Musk was right to punk shill 'analysts' in conference call!!!

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, May 3, 2018.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    It was utterly ridiculous the worst liar manipulator so-called 'analysts' or really the purest petrol shills were lined up one right after another almost without a break in that conference call. Tamberino and Saganohi, on and on. Why?! The only reason they were there was to try to get the Tesla execs to say things that they could twist out of context to drive the stupid short play. And to make it worse the shorts load up to dump to try to magnify the effect of shill feed back media. Its such utter nonsense. So he pulled the plug on it. And it was great.

    Also said basically screw the day traders and those trying to play volatility- straight up told them to divest. Excellent. Also say top people with no stomach for volatility to leave.

    The problem that generally useless Wall St. has is that its been made to or is of its own accord insuring a bunch of garbage petrol debt- that is what its useless derivatives are, they are a reflection of the scam economics of petrol. Right now Exxon is paying dividends, had for a long time but its such a joke because again petrol takes in more direct state subsidies by a long shot globally than revenues and laws don't let you audit that petrol derivatives so they are blind insuring of debt and they are blind because the debt is junk. And Wall St. is radically leverage with this garbage and if Tesla succeeds they are toast. So they very negative on Tesla and its the usual suspect firms.

    Tesla should just leave it to their paper publishing and never take calls for these useless shills again. So very glad he punked them. This is demonstrating integrity and independence. All there questions were tell us why you're going to fail and tell us why you suck so he was like FFFF OFFFF.
     
  2. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    While I didn't actually listen to the call, the transcript certainly comes across like Elon not wanting to answer the hard questions about Tesla's financial performance, questions which he should have been having to answer repeatedly over the past few years. It comes across as Elon deciding to switch to some easy questions where he could talk about his dreams for the future instead of the hard reality of mass producing cars to sell in a very competitive market.

    I'm far from the only observer with the opinion that Elon appeared to be ducking very relevant questions which he found, as they say, "inconvenient". Multiple articles appeared online about Elon's performance on that call, and not a one of them that I saw had anything good to say about the way he acted there. Here is just one that I think is representative:

    From CNBC: "Tesla stock drops as Elon Musk gives bizarre earnings call"

    Speaking as a Tesla fan, I'm ashamed of Elon's rude behavior on the earnings call, and disappointed that he ducked important questions about Tesla's finances. :(

    * * * * *

    Please consider the following remarks to be an "op-ed", rather than factual statements:

    Almost every quarter, Elon repeats his prediction that Tesla will start being consistently net-profitable in one or two quarters... and it never happens. He needs to be called on his repeated "rose-colored glasses" predictions for Tesla's near-term profitability, which so very obviously do not reflect reality. It seems rather clear that Elon has no intention of aiming for profitability until Tesla has grown somewhat larger than it currently is; why isn't he being up-front about that? At some point, the little boy who keeps crying "Wolf!" needs to be spanked, or at least needs to be confronted about his repeated fibbing.

    This looks like a good place to repeat my wish that Tesla would move Elon back from his position as CEO, and replace him with someone more focused on making automobile production run smoothly, someone more willing to delegate authority, which will be required more and more as Tesla continues to grow. Elon's strength as a visionary and an "idea man" would serve Tesla better if Elon wasn't occupied with trying to run the company day-to-day, altho he should certainly be kept on as a board member because of his remarkable ability to raise funds.

    I think that would be better for Elon, too. He could certainly use more time to spend on his other full-time job: running SpaceX!
    -
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
    TeslaInvestors likes this.
  3. britjames

    britjames New Member

  4. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    Or, you know, maybe his family or something? ;)

    I'm not an investor and was not on the call. But yes, in transcripts it does not sound like it was handled very professionally.

    He may have in fact been bored or he may have been deflecting, but I think more than anything what he really wanted to do was vent! The multiple questions by the blogger gave him an opportunity to air grievances about multiple subjects... particularly the media.

    Sometimes venting is good! But this was perhaps not the best place or time to do it. That is what Twitter is for lol.
     
  5. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    Ok, first, I have to give a link to our coverage of the call: Tesla Q1 2018 Earnings Call Overload


    So, certainly he could have been more tactful. I mean, Sacconaghi's questions were tedious, but sometimes you just have to bite your tongue and/or roll your eyes and let someone else deal with the question. Spak's question might have been answered if Elon hadn't already been perturbed, but really, is it helpful to know what percentage of people cancel their reservation when asked to configure? Net reservations, noted as over 450,000 in yesterdays letter, shed the needed light there. They aren't going to run out of Model 3 customers anytime soon. Focusing in on that one metric really doesn't give more light.

    Also, contrary to what OP thinks, these guys aren't "shills." Sacconaghi drives a Tesla.
     
    WadeTyhon likes this.
  6. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    Totally agree with that.

    Asking about the current percentage of people converting was indeed pretty pointless.

    I can tell you right now that a significant number of people are deferring but not dropping their reservation.

    They're waiting for different build options. AWD, Short Range, white leather, Performance, etc.

    For now, Tesla is limiting options to limit complexity as they increase the build rate. That's the smart thing to do. They're sticking with a fairly middle-of-the-road build that is low enough in price to be attainable by a significant number of people while also being more profitable than the base model will be.

    If you go with the highest performance AWD trim first, it becomes difficult to ramp up production to the rate you need due to a higher barrier of entry.

    If you start with the lowest build, margins on each car are lower, and buyers who would have been willing to shell out for a higher build go for the lower trim instead.

    He may have felt that it shouldn't be necessary to say this, but re-iterating it would have been better than ignoring it. Not answering it in any capacity just increased people's concerns unnecessarily.
     
    Domenick likes this.
  7. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I thought about throwing that in too, but I thought my rant was long enough as it was. ;)

    :D :p ;) :)
     
  8. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Certainly the cancellation percentage means little if it's not given in the context of net reservations. If the cancellation rate were to be much higher than it is for the MS and MX, that might be significant. The only time I've seen Tesla cite the Model 3 cancellation rate, it was only about 1% higher than the MS cancellation rate (~26% vs. ~25%), so I don't think it's important.

    I can certainly see why Elon would have been annoyed at investors asking about the cancellation rate, because that's one of the things that Tesla bashers love to harp on, as if it "proves" that people don't really want Tesla cars. :rolleyes:
    -
     
    Domenick likes this.
  9. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    Right? And there are a million reasons people may be canceling orders, or pushing them back. A lot of people are upset because they haven't listened in on calls and think analysts questions are really useful in shedding light on the situation. The truth is, a lot of these people don't seem to have their finger on the pulse of the company and ask really terrible questions. Sometimes they're great, of course, but I roll my eyes a few times every call.
     
  10. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Thanks for that, Wade.

    I went back and looked at the full transcript (hey, Seeking Alpha is actually useful for that one single thing!), and the question was not about the cancellation rate at all. Here's the actual transcript of the question:

    The first question is related to the Model 3 reservations, and I was just wondering if you gave us a gauge as maybe some of the impact that the news has had. Like, of the reservations that actually opened and made available to configure, can you let us know, like, what percentage have actually taken the step to configure?
    (Seeking Alpha requests that any use of their transcript includes a link to the source.)

    I don't think that's at all a bonehead question. It's very relevant to ask what percentage of people are converting their reservation to an order, versus what percentage are holding off, presumably until more options are available, altho -- judging by many comments on TMC -- some are waiting until later in the hope that build quality will improve. It's definitely relevant to discuss Tesla's strategy in ramping up production while keeping options limited (Wade already addressed the advantages of that) versus opening up the production line to more options, which will make production more complex and slow down the line.

    So it would be helpful ;) if my remarks were actually relevant to what the question was about; the question which annoyed Elon so greatly. My apologies for dragging the conversation into a blind alley.
    -
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  11. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    No you don't replace Musk with John Sculley. And Tesla is more important than SpaceX at this point.
     
  12. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    No driving a Tesla is a prop. The issue here is these so called analysts are not independent in any way but work for firms that will go under if Tesla succeeds because these firms hold huge amounts of derivatives which are insurance of blind debt on stranded petrol assets. That stuff will become worthless and sink those firms as Tesla creates green pressure. So they are part of the short cycle. They are only there to ask stupid questions and try to spin the firm to sink it. Its much worse than say having Microsoft siting there at Google's conference and asking all the questions.

    These guys aren't legitimate, they shouldn't be treated as such, there is no way Tesla should ever be taking another question from Tamberino and Saccaonghi, they are thoroughly discredited and not just from obvious conflicts of interest through their firms directly or through corrupted interlocking boards or other types of unacceptable influence but through the stupid shill bating things they've said in the past. If a moron analysts says we are short Tesla its going to $100, stupid comments like these are meant to help manipulate the stock price not inform investors. These guys aren't any better than having David Einhorn ask the questions.

    You don't just need UBS or some other petrol captured firm, Goldman Sach's isn't credible either. Think of what Goldman did during the collapse and the part they played in it and how they weren't held to account and now these firms still double down on the same toxic petrol derivative junk that caused the collapse and is utterly worthless beyond the government dole which will end with green increases and with it comes increasing transparency on their regressive petrol economics.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  13. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

  14. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Yeah well Wired is a sponsored media publication and that sponsored part about says it all. Sponsored and shill are synonymous.
    Musk is the largest owner of Tesla so he puts his money where his mouth is. Those two idiots were not asking 'tough,' questions they were asking their typical dumb questions, bone headed and boring is way too polite. These groups buy and dump the stock to try to successively control the narrative around the stock. Musk has been very clear that the company is not about money for money grubbers its about changing the world. He told other types of investors and speculators to get out, has not interest in letting them back seat drive to a fail convincingly performance for to appease petrol.

    One super annoying aspect of the Wired piece is the attempt to say that these shills (not journalists or unbiased people but surely bought and paid for or owned people) represent investors. Sure as hell don't represent people like me. Go back and look at what those two have written. Most of that line up of people asking questions, one right after another was horrid. These are people who will loss lead with some early positive stuff, all for show in their career of covering Tesla then turn negative with non stop attack ads. These spinsters were what the line up was composed of. Why were they even allowed in? No way to even call them critics, because there is no intelligence behind what they do. How did a guy with 12 shares get to push for a Chairman change? Now with the new prospectus there are 4 questions and you're supposed to vote on them but with sites like proxy vote, unlike in the past you get a blind intro and no way to know what the final two proposals are so you could easily vote the wrong way. These kinds of things concern me.

    When the Giga factory in Vegas completes its over for Petrol fuel energy. Half that factory is Panasonic so odds are it will get done.

    I'd like to see Tesla drop these sessions. One meeting a year is enough as are the twitter sessions but I'd like to see less of those as well. And it is beyond foolish for Tesla to continue to invite these paid for fools to the question sessions. They are not there to get information they are there to inject doubt and spin. And they ask incredibly stupid questions generally, any intelligent question is just a loss leader. The youtube guy did way better. For the rest of it anyone can read the prospectus.

    Tesla was too modest. All the news should be focused on is Model 3 now outselling BMW 2, 3 & 4 series combined in the US and soon in the world. The revolution is happening but these bought and paid for nay saying petrol shill idiots are being allowed to drown out reality.
     
  15. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    Musk apparantly thought the two were short sellers, even though they are not.

    https://electrek.co/2018/05/04/tesla-elon-musk-cutting-off-analysts-on-teslas-earnings-call-tweets/

    As we already discussed yesterday, I think it was more about the questions getting repetitive and boring than anything else.

    It looks like Musk might have been misinformed about the analysts’ intentions. While it’s true that there’s a lot of short interest on Tesla’s stock, those two are not the go-to analysts when short sellers are trying to justify their position.

    I think that Musk is trying to adjust now after the backlash and the solution is probably somewhere in the middle with a mix of questions from Wall Street analysts, the media, and representatives from the retail investor base.”

    Lol electrek calling Elon misinformed on a topic doesn’t happen very often!

    Again, I think he just wanted to vent. :p It didn’t matter who the two were asking questions.

    He is just trying to justify that now by calling them shorters. But in fact they were never shorters. So saying that kind of just further hurts his case. He was the one that hurt the stock yesterday! Maybe Musk is the short seller...? lol

    The story is starting to get a bit overblown however.

    Unless he is willing to say ‘I’m sorry it was wrong of me” he should just drop the subject for a few days and wait for this to blow over. People will move on if Musk moves on.
     
  16. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    David Green and WadeTyhon like this.
  17. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    :D :p :D

    Be careful, Domenick... InsideEVs, between the Forum and the news site, already have two Usual Suspects who seem obsessed with conspiracy theories. They might see that as a serious suggestion! ;)
    -
     
    Domenick and WadeTyhon like this.
  18. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    He is playing a dangerous game. A group of big investors could quite easily displace him and replace him with a 'safe pair of hands' if they think he's expanding too quickly. That might indeed be the best thing for the company.

    A lot of generals have made the same mistake in advancing too far without thought of their ability to hold what they've won.
     
  19. TeslaInvestors

    TeslaInvestors Active Member

    Hmm, bored or venting? Don't think so. With the kind of money he has, he can easily hire a few shrinks to vent out.
    If he was really bored. he would have let the other people who were there ( JB, Deepak, Doug) do the talking.
    But instead, he shut everyone down, with his stu*** interjection about "best in class of one". What an arrogant and childish comment.

    So the real reason is to hide something. What is it is the question. Or it could be to distract people from focusing on the financials.

    Model 3 cancellation: It is very important. People were shown a $35k car , and many line waiters and early reservationists accounted for the $7500 tax credit. Why else bother waiting in line? Then midway, Elon changes the rules of the game and pushes these people out of the tax credit, to the back of the line as outcasts!
    "Bait and switch" comes to the mind. Many other bad words also come to my mind. I predict 70% will disappear due to competitive offerings, tax credit expiry and bait and switch.

    Tesla reps are still telling the potential buyers (and they are then parroting to others) that the $7500 tax credit expires in June! Frankly.. I don't know how we can keep turning a blind eye to all the nefarious things Elon and Tesla keep doing. Never mind the bird dogging rules that it blatantly violates in California. Never mind the AP 2.0 hoax. Never mind cheating customers on 691 hp. The list goes on and on. But I must not :)

    What is worse, he has doubled down on fooling the greater fools on twitter, instagram and Facebook. He is fishing for young and gullible fools to invest in his failing company while he talks about Mars and flies around in his G650ER chasing starlets. Had he devoted such time to actually fix the bottlenecks and quality issues wth Model 3, Tesla might actually be making some progress on those..
    I am not sure how I should describe such behavior and still maintain a civil atmosphere for this pro-Tesla, proEV fan site.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  20. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    @TeslaInvestors, typical nothing but BS out of you, everything you wrote is dishonest. Go back and focus on "Model 3 is outselling BMW 2/3/4 combined." Remember your response there. You certainly don't represent "TeslaInvestors"- just a PR bot it seems.

    @Wade Tyhon, the idea that Saganochi, Spaks and Tamberino for that matter aren't shill shorts is ridiculous. All you have to do is look what they've written over last year. Saying stuff like Tesla to go to $200 or $150 and announcing it as fact, stuff like that out of Tamberino- he'd be about as credible as Chanos or Einhorn or Debord, again Cowen, UBS, Bernstein all clueless shills hypocrites with massive conflicts of interest. These people simply aren't even remotely credible are either paid for or have massive conflicts of interests with petrol derivatives that will sink them when Tesla succeeds.

    @Pushmi-Pullyu the wired article was "not in depth" it was sht, most of what Wired does on Tesla is sht, its at the level of MIT Technology Review or 'Ars.' And there was no back-lash, those that load the short interest also load regular stock to dump to drive the short cycle. Not long ago it was discovered that a group the GOP used was hired by the Kochs or other petrol interests to try to smear Tesla to drive down its goodwill with nothing but negative associations in the shill press.

    Tesla should never take questions from these entities. Never from firms with derivatives or short activity or a history of doing what amount to negative PR on the firm. These entities do some positive at first to seem credible and then go predictably hyper negative, or just alternate like Debord to push the negative. Musk doesn't give these shill firms money in advertising because he gets it. He should starve them like Jobs did with his secrecy in addition to no ads. Tesla should be transparent in its financial announcements but it should never deal with these people because there purpose is just to distort and harm both Tesla investors and the public.

    Never questions from UBS or Cowen or Bernstein or even Goldman now. They are all petrol shills because they are all under water with writing or worse insuring toxic petrol debt. The key is not to take questions from people who want to lie and distort especially not the ones who do it for financial survival or to try to gain financially.

    It was not foolish to ignore them these phony 'analysts' because they never ever should have been on the call- Musk acknowledged that because he said "once they were on the call." Need to stop talking to the spin people and do the transparency stuff in writing. Nothing is gained from court of public opinion impromptu interrogation designed to distort the companies image and message. These so called analysts ask stupid glad handed failure implying double bind questions to fuel FUD- their is nothing else going on. They are dishonest and not very intelligent, clearly just unethical puzzle or numbers skulls with no substance, even with degrees from better schools their shill for hire behavior says everything about them. Hoping some of the changes in the internet that are coming (outside of state activity) and part of the back lash that will come as more transparency with yet another collapse of petrol fuel energy (hopefully its peaceful) means we will be able to get rid of firms like Goldman and UBS and all the rest of rigged Wall St.- these are not value added entities they are clear parasites.

    If you need a need a grand unified theory of the fraud its very simple. What do home loans, your savings, attempt to steal social security and private and public pensions have to do with banking and breaking the fire wall between investments firms and banking deposits (?) and what do all of these have to do with petrol and derivatives. Might as well throw in the extra 500 billion a year in supposed defense investments during Obama and the silly secret corrupt Federal Budget sequestrations. Its easy to see. Greenspan advising investing in VARs- terrible advice. Tillerson saying he'd fund social security with a carbon tax- trying to hold Social Security hostage with petrol welfare- that to secure continued subsidies for petrol welfare- same with Bush trying to privatize social security. Throw in the petrol bailout wars and austerity bailouts. Why???? Very simple the entire US financial system is being held hostage by the scarcity inducing economics of petrol. Petrol assets are basically underwater junk and have been for a very long time even going back to the Bush admin. Their debt is junk because the assets are junk, and to insure junk debt you have to hide that literally make it blind or illegal to audit or look into the underlying assets. This is what almost all derivatives are, blind insurance of junk debt. That is why energy policy is 'secret,' and why you can't audit the fed. Well just like in 07 we now have quadrillions or of dollars or hundreds of times the global gross products in these things again by the very same fools. Every thing in the US financial system has been leveraged and held hostage by this garbage and they consider it treason not to be part of this ransom- but in reality it is treason to be part of it.

    The thing is China and the rest of the world and all the sane people in the US have access to tech better than hot fusion in battery backed solar at latitudes (could wire the energy to the poles if necessary) and they are going up against energy tech from the age of buggies (petrol with its radically lower economic efficiencies.) This is why we now have the latest petrol bailout with tariffs but that is just another transfer payment to petrol, insult on top of insult on top of insult when the ship is already sunk. "When Goldman was saying big oil was never that big that it had to borrow from us to pay its dividends"- that was another clue and this held despite subsides at 150% of revenues. Kelly saying compromise on slavery could have prevented the civil war is another admission, they know petrol is Civil Rights part 2 because without some idiocy like a right to exploit it can't survive. There was a reason beyond HARP that Manhattan was under water as was much of the Eastern seaboard and counties and states are suing petrol firms and an reason essentially all governments signed on to the Paris accord, petrol fuel energy and the petrol dollar are over. US in raising Tarrifs and China in dropping them signals that the US has become to Communist China as Britain became to the US- yesterdays news- demoted. Trying to revert to an energy system that was obsolete 70 years ago is way way, way beyond stupid. China and others grow richer by not using it and gain an insurmountable strategic advantage.
     

Share This Page