I'm fairly certain that even musk doesn't like the stock this high right now

So much wrong in your response TS, we are unlikely to agree.

My comments on beating the market on a risk adjusted basis are correct.

What is not to like about your net worth hitting all time highs?

No, they prove that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're a parrot for what you read in books. Those three statements are wrong.
The first one in particular is hilarious and shows a complete misunderstanding of, well, everything. You pass "I read an investing book" 101 though. Half of the traders here are laughing at you. Hell, even Buffett is laughing at you.

The people who beat the market the most do it with the lowest risk. I probably shouldn't be tapping the glass, but oh well. If you haven't figured out something as simple as that, you probably never will figure out how to beat the market anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Congratulations on your Tesla outperformance. Truly a nice score and a clever investment if you had the right reasons (you may well have). We have it on record that you're not selling, and are in fact buying if it goes a lot lower. See you back here in a few years.

You dont even know me, yet have so much insight to the level of my competence. You are being silly.

I never had an interest in debating you when i commented ITT, i just saw some poker pros posting that i respect actually helped me develop as a poker player from undergrad through grad school. I just wanted to spend some time and present a counter argument to the low quality spam with good grammar that you bring on a daily basis.

You have no skin in the game. Based on what you have said in the past you trade very short term on news which i would assume means you go both long and short the stock. You have no monetary long term bet on the outcome of Tesla and so your opinion means very little to someone who knows how to filter investing information/opinions.

I will return to simply lurking this thread weekly because it gets distracting and drains time.

I offer you this piece of advice sincerely: Post less, read more. There is also no need for the combative tone you respond with, it is not productive.

I would gladly take any advice you would have for me that might make me a better investor over the long run.

No, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly believe you do, but you're just a garden variety fish who's picked up a few titbits. Take this:
I mean, here's how moronic your statement is, summed up in one graph:



100 years of market history. The highest return stock have the lowest - in fact ZERO - risk. The more risk you take, the further from fundamentals you go, the lower the return. Tesla is miles out to the right.

And that's just one example of how your statement is unbelievably stupid on any time frame. It's what parrots of the received wisdom say. It's true for bonds. Easily calculated payoff spots. Stuff like that. Which is why it became a parroted meme. But it's completely false for equities in the long run, which is what we're talking about. Risk and return are actually inversely correlated in many areas. It's bull****, served with a helping of smug. I was hoping my absurd Enron comparison would flush out some big game, and it seems to have succeeded.

I shouldn't be tapping the glass, but if you haven't figured out the above on your own, if you smugly believe the opposite, you probably won't be competing for good trades.
I'm the only person here countering the crazy fud that heltok and others post. Take the crazy unsupported-by-objective-evidence meme that TSLA are far ahead on autonomous driving. I argued with the entire forum on that. Guess how that turned out for them? No one is defending it now that Tesla can't even do normal automatic braking nearly a year after splitting from MobileEye.

I get that you don't want to debate. But don't smugly come in here and think you're laying down some truth. You're the fish here. You won a tournament. Congratulations. Skill or luck, I don't care. But don't buy into the next one, which you're doing at $380 and buying if goes lower. You're guaranteeing that you're going to lose a lot of money if your thesis is wrong. It's fish investing. You're basically all in on your thesis, with no adjustment for new information. You're doing what the shorts are doing, in reverse.
You're really in no position to give advice. Say something correct, defend it, drop the nutty smugness, and people might start listening to you.

Anyway, the below is just comical, and proves that you've never been near a trading house. It's why I responded.

You trade, i invest. Enjoy what im sure will be a fulfilling career professionally posting garbage on investment forums.

Your own statements prove that you don't invest. Your own claim is that you don't and can't beat the index on a risk adjusted basis:
Thus, by your own reasoning, you have no edge in Tesla and may as well buy a penny stock instead, or Ford, and stop wasting your time thinking about stocks.

This is just comical dude. You're wiping the floor with yourself.

One of my favorite parts of this thread is when Tooth berates anyone that disagrees with him and then uses some colorful euphemism for domination at the end. Somehow "you're wiping the floor with yourself" is just making me laugh uncontrollably.

This is not a comment about who is right or wrong. Just an appreciation of tooth's "finishing statements". Keep them coming! I love this thread!

I find your misrepresentation of other peoples statements to be a display of weakness.

Imo it is better to take the strongest of other peoples' claims and make it better and argue against that than to take the weakest someone says and make it worse and argue against that.

Agree. Still. No part of you thinks that the price rise validates that the market is seeing and believing in TSLA's ability to execute? Really?
One of the most absurd things is people who wholeheartedly believe in the EMH/there's no edge in the market, and then go and buy crap because they have a thesis it's potential 10 or 100 bagger.

Let's follow the logic here for captain slow. If the EMH is true, and your 100 bagger thesis is correct, you're over 95% likely to lose everything by your own logic. Great "investment", buddy. You're not at all speculating like every other dumb trader.

I don't understand why the two brain parts that say "the EMH is true", and "I think Tesla is likely to be a big winner" can't get together, have a chat, and realize that they're fundamentally incompatible. They're like quarks; they cannot exist in the same logical space. How does this escape people? It just blows my mind. It's up there with someone not realizing that the car is no longer in the garage when you're driving down the street in it.

Even the most ardent value investors believe in some loose form of efficient markets. The caricature of market efficientcy lends nothing to the discussion and just serves to explore your own narrow mindedness.

Of course. That's not at all what we're talking about.
The caricature is yours. ChipRick was crystal clear. It is not me who made this utterly idiotic comment as if he knew what he was talking about, and stood by it when challenged:
Three categorically false statements in a row. I mean, do you care to defend them? The narrow-mindedness is entirely ChipRick's; I'm just challenging his know-all (and hilariously wrong) condescension.

Are you all enjoying the expiration day for locked-up secondaries? Tesla is far above where the secondaries were offered.

Yes. Imo the price rise validates {that the market is increasingly seeing and believing in Tesla's ability to execute}.

But the market is very complex, so when we simplify it like this we do it knowingly that it is just a simplification.

If they are right or wrong is another question, but the information we can gain from this observation indicates that they believe this.

If your stock nose dives below $300 and is still there a year or two from now, its not good for them. This could easily happen since its a company skyrocketing on perception and not profits in a market, and more specifically the tech sector, that took off like a runaway train which inflates all prices.

I'm not saying Tesla fails long term but it is still very possible. The competition hasn't really even stepped in yet and it is a competitive industry. Companys that have a history of turning a profit will certainly step in as e-cars become profitable. imo this is going to be a lot harder than stockholders think. I'm not talking about a single factor working against TSLA stock price, there's actually a few.

My opinion is that anyone holding it now should consider the downside is far greater than the upside at $380 in the near term and although you see some global domination or revolutionary company here, the road to get there could be a lot harder than you think. I hope the people holding here are doing so with the understanding that companies like google, amazon, and facebook are in a very different situation than tesla

TS,

What is your definition of risk?

Ok. Well this belief is precisely what I'm arguing against. I think the price action here tells us nothing, in the same way that the price action of ClownCoin (up 2000% to $50 million market cap), tells us nothing about the viability of ClownCoin.

Which is why I'm encouraging you to not drink the Koolaid and see your thesis verified in this price rise. It's a common bull mistake. We have a short squeeze in a raging tech bull and a bunch of momentum traders jumping in...you're seeing what's happening today when there's a slight chink in that bull market.

Ok. For me, seeing Bitcoin increase in price from $0.001 to $2400 is an indication that the market is increasing believing that Bitcoin has a chance to take over fiat currency's use as a medium of exchange. You think it means nothing. We disagree on this, no biggie. Maybe we can at least exchange useful information and leave the interpretation of the information to each own?

Quick question to those who say be wary of the competition:
Have you missed that HUGE Diesel scandal? The so called competitive industry had to cheat in order to sell their stuff. If they can only get ahead by cheating how can they compete with an innovative company that has a fraction of the workforce?

I agree. And seeing Tesla increase in price from $30 to $200 is an indication tha the market is increasingly believing Tesla has a chance to do well.

What does that have to do with our conversation? Tesla hasn't even beaten QQQ since the initial run up. It languished for two years then went on a short squeeze in a surprise lowest volatility in history tech bull, to merely match the index performance.

See the difference?

We don't disagree at all. You're perhaps not realizing that 0.001 -> $3000 and $30 -> $200 is a world apart from what's happened in Tesla the last six months.

Realize it - that's all. Tesla is a very high beta tech stock. Market is down 0.5% today, Tsla is down 2.5% That's how it rolls both ways. That's all that's happened. You'll get caught with your pants down if you don't realize that.

Is this a serious point?

It is.

So my background is in sensor fusion and probabilistic robotics. There when we get a measurement we usually assign it a mean and a covariance, that is we describe it by moments. Anyway, there is a duality to this representation called the information canonical form where the information is the inverse of the covariance:
http://ais.informatik.uni-freiburg.d...slam07-eif.pdf

So anyway in this case we get two measurements of two very different increases. One has a large mean 3*10^6 and the other a smaller mean 7. So we enter the measurement into two different system matrices. Since it is very complex systems, and frankly we have pretty much no idea how they work, we set a very low information to these measurement. My point is anyway that no matter how low information we assign to it, it will still be have a mean affecting inference on the system in the same direction. This is what I meant by that this measurement indicates that the market believes it is more likely. Give all the other data inference might indicate a different relationship, but this single measurement is indicating this.

Since the first runup and stabilization (the end of 2013), the market has disdained TSLA, or at best treated it the same as a monkey-dart-thrown tech stock.



There was no "dislike" signal at $180 - it was purely heavily shorting on the guaranteed money-loss situation with SCTY and depression while the market waited for that to be over - and there is no "like" signal now - it is purely the covering of those shorts + a high beta run + short squeeze in a history-making bull market post Trump.

There's nothing to see here. $380 is as meaningless as $180 as a signal of the market view of the stock in this environment.

I don't find this view compelling. It's only true if it moves independently of the market.

Just like when a boat is being lifted by the tide, we could make the point that the rise makes it more likely the boat has levitation abilities using your logic above. But for intents and purposes, the tide is providing the delta. And so it is with the market, and high beta tech stocks. It's not a thing to which mathematics or weak logic can yield much. That's pretty much useless here.

(Don't have exact data so this might be slightly wrong, going only by eyesight) There is literally one other entry point (besides the start) in that graph where TSLA was a worse investment than QQQ. It's an absurd argument. TSLA doesn't even move that much in line with QQQ. They are just at the same start and end point. Not sure what your ****ing point is but it's definitely not well thought out.