Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfarnsworth | Hacker News Reader

I'm generally a TSLA bear, I think they're a money pit and will run out of money, especially after that disasterous decision to buy SolarCity. I'm currently short TSLA via puts because I think the SCTY purchase is going to cripple both companies.

But there's something to be said about trying shoot for the moon, and trying to build "the best car ever." I, in fact, do admire that all-in, ballsy move, from a techie's perspective. And if it were limited in quantities, I'm sure he could accomplish it, because there are some very amazing features in all of Tesla's cars, however, I don't believe it's possible to mass produce reliably in the timeframe they need, given their track record.

I just don't think from the point of view of a business, it's the right thing to do.

View on HN

This strikes me as a strange wager, as Panasonic is providing capital through a partnership with Tesla for Solar City [1] [2]. Tesla is acquiring a long term bond revenue stream (while stripping away the expensive SCTY sales/marketing expenses, relying on Tesla's existing network instead), as well as a very expensive mostly-automated solar panel production facility [3], at a deep discount with a partner providing the financing.

Your TSLA puts seem like a poor way to burn up options premiums; I'll be thinking of this conversation while listening to the earnings call on Wednesday.

EDIT: I haven't even touched on the fact that Tesla has a buyer for every battery they produce, whether that's in a Tesla vehicle, in a consumer PowerWall, or in a utility scale PowerPack (which they've signed at least 3 deals for in the last 2 months, all to have installation completed before the end of the year). This signals, to me at least, that they are supply constrained (Gigafactory construction continues in stages), not demand constrained.

[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-and-panasonic-collaborate

[2a] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/785139055793152000

(@elonmusk: "Would also like to correct expectations that Tesla/SolarCity will need to raise equity or corp debt in Q4. Won't be necessary for either.")

[2b] https://twitter.com/roger_kappler/status/785139908604207106 (asks Elon about 2017Q1, response is "Probably not then either")

[3] https://electrek.co/2016/06/01/musk-solarcity-robotic-solar-...

Usual disclaimer: Long TSLA.

Why actively trade against a moonshot -- Would you have done the same against NASA for the moon landings...?

My understanding is that short positions are not merely passive; they can have a detrimental effect (in aggregate) on a company's likelihood of success. Are you really interested in harming the company (even if fairly negligibly for you as an individual) in exchange for some modicum of personal financial gain?

Sorry, I just don't get it. Assuming NASA's $18.4B budget is split evenly among 300M Americans... I'm paying ~$60/yr for NASA. I would gladly pay that to TSLA even if it didn't have "good business prospects" as a way to push forward humanity -- that it continues to have financial upside is just a bonus.

In this world, we so rarely get a chance to "vote with our dollars" in a meaningful way. The fact that some people have grandeur plans and work tirelessly to progress humanity is amazing; that others just want to naysay and profit off their crashes & burns... it boggles my mind.

Buying shares of TSLA doesn't put money in TSLA's pocket anymore than buying a PUT on TSLA takes money from their pocket.

Not directly, but in acquisitions the price of the stock does help in all stock/part stock deals.

In moderation, short positions help markets function better by discouraging speculative bubbles. How those affects combine for TSLA I won't claim to know. But the popular notion that short positions are inherently harmful is incorrect.

Short positions are part of an efficient allocation of capital and efficient pricing. They also effectively bring down the price of this company - so you can buy more if you think it should be higher.

Some people think Tesla is a mess. Short sellers help keep bubblicious prices down and, if those people succeed, they'll invest in companies that have a better shot of actually succeeding.

Shorting is part of the spectrum: it goes from all of your money in a single stock to none to negative.

I think one could argue that by not buying more Tesla stock, you are also not merely passive. You also have a detrimental effect. ;)

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/12/financia... http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/in-... http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2008/09/in_defense_of_shor...

Selling short can be harmful for a company, since brokers are allowed to lend up to 100% of a company's shares, effectively doubling available supply which can put downward pressure on cash raises through further raises through the creation of additional stock, but buying put options is just an advanced form of side bets which has almost no negative consequences to the company in question.

> buying put options is just an advanced form of side bets

Option dealers dynamically hedge. For each put sold they (a) buy a call and short the stock, (b) buy a put or (c) sell some fraction of the stock.

I'm aware, it's why I followed it up with:

> has almost no negative consequences to the company in question.

The reality is, of course, not so simple, but the general idea is manifested differently on the strike price of course and I didn't want to get buried in detail. The fact remains that even if the stock was 100% short sold, buying additional puts can still tank the stock due to market dynamics, but it isn't wrong to say that buying puts has less impact than selling short.

People buying TSLA aren't required to take an ideological purity test, either. You can bet that some of them are in it for the money, too. Your comment is kinda like "you can vote, but only if I approve of it" which isn't really voting.

Your view is pretty common -- lots of shorts like to post about why they're shorting Tesla all over the Internet -- and appears to have nothing to do with the article we're supposed to be discussing.

Your view is pretty incorrect -- given that the article is about a negative Tesla event a short bet comment is not too surprising.

I said that it's common for shorts to post, and you're saying that I'm wrong and that it's not surprising that a short posted in this Tesla thread. Gotcha.

Most Tesla-related threads on HN, no matter what the original article is about, contain some combination of the following:

A stock short posting about why they're shorting Tesla, usually for reasons completely unrelated to the article.

Someone complaining that they live in an apartment and don't have a place to charge.

Someone complaining about the Tesla touchscreen controls being worse than physical controls, generally without indicating that they're aware that Teslas have the usual steering wheel controls.

Animats complaining that Autopilot is misnamed. (I suppose that's what his YouTube url list is about, I guess he missed that part about "don't post video links without explaining what's in them".)

A complaint that Tesla cars are only for rich people.

A complaint that since some places in the developing world don't have a reliable electric grid, that... well, I'm not sure what they're getting at.

A complaint that we can't all switch to electric cars tomorrow, because the Grid isn't big enough.

A complaint that electric cars aren't good because a lot of electricity comes from coal.

A complaint that electric cars aren't good because of the fairly modest environmental damage that comes from lithium mines.

A complaint that Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City are more tied together than they should be.

A complaint about Elon's reality distortion field.

A complaint that there's a gang downvoting anti-Tesla comments.

A complaint that there's a gang downvoting pro-Tesla comments.

A complaint that all Tesla threads get flagged off of the front page.

A suggestion that we could use car batteries as grid storage.

Complaints that Teslas aren't luxurious enough. (Uh, isn't Tesla's #1 selling point performance?)

I can go on, but, you have probably already noticed that this thread is scoring pretty high against this list. And really, it's pretty boring. Which is probably why this story has been... wait for it... flagged off of the front page.

I like you.

maybe I should have quoted the part that was wrong:

>>[someones comment] appears to have nothing to do with the article we're supposed to be discussing.

This is wrong because mentioning a short bet is on topic for an article about a negative news event.

Regarding your other point, I haven't researched it. I can only say my other comment on this thread (about what Musk knew about quality) had nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

The Economist's articles on Tesla this week are remarkable. SolarCity could bring down Tesla. Another SpaceX crash might too. It's all too much risk and the dubious financing strategies coming up with buy/buyback and whatnot look like financial engineering. Between that and depending on a growth rate like Apple or Google at their peak when they were financed it's all too much.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21709061-entrepreneur...

Musk is incredible, but it looks like there will be a messy end. Tesla and SpaceX's technology will no doubt survive though.

That's a pretty terrible bet with a terrible payoff profile. Even if it sinks to like a quarter of it's current value you'd only make about 3x on your money at most of the strike prices.

Shhh... I've been very happy selling TSLA puts to guys like him

Reply on news.ycombinator.com