https://twitter.com/whistlerian1834/status/10965848934824632...
https://twitter.com/whistlerian1834/status/10965848934824632...
I don't see these as fully symmetric. I see them as oppositional, and indeed a long will do the things which improve their position. But since thats constructive not destructive, there appears to me to be a useful distinction.
What did I get wrong here?
Your assumption that corporate PR is “emerging reality”. Shorts are also capable of revealing reality.
I think musk is a very flawed capitalist, but I think Tesla is interesting as a company. Panasonic is huge. Their decision to invest in the battery plant speaks to me more than the shorts do. Likewise the Chinese decision to invest in the gigafactory. These are not short positions, they are major long-term capital investment which is continuing.
I don't think all shorts do this. I do think a lot of Musk shorts (relatively speaking) do this.
So depending on the margin, Tesla could absolutely be in a position where building an SR+ Model 3 and leasing it is cash flow negative (over the first 180 days, so once suppliers are paid).
But it's unlikely to be worse than leaving the factory idle, so if that's the lever they need to pull for the demand to be there, it's a no brainer. And they can always raise more money at their current lofty valuation, so cashflow negative isn't necessarily the end of the world.
Not saying I buy the argument, but that’s how I understand it.