as Tesla has a 0% chance. It would take a shift in their internal values to model reality correctly and people never change. This should setup a second trade to roll profits from the first one into.

It's basically saying the internal control is inadequate and is noteworthy, but would not significantly affect the financial statement

It's just a statement from an auditor, doesn't really have anything to do with the debt specifically

Huh? It says financial debt covenants. This isn’t a statement related to controls.

I mean, I can't see the tweet. I'm just going off the language you used.

Edit: material compliance is an auditing term. You deem things material or immaterial as far as their percieved affect on ability to accurately report. There is no such thing as immaterial compliance so i don't think anything changed except adding a word.

Do former bulls count? Jonas seems to be fully in the bear camp now, except for keeping the bull**** "equal weight" rating - https://twitter.com/MLDDad_/status/1123225842971234304

Walls are caving in.

Look at the language, I’m more than very familiar with accounting terminology


Materiality is a basic concept but I’ve never heard of material compliance with a debt covenant, perhaps it’s just something I have never heard of but it seems very odd to me

Typically I would assume its a new internal auditor cleaning up language to be more official, but its literally the only one they changed. I would agree that it is very odd to distinct between compliance and material compliance with respect to a debt covenant, especially when it is the only distinction made in the entirety of the 10Q.