Tesla shorts can't get a break. First a smooth $1B+ capital raise without a stock hiccup and now this.
They are expected to generate over 90% of their value after 2020 [0]. There's the expectation that Elon Musk will definitely deliver, that Tesla market share will not be eaten up by other carmakers when they seriously start releasing electric vehicles. The expectation that electric and not another form of energy, such as hydrogen, will dominate, etc.
There's a lot that could go wrong and a lot of unknown variables. Then again everything might turn out fine, the point is that no-one know for sure.
[0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UBQtFu...
They've been "serious" for a long time. Chevy has been selling the Volt since 2010. If they were going to muscle out Tesla they would have done it by now. And it's not just about technology. Tesla has the customer reputation that companies like GM will never have again.
GM is investing in what sells, and right now (i.e. for the last decade or two), that's SUVs and light trucks. Which doesn't bode well for Tesla, at least in the near term.
You can certainly argue that fuel prices are going to go up and make electric cars popular. The question is: does it happen before Tesla goes broke?
(Edit: downvoting doesn't change facts. From GM's own 2017 outlook [1]: "Ten all-new or recently redesigned crossovers are expected to drive GM’s sales and share higher in 2017, including the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain, which will compete in the industry’s largest segment." And they're not joking about that last part. As of February 2017, SUVs and Trucks dominate the list of most-popular vehicles sold in the USA [2].)
[1] https://www.gm.com/investors/sales/us-sales-production.html
[2] https://www.cars.com/articles/top-10-best-selling-cars-febru...
I wouldn't worry about Tesla, anyway. Tesla has huge brand clout and advertises by making really awesome, inspiring vehicles. You want the fastest production sedan? There's only the Model S. And Model X is, after all, an SUV/crossover. And Model 3, which isn't, will be the basis for the Model Y, which /will/ be a crossover and/or light truck. Again, Tesla will be perfectly fine on the demand front.
You can't push on a string. Consumers buy bigger cars when gas prices are low, and more efficient cars when gas prices are high. It's why Toyota (which has built a brand identity around fuel efficiency) does worse when fuel prices go down.
Marketing can influence consumers' affinity for brands and perception of product quality. It can't change economics.
"Tesla will be perfectly fine on the demand front."
I'm sure there's a market. After all, Lamborghini is "perfectly fine on the demand front", too. But will the demand for electric vehicles justify a valuation on par with General Motors? That's the rub.
Actually, I would say marketing is one of the few things that actually can change economics, since it affects perception. Marketing can make someone think they need a new car when they don't, or that a car is affordable than an alternative when it really isn't (given financing, fuel economy, services, etc which are not always taken into account).
People don't make decisions based on reality, they make decisions based on their perception of reality. If you can change that perception, you may change their decisions.
You think car companies want to change their assembly lines and tooling, if they can magically change consumer buying habits with a bit of advertising? Come on.
If I was attempting to make an argument against that, I would have done so. You seem to have mistaken my comment as some rebuttal to your entire argument. I just thought one specific point was interesting, but not entirely correct from my point of view.
> You think car companies want to change their assembly lines and tooling, if they can magically change consumer buying habits with a bit of advertising? Come on.
Since you're asking, no, I don't think car companies want to change anything. That doesn't mean they won't be forced to change, and I think being forced to change rarely works out as well as noticing the trends and changing along with, or better yet, slightly in advance of those trends.
It's obvious by the change in types of cars bought based on gas prices that gas prices influence buying decisions for many people. But influence does not necessarily mean control. Many factors go into the decision of which car to purchase, electric or not. Fuel cost is but one of those factors. Tesla has shown that there are people that buy based on other decisions, since the price of a Tesla means that fuel costs are basically moot. Luxury, performance and status are all factors that the automakers and intimately familiar with marketing towards and selling to, usually each to varying degrees with different products. That they've left these areas mostly untapped for electric vehicles after Tesla has shown there is a market, since there were 400k+ Model 3 preorders as of roughly a year ago, leaves many people confused, and I don't think it can be entirely explained away by gas prices. That's enough presales a year ago to be on par with yearly Camry sales. GM is obviously doing something to try to tap into this with the Bolt, but that's still one entry and at the low-end.
Yep. Building cars for the mainstream is a low-margin, capital-intensive business. That doesn't go away because Musk is brilliant.
https://www.cars.com/articles/top-10-best-selling-cars-febru...
But yes, trucks are on the rise again.
GM already has a crossover line. In fact, it has a bunch, and they sell really well:
http://www.gmfleet.com/vehicle-search/by-body-style/suvs-cro...
Point out Tesla's crossover SUV with the range of a gasoline vehicle and the price point of a Chevy Equinox ($25k). I'll wait.
Whoa — you have to realize what you just did there, right? This is a massive shifting of the goalposts from what you said Tesla's problem was earlier, which is that SUVs and light trucks are what sells.
Anyway, I don't think most people with SUVs actually go through a full tank of gas a day, so having completely equal range doesn't seem like that big an issue. So now it sounds like Tesla's major problem is that they're competing with the Range Rover rather than the Equinox.
It's not about what market segment that sells, it's that dealers have no incentives to sell electric vehicles since there's no margin on services and maintenance.
The topic's GM and GM dealerships. You said GM has to fight the GM dealerships due to conflicting interests, whereas, he's saying GM and the GM dealerships don't want "non" mass-markets customers to begin with (i.e. no conflict).
Tesla on the other hand, lives and dies by its EV performance, and their approach to the market at higher end kept them alive along with loans from US with few strings attached (for various reasons).
Tesla did not "break through" any thing. If any thing, existence of BoltEV and Volt does demonstrate couple of things, a legacy car company when there are profits are going to turn on dime and make shit ton of EVs, if that is what market wants.
Tesla has brand recognition behind it, but again as some one pointed out when the market for EVs in high demand and profitable, from BMW to GM, you will have them roll EVs in millions.
The cost is coming down. Chevy is now selling the Bolt, which has pretty good range, for under $40,000. Tesla's Model 3 is coming soon. More will follow. The high cost comes from the batteries, which are getting cheaper all the time.
I'm not sure that "unpopular" is quite the right word. A lot of people really like Teslas. Most of them can't afford them. The desire is there, the means is not (yet).
It's smart to invest in what sells right now... until things change and that's no longer what sells. GM is investing in what sells today. Tesla is investing in what might sell in a decade or two. Tesla's approach isn't certain but if they're right then GM is going to relive their experience of the 1970s where they take way too long to react to a changing market.
So, nobody pays the full price of an EV at the moment. You can currently buy 1-2 year-old, certified Nissan Leafs for less than $13,000.
I think you can only say EVs are a success when a used market is thriving. Many people can't afford new after all.
I've been looking at cheaper used EVs for a second car. There are lots of used LEAFs out there, some Smart EDs, and a couple of Focus Electrics, which look really nice if you don't mind the short range, but aren't very popular at all. These cars seem to drop in value a lot for the used market. I saw several that were not all that old going for under $10,000.
Teslas seem to retain their value better. I'd guess it's partly because the car is more desirable, and partly because Tesla treats their batteries a lot better, so they can be expected to last longer. The LEAF in particular was known for a while for losing quite a bit of range in just a few years.
As far as how they'll retain their value in the long term, it's hard to say. EVs should lose less value due to things like drivetrain wear, since you don't have a bazillion moving parts in an engine and transmission to go wrong. But they'll lose more value to battery degradation. Much will hinge on how well the batteries age and how much they cost to replace in 10+ years.
This is not really great news for the low-end EV market, though - if the average person isn't interested in a midly used <$10,000 EV, how well will a $35,000 (With no frills - the average vehicle will probably be closer to $40,000) EV sell for?
Keep in mind that after years of making cars, Tesla is still struggling with quality control, supply chains, and repairs.
If we took a time machine, and traveled back to the early 00s, would you have dropped $40,000 on a vehicle made by Kia?
That's roughly where Tesla is today, in terms of maturity. I'm sure it will get better - but it may take a decade.
I don't understand this. The <$10,000 EV in question has a range of maybe 80 miles, probably less at this point. The $35,000+ EV will have a 200+ mile range and access to an extensive fast-charging network for trips beyond that.
Personally, I've stopped looking at the <$10,000 EVs in favor of waiting for a Model 3, because even though it's far more expensive, it's also far superior.
Tesla has no trouble selling Model Ss and Xs today even though they start at $68,000 and go up well into the 100s. They have a metaphorical line out the door for the Model 3. Tesla is struggling with quality control and such, and it could come back to bite them down the road, but it's not making it hard for them to find customers now.
Anyway, there are plenty of used electric cars out there if you're happy with the models that have been out for a few years.
I haven't looked too hard at the used market, but it looks like a decent way to get one for less. This web site lists a bunch that Tesla is selling through their CPO program if you want to see what's out there:
For what it's worth, I have an early 2015 Model S and it's had a few minor problems, but nothing close to leaving me stranded.
The story is so reminiscent of Kodak. Huge 'titanic' of a ship that saw the writing on the wall, actually released digital cameras but the bulk of their infrastructure, employees and expenditures were in traditional film cameras. Once the industry fully shifted they still couldn't change course and died a slow agonizing death as taking pictures became a commodity that came 'free' with your cellphone.
GM doesn't get money from gas (though their dealers do get money from maintenance which is hypothetically(?) lower with electric vehicles. Different anyway.)
It seems to me that the Bolt and Model 3 should be pretty similar in terms of cost, range, and price. The main difference is the Tesla brand / visual design and probably more self-driving tech in the Model 3. Am I missing something?
I regularly make a ~300mi roundtrip with our Tesla, I wouldn't own one today if that wasn't possible.
[edit]
Before anyone brings up ChaDeMo(I have the adapter), SAE combo neither are nearly as fast(120kW) in real-world use and have nearly as much market penetration.
The super-charger network is also something that's planned and built-out with the intention of being to make the major arterials rather than having a patchwork of various companies providing chargers.
The self-driving/driver-assistance tech gulf is pretty big. The Bolt is fairly basic, while the Model 3 will have at least Tesla's Autopilot 2 hardware, which they say will be sufficient for full self-driving once the software is done. Even if that doesn't work out, it'll have excellent traffic-aware cruise control and lane keeping at the least.
I'd say the brand is also fairly important. Not (just) because Tesla is "cool," but because Tesla is committed. Supposedly GM is planning for something like 50,000 Bolts per year, so it seems like yet another car where dealers will try to steer you to a nice pickup truck or something instead, and finding someone willing to service it could be tough.
Putting it all together, and it seems like GM is putting their toe in the water, while Tesla is balls-to-the-wall (forgive the mixed metaphor).
I probably shouldn't be sharing this but I know someone who is working on the Bolt and he told me they've been having a lot of trouble integrating self-driving tech that's close to Tesla's
This of course completely ignores the potential effect of self-driving cars. I'm still skeptical we'll see large scale automated driving for at least 10-20 years.
However, if EVs become widely used, then the lower demand for gasoline will mean gas prices stay low. So long-term, EVs need to compete with low gas prices anyway, even if prices creep back up in the near-term.
But yeah. Once batteries are cheap enough, then electric vehicles may actually become cheaper than internal combustion engine vehicles /upfront/, in addition to the much lower running costs.
Even though I whole-heatedly recommend Volt esp. Gen2. The market is not ready yet, and GM is doing what an established Car company does. Tesla's life depends on pushing EVs, so they are who they are.
Yup. They haven't adopted the Andy Grove/Bill Gates/Larry Ellison philosophy of "Only The Paranoid Survive," yet. They are banking on the expectation that if/when consumer interest spikes they'll be able to use their influence to jump to the front of the line, like they did with past ICE competitors.
The question is... will the electric car market be more like the ICE market where paranoia is (apparently) unnecessary, or the semiconductor/software markets where it is (apparently) quite important.
The platform looks amazing. It boggles my mind in all the years this vehicle has existed that they haven't made more vehicles based on it.
It's a natural fit. The extra weight is a positive not a negative. The tractor is already a hydrostatic transmission in order to get continuous torque across RPMs and some in this market already use an electric motor for hydraulics (powered from a generator via the engine). It's only used for short bursts of activity so doesn't need a particularly huge battery even.
But such a product doesn't exist yet :-(
Need three point hitch, loader, PTO, and industrial tires.
When you (or someone else) makes one with equivalence to about 30 or 40hp for under $30k and, I will instantly buy it.
All of those things are certainly doable, although we will be pretty much eliminating the hydraulic system, so the PTO and loader might need to be thought out a little differently.
Go figure. It's not like I can't afford the monthly payments.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-greatest-auto-lease-dea...
Then again, maybe statistically people on fiancee visas are more likely to end up with permanent residency than people on H1B?
As it turns out, it's already discontinued?
Disclaimer: I'm long TSLA and Solar City Solar Bonds.
Tesla is more like a luxury brand so its biggest potential competitors will be the big 3 in Germany and possibly Lexus (which all have a pretty good reputation), and currently none of them propose that many options.
Audi and Lexus have none. BMW has two, but only one of them can sort of compete with Tesla (can't go far with the i5 battery). Mercedes only has one (if I'm not mistaken). It really feels like they're only getting started, and if/when they start releasing really compelling models, it will be something more to deal with for Tesla.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-governme...
In short, German carmakers' historical expertise in designing good internal combustion engines are worthless if electric cars take over. The auto industry is ripe for some serious disruption.
Tesla has opened up a slice of the market the traditional maker didn't expect would work: primary car. This has a feel of Apple with iPhone in 2007.
Even if Tesla ramp up tremendously and try getting in every car segment simultaneously, they will not have the capacity to provide all the cars that people are looking for, so the rest of the companies will likely continue to provide the bulk of the car market. Which is not a negative for Tesla, the market is simply enormous: it would take Tesla to produce over 2 million cars per quarter to even get over the single digit market share.
The biggest risk now for Tesla is not being able to reach critical mass fast enough. I can understand their valuation and their need for cash. I can understand the shorters too, unlike the smartphone market, car purchase has at least a 4 years cycle and even in the first world, a car purchase is one of the biggest investment.
These rockets are far superior to their ancestors. With orbital factories around earth, and regular deliveries of colonization supplies, the network is vast, complex and efficient.
Starting with battery manufacturing on earth, all the colonization components required of earth are delivered to the orbital factories where humans and robots work in a beautiful synchronized effort to prepare each packet to Mars. Batteries and other components are delivered to orbit. They are then constructed into the various machines to be delivered to mars on the massive Falcon-33s that will haul them to Mars.
The autonomous Tesla Landers are quite complex, they have impressive batteries, but its their job which is more impressive.
Once orbiting Mars, the payload shall be unpacked and deployed to the surface, where they will continue the construction of the massive solar arrays which already have a large contingent of batteries to slurp up the solar energy and store it for all the other needs of the build-out.
The project has been going on for decades, but we are starting to see some serious results in this phase...
The original idea was laughed at, but it was all backed by sound science and a simple phased approach:
* Develop seed infra at home; Batteries, rockets, robots
* Consumerize these to fund later phases
* Proof-out orbital autonomous delivery services via the ISS
* Commoditize space tourism, popularize it with celebrities
* Exploratory missions to Mars
* Develop orbital manufacturing capabilities, where supplies can be delivered autonomously
* Build Ultra-heavies in orbit, modularly to avoid launch costs from surface (required tethering technology to be developed)
* Deploy communication relay probes between spatial bodies
* Deliver initial robots to surface of Mars, they prep for solar install
* initial solar install to feed robot population already on surface
* Add batteries
* further infrastructure to follow, but with a working autonomous robot service group ready to build out
We are now at the deployed battery stage, the Organization is now preparing the life support systems for long-term human colonization, and within the next 25 years, we will have a permanent Human Civilization2 on the planet Mars... perhaps, Again?
Venus is far too hot to be useful for anything besides dirigible cities, and what are you going to do there except sightsee the yellow clouds? Maybe it could be terraformed to something livable, but that would take a long time. If that could be done though, it'd be a great place, since it's close to Earth's size and gravity.
Mercury is too close to the Sun and too hot. You could put a city on the dark side, but the city would have to move constantly to stay on the dark side.
The asteroid belt might be useful for mining, as would other places farther beyond, but anything that far out is going to be very cold, because it's so far from the Sun. Also, the Moons of Jupiter are bombarded with massive amounts of radiation from their planet. And all those places have horribly low gravity too, which probably won't work well with human biology, unless perhaps we genetically engineer ourselves to fix that.
Space exploration is great for science and maybe resource extraction, but I just don't see the point of colonization except for a couple of somewhat-convenient places, at least not in this star system. I really can't imagine an "empire" across this solar system. Now it would be really cool if we could explore the TRAPPIST system and maybe find livable worlds there.
Even with your "jump on a ship" bit, European exploration of the "New World" was very expensive and required investment from wealthy patrons. It wasn't something a small group of adventurers could just do on their own.
If you can fund a Mars colonization mission all by yourself, then more power to you. But I just don't think it's possible, at least not any time soon. As a species, we haven't even managed to do any better than landing 3 men on our very nearby Moon for very short missions. We have zero experience in building and living in actual offworld habitats. It's never been done, not even in the one place where it's so close by that a rescue mission wouldn't be hard to do. The closest we've come is Biosphere II, a glass building in the Arizona desert, and that was a big failure.
It's too late to edit this, but I just want to qualify it: we have zero experience building and living in habitats on other celestial bodies. A small space station in low-Earth orbit within the Van Allen radiation-protection belts doesn't really count.
Funding be damned. No one is asking you to work your arse off Interstellar style to fund a secret program to fund humanity and get us out of here. And no-one is asking the US government to pump a trillion into setting up colonies out there. But it will happen - and there will be commercial starts to it - asteroid mining, with initial small numbers of support personnel up there, then maybe a few habs. Maybe it will take generations; or maybe we'll be wiped out before then. But it is either part of the inevitable march of the story of our civilisation; or there won't be a civilisation to talk about
If you meditate on this you will see that the amount of gumption doing this, especially when info was not so easily begot and Safeway didnt exist... jesus - humanity was REALLY tenacious in the past. So, if given the opportunity to go on a craft to mars with even a single digit % survival probability - I would do it, if anything just to honor those who have done the same in the past...
Besides, if it's strategically placed, it could easily threaten Earth with kinetic projectiles if Earth's political systems attempt to take control of it. Military units inside a deep gravity well have an enormous disadvantage to those outside the gravity well.
Tesla has been around long enough that it can no longer be replaced by a large company that just throws a ton of money and talent at it. They're too far ahead. There's no substitute for the raw amount of time Tesla has spent developing its product.
This is true of many startups, especially in a low rate environment. It's the "Terminal Value" in the calculation that drives value. Of course the Terminal Value also is extremely volatile, and changes a lot to small changes in inputs.
Hydrogen is unlikely to win, it's fair to say that it has already lost [1]. The hydrogen economy was mostly a myth [2]. 95% of hydrogen is made from natural gas [3].
[1] http://www.salon.com/2016/11/19/who-killed-the-hydrogen-car-...
[2] http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/02/hydrogen-is-not-the-fuel...
[3] https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natura...
(This only matters for valuation sake, a classic tech play can achieve profit margins far higher than a manufacturing firm.)
"Technology ("science of craft", from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia) is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, and the like, or it can be embedded in machines which can be operated without detailed knowledge of their workings."
You can argue that that isn't accurate, but I don't see how you can argue that the categorical statement "tech companies have server costs" follows from it (I can't even find the word "server" on that page, or on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech)
[1] https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory
[2] https://www.tesla.com/blog/panasonic-and-tesla-sign-agreemen...
The only reason I think this matters is their finances are a lot different than a tech company. You are correct that Tesla is currently priced like a tech company though, so maybe I'm way off!
For me a tech company is any company that uses the development of technology as a competitive advantage. Solar is not, major solar companies are not developing innovative technology. Tesla is, they do not have an advantage in scale or low prices, but have advantage in how their vehicles function.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/05/ford-begins-testing-3d-pri...
So then is Ford a tech company? If not, then I'd be interested to hear why not, based on that criteria. Their cars are technology and they continuously develop and improve them as a competitive advantage.
I think people think of Tesla as a tech company because the founder is Elon Musk. If Tesla were a spin-off brand of GM or Ford, it would be another car company.
I've been thinking about it, and this is where I've landed.
Most companies develop technology as a competitive advantage these days, certainly any large company. Walmart has innovated a lot in the supply chain management space, but most people don't consider Walmart a tech company. It's a company that uses technology to deliver goods and services cheaper, more reliably, etc. This is essentially true for Ford also. People generally don't buy a Ford because of any technological innovation. So even though it is Ford's technology that lets them deliver an affordable, reliable car, people don't think of Ford as a tech company.
Whereas Tesla's primary focus is on developing new technology. Their product is not really cars; their real product is inventing and applying new scientific knowledge. The car is a way to fund that research, i.e., it's the opposite of a traditional car company where research is a way to sell cars. Elon Musk has said that Tesla is a battery company, not a car company. His stated goal of Tesla is to "is to change the way the world uses energy at an extreme scale."
So, that feels like a legitimate difference to me. But I think you're actually right that it's a tech company mostly just because the founder is Elon Musk, insomuch as he is the one driving the focus and vision of the company. That is, he is the one saying Tesla is a battery company instead of a car company.
A more interesting comparison to me would be Volvo. I don't know if it's still true, but for decades Volvo was a leader in passenger safety. They had the first 3-point seat belt, first side impact airbags, first blindspot detection system, among others IIRC. I'm still not sure they'd be considered a tech company, in that they were using the safety innovation primarily to drive sales of cars. But I think it's a bit more nebulous. If they'd had a marketing-savvy CEO who proclaimed, "Volvo is a safety innovation company, not a car company," I don't know. :)
Apple dropped the "Computer" from its name when moving firmly into a market (pocket supercomputers) which was a natural extension of its real core competency (high-UI/UX computers), but which (phones) were deeply perceived by the public as something profoundly different from "computers". Steve Jobs rediscovered the company's core competency, focused on it, and adjusted name & strategy accordingly.
Kodak thought its core competency was photochemical consumables. That was a pivot away from imaging, and into oblivion when the imaging technology shifted.
Smith Corona's competency was typewriters. We still need typewriters, but because SC tried to compete with computers (a spreadsheet on an electric typewriter is a non-sequitur), rather than being the best product for a shrinking yet enduring market, the biggest world brand vanished overnight.
If a company is going to pivot (which a name change absolutely signifies), then it better pivot around its core competency. Tesla's "tech" need be absolutely about either electric cars (by which batteries and solar are incidental and expendable for more suitable power sourcing), or solar (by which the consuming device may be far different than just a car), or power storage (source and use of power being incidental). Tesla is only "tech" insofar as they're pushing the limits of technology for building & powering electric cars. Stick with the cars, with solar ONLY as a means to free their power sourcing (and extra powering one's home), and they'll do fine; self-identify as a "tech" company, and they'll die of confusion. Musk is smarter than that mistake.
Now that I know what she was talking about, I'm deeply impressed by Apple's mastery of the subject, and see why Tim Cook is running the place.
Shorts can get very cranky and righteous about each little bit of slippage. But as long as new enthusiasts keep showing up, and old ones feel lenient, it's hopeless to insist on strict accountability. Even a short-lived burst of optimism is sufficient to arrange more funding, so manana always seems within reach.
Worst case: you're shorting Amazon. The bulls were right, and you go broke.
Best case: you're shorting something like Energy Conversion Devices, which eventually did run out of money and file for Chapter 11 in 2012. Shorts had been predicting its demise since the 1970s. That is a long time to wait.
My advice is to just not touch tech stocks; going short on them is just as dangerous as going long.
Shorting generally should only be for companies whose solvency is in doubt.
With options, you could be right on direction, and still lose money.
China probably loses at least temporarily in the runaway climate change event due to destroyed cropland and refugees. The U.S. has exposure on both sides so it's a little more moot for us. We'll lose quite a lot of biodiversity, and may take a big hit to agriculture but we're banking petrodollars and have so much upside when people move to virtual reality we'll be fine. If we were horribly exposed Dems/Reps wouldn't be split on the issue, as clueless as they are.
And of course there are the Saudis and corporate/investment petro interests you allude to.
Russia/Saud/Exxon vs China with U.S. on the sidelines... not sure who wins there.
I really hope we can transition to sustainable energy, but there are big players that stand to gain from delaying it until the reserves are burnt. It's not a bet I would take but I understand why people would bet on there being plenty of feet sticking out to trip up Tesla and co.
At the end of the day, stock prices are moved by demand/supply of the shares themselves. Whether or not there's demand depends on sentiment.
What's amazing are the longs seeing capital raises at mediocre terms as a wide open positive.
The guy at the top of this thread who said "Shorts can't buy a break".
It's at least arguable that these sorts of capital raises are exactly what the shorts are looking for.
I don't need to read a filing to know that when you create shares out of nowhere, and sell them, diluting current shareholders, it's a capital raise. What else would you call it?
Do you understand that Tencent bought shares in a secondary offering? Apparently you do, you said it. Not sure what you're arguing. Do you understand the purpose of selling shares is to raise money for operations?
> The 8,167,544 shares of Issuer common stock were acquired by the reporting persons in a registered offering of common stock by the Issuer on March 17, 2017 and through open market purchases, for an aggregate purchase price of $1,777,842,836 (including commission).
That means Tencent acquired its position at an average price of $217 / share. The March 17 secondary was priced at $255 / share. Algebra tells us that > 98% of Tencent's position was acquired on the open market and the rest via the March 17 offering.
Editing because I think we were talking past each other. Yes, I didn't mean this specific event. I tend to meld all these TSLA threads together in my mind.
> It's my understanding that this was another offering, so, essentially, Tesla sold 5% to Tencent at an average price of $217 and change. Current shareholders get diluted. Prices go up.
This is entirely incorrect. The only shares Tesla told to Tencent were priced at $255 as part of the March 17 offering, and that only represents < 2% of Tencent's position.
The comment was 4 hours old, based off a Seeking Alpha news bulletin (I should have known better) and was prefaced with "it's my understanding..." which left it open for you, or anyone else, to correct.
What exactly are you out to prove here?
This is still so uncertain, and I for one wouldn't feel comfortable even guessing, never mind guessing with real money.
http://www.volcube.com/resources/options-articles/what-is-op...
Tencent was a major investor in Magic Leap and the Saudi Sovereign Fund invested heavily in .coms in early 2000. It is definitely not a sell signal, but I would not buy what Tencent is buying.
Most of my investments are in stocks and funds outside of where I live (Netherlands). Guess which parts of my portfolio aren't doing so well? The EU bonds.
Tencent own a lot of stock in (international) companies that are doing well too. For example, Riot Games, Epic Games and Snapchat.
Similar things can be said about Alibaba.
The stock is detached from reality.
It's my understanding that this was another offering, so, essentially, Tesla sold 5% to Tencent at an average price of $217 and change. Current shareholders get diluted. Prices go up.
I don't get it, but I'd love an explanation. Were people, prior to these capital raises, concerned Tesla couldn't raise any more money? That would make sense, but certainly isn't the sentiment I gathered from my travels.
But per stock price is the "valuation".
My comment re: being detached stems from the fact that on Day X, you can buy Tesla for price $Y. Then Tesla sells more shares (dilution). So now each individual share represents a smaller proportion of company ownership...yet the next day people are willing to pay more for that smaller ownership.
Obviously there are far more dynamics at play; but generally, dilution should cause the price to drop.
As a result, it was all aboard the hype-train for retail investors to secure their seat in yet another speculative rocket ship.
Tesla's ability to deliver has been in question for a bit. This cash will be used as fuel to prevent the rocket ship from experiencing a sudden, gravity-induced trajectory into the earth's crust