I have a document that I'd be willing to sell you. It's the title to the Brooklyn Bridge.
In my view standing behind the resale value of the cars is a desperate action. It reflects a very short term outlook. If they go bankrupt, they don't have to make good on the document. If they get through the next few quarters, they can worry about it later.
Stifel analyst is telling the public TSLA shares are going to 400.
Questions for anyone thinking of buying or adding shares on this:
Will Stifel be buying or selling as people react to the higher target?
How does Stifel make money?
Does Stifel have any reason to help you make money?
When they or their customers want to take a profit, how do they accomplish that?
If they want to get out of a stock to avoid a loss, how can they create demand to sell into?
It's great that these brilliant financial experts at Wall Street firms are willing to share their research results with us. I guess they want to give small investors a chance to get in on the great deals the big players who pay them are getting.
It gapped down the next morning after he posted that, not quite to 200, but it traded below 200 and closed at 197.81. The following day it made a low of 192.65 What are you laughing at?
If you had shorted TSLA at 220 when he started this thread, you would have been ahead 50 points at the open on 12/17, less than a month later. You would not have suffered any draw down. You could have covered for a nice gain on any day after you shorted following his suggestion. If you stayed short, without covering at the lows, you would be up 14 points today.
So, what grounds do you have to call him an imbecile?
I don't think technical analysis works well to predict the future, but a lot of players in the market do, and they look for patterns they can bet on.
TSLA is approaching an interesting technical set-up. The downward sloping 50 day simple moving average is very close to crossing below the 200 day simple moving average. That one is just beginning to trend down as well. The stock price is almost up to the spot where this "death cross" is threatening to occur at about 230. If the price can get above that and reach about 245, it will hit a down trend line that can be drawn from the all time high of 9/4/14 through the recent high on 11/18/14. TA believers will be watching the stock chart at these points, looking for a reversal, or a breakthrough past these obstacles.
I'm not predicting anything, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this rally end at one of those points. If the price goes higher than that, it will be seen as very bullish, and it will draw in a lot of new lambs to shear whenever the next leg down does come.
To do that, the company will first need to upgrade the laws of physics. Or, they could somehow install a battery at least twice as big and twice as heavy in the roadster.
Wow. I was bearish on tsla from a business standpoint. But now I see why I was completely wrong. I'm going to load the boat with tsla stock tomorrow morning. Then I'm going to hurry out to buy a Tesla, so I can beat any exotic cars off the line that happen to pull up next to me at a stop light.
There is one thing you are not considering. Rear wheel braking is a different thing than front wheel braking. The difference is that the car puts more downward force on the front end during braking, and the rear wheels become lighter on the road. Because of this, the regenerative braking applied to the rear wheels causes more skidding and relatively poor braking. So it should be no surprise that the Rwd Teslas are hard on rear tires. They would be even without the alignment problems that have been discussed, and without the extreme torque people may be applying on acceleration. The skidding I'm talking about isn't the dramatic type with the wheels locking up. It's just a little bit per revolution, and because I haven't done any testing on a Tesla, the point is theoretical. Cars with regular brakes wear the front tires more than the rear, but to a lesser extent because the traction is better up front when braking.
When we have solar power on the grid without coal fired plants, or even when we are half way there, electric cars will start to make sense. Right now I think they pollute as much or more than gas cars because of the coal burned to generate the electricity.
I'm in favor of cutting CO2 emissions and other pollution. What I object to is people buying Prii or Teslas, and then doing a lot of driving while thinking they are cutting CO2. No. They are adding to CO2 emissions. A 1966 Buick pollutes the air less than a typical EV, if you only drive it 2 or 3 times a month and do all your shopping in a well planned circuit. It's more how you drive and how little you drive than what you drive. A Tesla going zero to 60 in 3.6 seconds and hot rodding around impressing people is not green. Walking and riding bikes is green. Driving as little as possible is green. Buses and subways are relatively green.
We won't get anywhere solving important environmental problems unless we get realistic. Unfortunately there is too much 'groupthink' in two major population segments. The green movement is one, and those opposed to it is the other.
I've been thinking about this stuff since we put on the first Earth Day. I think the reason I have not seen any real progress is that people don't understand physics and chemistry, and they are not able to think objectively.
400 watt hrs per mile is about the same as 32 h.p. This is about what I'd expect cruising at highway speed. A gas car developing the same power at highway speed would be getting about 20 mpg.
A agree that wind and solar are good things to develop and expand. Hydrogen is not green, unless it's produced by solar generated electricity splitting water molecules. Otherwise they make it from natural gas.
TSLA is not a green stock. It could be partly green, but only if solar power, wind power, and/or thorium or fusion reactors are ever widely adopted in place of coal fired power plants. Until then, there is nothing green about EVs. They are coal burners. Why don't EV enthusiasts grasp that electricity has to be generated? And any kind of car uses a very large amount of energy. To run a car down a level highway in Arizona in the summer you need a solar cell array about the size of a tennis court. There is no green car. And what's more, cars have tires made from oil, and they are made of metal that has to be mined and smelted.
If we want to be green, we need to start by understanding things in their proper perspective.
I agree that some posters on both sides of the shares put up silly useless posts. But in many cases the same people also post worthwhile ones some of the time.
You have to listen carefully to tell the difference. If the information fails to stand up to scrutiny then it makes sense to discount it. Some people around here may be deceiving themselves while spouting what they believe is true, and not intentionally trying to mislead others. I'm just saying that puting anybody who posts something one disagrees with on ignore is unlikely to prove very enlightening. An intelligent mind isn't afraid to be wrong, and realizes that it often is, so it always seeks to learn and revise it's understanding.
I have to agree that EVs reduce noise pollution. Also the conventional power plants , and nuclear plants generating the electricity are rather quiet.
I am an outlier when it comes to values and preferences in automotive deign, and most other areas too. My views are different than the mainstream, but it's more a matter of taste than being right or wrong. I simply live on the wrong planet.
I've owned a lot of Mercedes cars over the years, and I have done my own work. The cars they made in the 60s and 70s and early 80s were superlative in every way. It went way beyond the surface. Internal engine parts, that a typical new car buyer would never see, were made as if they would be on public display. The craftsmanship was as good as it could be done even in the most hidden places. Then I got my hands on a 1998, and the quality and reliability had dropped significantly. It was clear that the service departments would have plenty to keep them busy. The cars were always made to be serviced by the dealers. It's just that early on they didn't need much beyond fluid changes. My 1998 needed more parts replaced before 125k than earlier models did by 300k.
I don't agree with the choice society has made to have cars so complex. The wiring diagram for a 1964 car fit across 2 pages of the service manual. Any guy could make keep it running and make all the systems work. I got a wiring diagram for that latest Mercedes, and it filled a whole DVD. There were hundreds of pages of it. A lot of people think all these features are cool. But there is a huge loss of independence and a form of vulnerability in all that complexity and electronics. Somewhere between a wagon without the horse and the modern car, I think things have run amok.
I'm not saying we'd be better off in the stone age. But if we are somehow subjected to a big electromagnetic pulse, we will be there.