We know by know that about the only entity really shorting Tesla is the petrol industry or petrol interests or their proxy shills. But the truth is petrol is facing cheaper superior replacements and will never be cost competitive again. And this is the case even with subsides and tariffs maxed, its still not cost competitive against green replacements that need no subsidies or tariff protections. The BS isn't working anymore. Even with all these protections the financial community is about to understand that petrol will never be profitable again. Then what happens to its value as that signaling comes through. Petrol has been jacking up the prices of pensions, health care, auto and life insurance and ever other financial instrument for way, way too long in a hollowing out effort. That stuff is coming to an end. it is time to start shorting petrol, all of it, especially so called natural gas. An industry that cannot compete on price despite every protecting and advantage and every form of un-level playing field imaginable is akin to a ship past recovery on a journey to the ocean floor. These are like people betting against he light bulb or betting against Skype or betting against streaming or betting against the iphone. Clueless.
Cumulative Tesla Short losses now at 18 Billion?
- Thread starter 101101
- Start date
- Replies 11
- Views 4K
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
I dunno how much the Tesla shorters have lost -- and unlike the investments in future growth the shorters keep falsely calling "losses", the money the shorters lose really are losses, at least on paper. And there are very real, substantial losses -- not mere paper losses -- when there is a "short squeeze" or "margin call"!
However, altho I don't know what total they have lost over the years, they are losing an astonishing amount of money (on paper) this year! What was it, $2.4 billion in June alone?
And according to an article posted just yesterday:
"Tesla short sellers are sitting on a paper loss of nearly $2 billion after stock rally"
* * * * * *
Regarding the money lost by short selling Tesla smear campaigners who are trying to manipulate the stock price:
However, altho I don't know what total they have lost over the years, they are losing an astonishing amount of money (on paper) this year! What was it, $2.4 billion in June alone?
And according to an article posted just yesterday:
"Tesla short sellers are sitting on a paper loss of nearly $2 billion after stock rally"
* * * * * *
Regarding the money lost by short selling Tesla smear campaigners who are trying to manipulate the stock price:
Attachments
Last edited:
Well I'd heard that there was about 12 billion in losses even a couple years ago for these shorts and there have been a few increments since. And its one of the things that highlights the fraud in an operation like the 'Montana Skeptic,' in that this person was no some person risking his own capital like it was some sort of public good it was just the petrol industry in a smear campaign spending marketing money that is really subsidy money or public money.
I wonder if short losses are really much higher than reported. Across about a 24 hours period Tesla stock spiked about 20%. That may not be a linear progression or ration of loss relative to the whole short float because there are apparently times frames on some shorts not just a straight triggering threshold for stock prices. But in June the stock went up but not as fast and it was supposedly just the same amount?
I wonder if short losses are really much higher than reported. Across about a 24 hours period Tesla stock spiked about 20%. That may not be a linear progression or ration of loss relative to the whole short float because there are apparently times frames on some shorts not just a straight triggering threshold for stock prices. But in June the stock went up but not as fast and it was supposedly just the same amount?
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with most of the accusations of fraud and conspiracy in your posts, 101101, but here you're bang on the mark. I am very, very glad that "Montana Skeptic", one of the most prominent leaders among the anti-Tesla smear campaign FUDsters, was outed as being a manager of Big Oil investments. And I note how other prominent anti-Tesla smear campaigners, such as Mark B. Spiegel, rushed to defend him on social media from the "bullying" of Elon Musk. That's taking hypocrisy to a whole new level!
Is it reasonable to think Big Oil is also paying the salaries of other prominent anti-Tesla smear campaign FUDsters, like Spiegel? Yeah, I think it is. I've always wondered how a long-term short-seller could possibly make money on a stock as volatile as TSLA. Over the long term, isn't shorting a stock a guaranteed money loser, unless the company goes bankrupt? Especially "short" investing in a stock as volatile as TSLA, a volatility which guarantees long-term "short" investors will have to endure multiple "short squeezes" and margin calls!
But if they're being paid for their FUD by Big Oil, then that explains why they have a motive to keep posting their smear campaign FUD regardless of whether Tesla's stock price is up or down.
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
There really is no shortage of drama from Tesla.
Make some popcorn and pull up a chair.
There is going to be even more "drama" in the public bull vs. bear arm-wrestling over the next quarter or two, as we see if Tesla really can become a profitable company by the end of the year.Of course I'm hoping the bulls give the bears a severe thrashing, because the bears are literally betting on Tesla to fail, but no doubt the bears will have at least a few short-term successes to crow about.
Yes I think that is an excellent point that hadn't occurred to me except to wonder why the short media attention just seemed to drone on forever. And in the background the thought that petrol thinks its investment in itself quite perversely. To me what they are doing is drowning out any legitimate criticism of Tesla. Tesla is after all a corporation, but they numb all that up. I wonder what the magic number is before there is some sort of stop to this? Do they have to lose 100 billion before they stop? And again given the way their business works and their subsidies in excess of revenues why should they ever be able to spend that money or any amount on this? The theory that I have is that they try to keep Tesla stock below GM because they think that sends the right message globally and because to have it higher they think sends the message that their fossil fuel business is already dead which I think it is and that having it above GM's means they can't starve Tesla for capital or claim it is going to be starved and puts their petrol derivatives at mortal risk so they insanely think its some sort of national security issue when they have it backwards. But this is how they operate. When there is a "Beef its Whats for Dinner" ad by the Beef Council that is just a petrol ad.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
The average stock shorter, whether it's in Tesla or some other company, isn't part of any grand conspiracy. The average TSLA shorter isn't posting anti-Tesla FUD to social media. Shorting is considered a normal and even necessary part of the stock market; it serves as a check, a brake, on stock prices rising too rapidly for no good reason.
For "movement" on the stock market, I like to use the analogy of how a school of fish moves. We've all seen nature films, have we not, of schools of fish and how they change direction suddenly? There are always a few fish in the school moving in other directions, contrary to how the school as a whole is moving, but for the most part the school ignores such apparently random movements. However, the tendency of individual fish to "follow the herd" means that sometimes those movements in other directions get copied by fish near them, and when that happens the new direction can get propagated through the entire school in a cascade effect, with startling rapidity. Similarly, the stock market moves mostly by people following what others are doing, just like a school of fish. When there's a sizable buy or sell, that can trigger others following suit, and that can lead to the stock price moving up or down based on that cascade effect. But what triggered the movement may not have been a good reason for buying or selling; it's somewhat random, just like the movement of a school of fish.
Now, the purpose, the ideal, of "shorting" a stock is to slow down this cascade movement, to put a brake to volatility in the stock market. But perversely, for Tesla stock (TSLA), this doesn't work because there is such absurdly high shorter "activity" that demand for stocks to short actually drives up the price of TSLA! At least, that's what the "financial guys" say, and I presume they know of what they speak.
The reason why so many people short TSLA isn't primarily because of the bull pucky spewed out by FUDsters -- the purveyors of anti-Tesla smear campaigns. Shorting TSLA is driven by Tesla's stock price being a lot higher than any rational analysis indicates it ought to be. Even Elon has publicly said as much at least twice. So long as that's the case, TSLA is going to attract a lot of short investors. The anti-Tesla FUDsters try to manipulate the market price of TSLA for their own greedy and destructive purposes, but that's not why there is so much short investing. Shorting activity won't be significantly reduced so long as TSLA is significantly over-valued in the stock market.
But shorting TSLA when there is so much shorter activity that it actually drives up the price of TSLA, makes shorting an even worse bet than it normally is! It may not be literally true to say that you would have to be insane to short TSLA, but certainly it's a very risky bet, and you'd better be prepared to move in and out -- completely out -- very rapidly if you want to make money on that.
As I've said elsewhere, I really can't understand why anyone would treat shorting TSLA as a long-term investment. Yet the most persistent anti-Tesla smear campaigners, such as "tftf" and Mark B. Speigel, claim they do exactly that. It makes more sense if they're actually being subsidized by Big Oil, because rationally I don't see how it's possible for them to make money on any long-term short investment in TSLA. And with "Montana Skeptic", another of the most prominant anti-Tesla smear campaign FUDsters, being outed as a manager of Big Oil investments, it seems far more plausible to believe that all of the highest profile anti-Tesla FUDsters are also shilling for Big Oil. Of course that's not proof, but if we just look at the situation rationally, I think that Occam's Razor shaves in that direction.
Again, that's just the opinion of one person who's neither a financial expert (nor do I want to be), nor a stock market investor. Frankly, I'd be quite happy to be ignorant of all this -- I treasure my ignorance of financial matters! -- but to be able to analyze the FUD arguments made by the anti-Tesla smear campaigners, I've been forced to learn at least some basics about Tesla's finances and about stock investments.
Last edited:
This helps explain Elon's stock purchase before the Q2 results: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-musk/elon-musk-buys-72500-of-tesla-shares-idUSKBN1J930L
In total effect, a small impulse, $25M, versus the capital valuation, ~$20B, the effect on the stock prices suggests this was just a quick test of how tight the shorters are standing. The cruel irony is if the shorters could turn down the volume long enough for the stock to return to normal prices, they can make money. But I don't see them having the self discipline. It is like a shark feeding frenzy where other sharks fall prey to their own kind.
Bob Wilson
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
A very good analogy, and it ties in nicely to my "school of fish motion" analogy.
Is that a win-win for us, Bob?
Now comes a curious question about stock mechanics. My understanding is the shorts 'borrow' stock from a stock broker. The registered owner plays no part in this "betting with someone else's chips."A very good analogy, and it ties in nicely to my "school of fish motion" analogy.
Is that a win-win for us, Bob?
If going private leads to pulling the stocks from a broker, regardless of 'margin', there will be a come-to-Jesus moment. The actual losses will accrue to the shorts.
Bob Wilson
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
I don't know the details of how shorting a stock works (or doesn't). As I've said before, such details of financial matters are a subject on which I treasure my ignorance.
But that looks right, and it would explain why we're now seeing such screaming and outrage from the shorters.
(Pardon me as I pause to revel in unbridled schadenfreude!)
