TSLA is more like a pier to pier massively multiplayer video game than any sort of intrinsically valued stock market.

Did you really just draw lines on a chart to argue with math?

Or are you using some esoteric non linear definition of beta?

Ahoy Captain

What do you mean, "argue with math"?
This is what I said:
Not hard to understand. Proven easily by that graph. I'd delete it now if I could though, this is like casting pearls before swine.

I'm looking for a dip below 1495 to do some put day trading

Okay we in. Tight stops to the upside. Let's diiiip boyz

Hahaha, stopped out instantly. Fun game

I can share the Excel file if you want but what I did here is I ran a linear regression (slope function) on daily returns for past year with data from Yahoo! Finance with SPY daily as the X and TSLA daily as the Y.

Beta = 1.196

Then I ran a conditional slope function that only ran on days where |SPY daily| > 0.01 (days where S&P 500 moved by more than 1%) and the result is

Beta = 1.168.

This took me a grand total of 10 minutes to do. Biggest chunk of time was double checking days were lined up.

Even making the claim of beta = 3 to 10 suggests lack of financial knowledge about ranges of beta in the equity market. A more narrow claim of high beta but only on "directional" days is slightly more interesting but note that would imply the stock has lower (probably negative given the differential between overall beta and the "directional" beta TS is suggesting) beta on non-directional days. That particular claim, if made at my old firm, would prompt me to demand data for back up. I don't think the data exists for TSLA.

I'd be surprised if there is a single stock that has 1.28 overall beta but 3+ beta on "directional" days. A pretty basic query into the database calculating beta and betas on "directional" days as I specified would take less than an hour of coding, debugging, running, and confirming results. You can modify the definition of "directional" days or even do it on hourly basis instead but the core code is still the same: beta on unfiltered data vs beta calculated filtered for (definition of directional day/hour/minute). I just made a falsifiable claim and even explained how to falsify it.

For a coding genius that could get almost fully autonomous driving in a year (a claim TS has made), this should be absolutely trivial to do. It would certainly take less time and effort than drawing lines in MS Paint.

At least, I know I am not such a coding genius and I could do what I just suggested in less than an hour.

PS: writing and editing this post took like 20 minutes though. Can't believe I just wasted 30 minutes of my life on this. I am just really tired of verifiably false assertions of facts being thrown around as true.

I have definitely noticed many stocks move up and down with the market, but I do follow Tesla daily and there are some other factors, otherwise I would just buy SPY puts. Spy was just running up while TSLA was dipping. Anyway I used the dip to get out at a 15% loss.

grizy going for the dumbest post ever in BFI? Just amazing stuff.

Betas change all the time, TSLA's without even doing the excel is quite obviously alot higher than 1.1 for the last few months. A 5 year or even 1 year beta with corona being a world changer isn't worth so much at the moment.

Yeah, I mean the context was this:
Since earnings it's been tracking the market almost exactly intraday with a huge beta (5-10x) as the graph shows. There have been few other influences, and nearly all the inflections line up perfectly. The market is by far the main mover of Tesla right now and its effects are multiplied 5-10x. I said this by way of explaining to JohnCleese what he was seeing and why these huge up and down moves were happening intraday with no new information.

Then grizy (who's wrong about nearly everything he posts) comes in and does a yearlong analysis of beta - which includes the period of Tesla languishing at lows decoupled from the market, going against the market when it ripped on its earnings, etc. And concludes that he's disproven it. Spectacularly missing the point.

It's so freaking dumb. And he spent half an hour on it. I can't even get begin to grasp the level of dumb you'd need to be to do that.

Betas calculated with data since 2/3/2020.


Betas calculated with data since 3/2/2020


Betas calculated with data since 4/1/2020

I have TS on ignore but I am going to guess he's insisting his charts show high beta on "directional" days. Knowing how he posts, I suspect he is probably lashing out and calling me ******ed or stupid again.

Sure, then he can just run a regression on daily/hourly/minutely/weekly or whatever data increment his chart uses and prove that beta was in fact 3-5 given his time frame and definition of "directional" vs. non-directional. He can torture the data if he wants with time lags and whatever else he wants to do until he gets that 3-10 beta. But he still needs to do that calculation because his specific claim is TSLA has high (very high) betas on "directional" days.

This is an empirical question involving well defined technical variables that I would expect interns who are freshman/sophomore in undergrad to be able to calculate and demonstrate.

I am not making a prediction. I am making an empirical quantitative claim that TSLA doesn't have a beta of 3-10 on directional days or whatever TS is claiming. I even described how he can prove me wrong. If he has a good definition of "directional days" and shows TSLA has a beta of >=3 on those days, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

But he won't do it.

Repent


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not what I call you, it's what you are. And this weird shtick where you say I'm on ignore, read what I say and pretend to "guess" what I'm saying is Aspie-level bizarre bro.
It is indeed an empirical question and it's proven.

Arbitrary timeframes are meaningless because the issue is inflection points. The market inflects, Tesla inflects. The market moves down, Tesla moves down. On a flat day that will show as zero (1) beta but the huge intraday moves are entirely explained by the market being the primary driver of a high beta stock. You can see that very clearly in the 5 day graph I posted above showing how they move in lockstep, with the market the driver.


Yeah, I have no interest in doing something that is pointless and stupid. You can look at the graph I posted above and instantly see that beta > 3 from each major inflection point (the graph is vs tech/NASDAQ, not SPY). But you're too stupid to do that, so you waste an hour of your time failing comically instead.

I am responding blind again, going off the assumption TS responded to me as I expected him to when I called him out on yet another BS factual claim.

Most likely:
1. TS once again called me, or at least the calculations I did, stupid. Again, I calculated betas as they are defined and I gave him fairly clear directions on how he could prove me wrong relatively easily assuming he has the skills he has claimed to have.

2. TS probably spent more time in paint to draw more lines on charts, and completely declined to actually calculate the betas and prove his own claims. TS will insist in response to this post (if he hasn't already) that he's beyond such calculations and such calculations are a waste of his time. As I pointed out before, for someone that knows what he/she is doing, actually calculating the betas takes less time than messing with MS Paint. Furthermore, considering the specificity of his claim and the relative ease with which he should be able to prove it, he should provide the calculations, or at least how he did the calculations, so other people could replicate his alleged betas for TSLA.

This shtick where you claim you haven't read my post and are responding blind, then describe the content of said posts (thus in your mind proving your insight to everyone - who of course know you actually read the post and think you're a weirdo) is truly weird. I forget sometimes that there are a lot of actual weird people on the Internet. Thanks for reminding me.

The beta claim is easily proved with intraday (minute resolution) data, but it's a pain to download and set up and you can see it easily from the graphs anyway. The market has obviously been driving Tesla with a large multiple recently - it does that for quite a lot of momo.

This is either really sad or really amazing

I don't know what TS is saying at this point but since I've made three posts with essentially the same content and his last response took only about 10 minutes (not enough time for another wall of text he's fond of), he's probably just flinging personal attacks now and refusing to engage in what should be a pretty simple fact finding exercise.

It's not really amazing. You can read back in this thread, grim's thread crusading against TS, and Coronavirus thread. I've responded the same way consistently because his responses are so predictable. I literally make the same allegations everytime (he's calling me stupid and refusing to engage on facts) and then re-emphasize the factual claims I made earlier. It's the same pattern every time.

It's important to note I am not operating 100% blind. In many cases, his posts are quoted so often I basically have read all of his posts in a particular exchange, though I wish I didn't.

In the current "discussion" surrounding TSLA's betas, what I see is:

I see a quote of TS' post where TS claims a very high (3-10) TSLA beta on "directional" days. I say that alleged beta is really high. Another poster said Yahoo says TSLA has a beta of 1.2 (which actually isn't directly on TS' claim to be sure), TS makes post I can't read, then another poster loled at a chart with lines on it.

It's not that hard to put together what happened.

I agree of the two, it's less likely to be amazing

Shopify has higher beta than TSLA! Both are amazing companies

Tesla should be down 5-15% today, but its only down 1.5%, glad I sold my put at a small loss yesterday

Unfortunately today is not a directional day

A+

Kind of interesting:

Beta Calculation

Quote:

Calculating the Beta for Tesla Inc. (TSLA):
Let's assume the investor also wants to calculate the beta of Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA) in comparison to the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY). Based on data over the past five years, TSLA and SPY have a covariance of 0.032, and the variance of SPY is 0.015.

Beta of TLSA= 0.032 / 0.015 = 2.13

Therefore, TSLA is theoretically 113% more volatile than the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.

That investopedia article is another one of those that incorrectly says Beta is a measure of volatility. Beta is only a measure of market risk/volatility of the stock. There are additional sources of volatility beyond market fluctuations.

A lot of very volatile stocks have relatively low betas because the stocks underlying fundamentals are based on very individualized risk. TSLA and biotech firms are good examples of high volatility (Stdev of returns) and low (averagish) betas. TSLA’s risk is mainly Musk’s ability to execute and Biotechs’ risk mainly their ability to get through FDA trials. Their individual risks explain high volatility. Their individual risks’ rather tenuous connections to overall market/economic fluctuations explains the low/averagish beta.