Tesla Enters “Whistleblower Hell”(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Tesla Enters “Whistleblower Hell”
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29089/tesla-enters-whistleblower-hell
160 comments
There appears to be an active group working to create these stories in order to create a 'whistleblower hell'.
Elon occasionally does not help this, but authorities should look into the allegations that a group is actively manipulating Tesla employees for these types of stories.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/21/were-cnbc-sources-tesla...
Elon occasionally does not help this, but authorities should look into the allegations that a group is actively manipulating Tesla employees for these types of stories.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/21/were-cnbc-sources-tesla...
Elon gets a lot of hate unfortunately due to his position in the industry, and also I guess the age we're in.
See this tweet from Paul Graham for example https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1122987659079618563
People notice the hate, and although there most probably are issues in the factories, then the reporting of them is way bent to the negative.
See this tweet from Paul Graham for example https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1122987659079618563
People notice the hate, and although there most probably are issues in the factories, then the reporting of them is way bent to the negative.
I don't know what you're talking about, Elon Musk gets flack for being a jerk, and all the questionable stuff he's done. This narrative that big business is out to get him (eg. that tweet) needs to die.
I'm not speciffically referring to the "industry out to get him" narrative. Perhaps there is a reason for the industry not to like him since he's competition, but I dont believe there is any organized campaign. What I was referring to was that he has made a name in the general public and is not politically correct nor "tamed". Obviously he's going to get plenty of negative attention.
> Perhaps there is a reason for the industry not to like him since he's competition
You're commenting on a man who accused a cave rescuer of being a pedophile after he criticised mr Musk's brain-dead proposal to rescue the stranded kids.
The problem does not lie on strawmen such as this silly idea tha the industry does not like him.
You're commenting on a man who accused a cave rescuer of being a pedophile after he criticised mr Musk's brain-dead proposal to rescue the stranded kids.
The problem does not lie on strawmen such as this silly idea tha the industry does not like him.
He's also a prick. The whole I'm not tame or PC, is a lame and tired excuse.
FWIW The linked tweet did make that claim, so hopefully I made that clear.
FWIW The linked tweet did make that claim, so hopefully I made that clear.
The way you argument doesn't really honor you.
I don't agree. I think you're making terrible excuses for bad behavior, that shouldn't be accepted under any circumstances.
Ironically, you resort to personal attacks instead of making an argument based on merits. It's perfectly fair to point out that the "I'm not PC or tame" line is frequently used by people that are just jerks to justify jerk behavior. I don't think calling him a prick is unwarrented given the behavior.
Ironically, you resort to personal attacks instead of making an argument based on merits. It's perfectly fair to point out that the "I'm not PC or tame" line is frequently used by people that are just jerks to justify jerk behavior. I don't think calling him a prick is unwarrented given the behavior.
I think in your head you are arguing with somebody else. E.g what excuses have I made? I personally don't even know which parts of his behavior you are referring to. It's you here saying "jerk" and "prick" - behavior I think shouldn't be ignored.
Although I don't have the full list of what Elon has done wrong then I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of way more ugly stuff going on which we don't even know about, but by people who don't bring any value to the world. And you are just randomly angry because the current guy at hand is public with his mistakes, you can see them, and then you go and argue about it on the internet.
Although I don't have the full list of what Elon has done wrong then I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of way more ugly stuff going on which we don't even know about, but by people who don't bring any value to the world. And you are just randomly angry because the current guy at hand is public with his mistakes, you can see them, and then you go and argue about it on the internet.
> I think in your head you are arguing with somebody else. E.g what excuses have I made?
> he has made a name in the general public and is not politically correct nor "tamed". Obviously he's going to get plenty of negative attention.
This is a classic excuse used by pricks/jerks. I don't have a full list either, but I've literally never called someone a pedo for criticizing me, I've never seen it happen. It's a jerk first; truly exceptional. "I'm not politically correct" is a classic, tired, and lame excuse.
WTF are you talking about people that don't bring value to the world? Everyone does, and I'm not impressed by Musk.
> And you are just randomly angry because the current guy at hand is public with his mistakes, you can see them, and then you go and argue about it on the internet.
I'm not angry, and this is an internet discussion board, so I don't know what your point is.
> he has made a name in the general public and is not politically correct nor "tamed". Obviously he's going to get plenty of negative attention.
This is a classic excuse used by pricks/jerks. I don't have a full list either, but I've literally never called someone a pedo for criticizing me, I've never seen it happen. It's a jerk first; truly exceptional. "I'm not politically correct" is a classic, tired, and lame excuse.
WTF are you talking about people that don't bring value to the world? Everyone does, and I'm not impressed by Musk.
> And you are just randomly angry because the current guy at hand is public with his mistakes, you can see them, and then you go and argue about it on the internet.
I'm not angry, and this is an internet discussion board, so I don't know what your point is.
Actually the criticism that Musk gets is a result of things like:
- Calling someone's boss and threatening a lawsuit to make him take down critical writings on Twitter and Seeking Alpha (https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/07/27/1532692760000/Je-suis...)
- Threatening to "nuke" a departing employee who had returned to Tesla HQ to collect some personal belongings (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-05/tesla-boa...)
- Trumpian attacks on the press, including by riling up his fans on Twitter (https://twitter.com/lopezlinette/status/1014983757252780033)
- Lying with statistics, e.g. "traffic incidents are xx% less likely with Autopilot engaged" or "Tesla cars are xx% safer than the overall U.S. fleet" without mentioning the huge selection bias at play
- Running factories with tons of environmental, health, labor, and QA-related problems, then attempting to just gaslight his way through the criticism (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/tesla-workers-in-ga4-tent-de...)
- Brazenly lying about his company on Twitter in an attempt to manipulate the stock price (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-2...)
- Calling someone's boss and threatening a lawsuit to make him take down critical writings on Twitter and Seeking Alpha (https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/07/27/1532692760000/Je-suis...)
- Threatening to "nuke" a departing employee who had returned to Tesla HQ to collect some personal belongings (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-05/tesla-boa...)
- Trumpian attacks on the press, including by riling up his fans on Twitter (https://twitter.com/lopezlinette/status/1014983757252780033)
- Lying with statistics, e.g. "traffic incidents are xx% less likely with Autopilot engaged" or "Tesla cars are xx% safer than the overall U.S. fleet" without mentioning the huge selection bias at play
- Running factories with tons of environmental, health, labor, and QA-related problems, then attempting to just gaslight his way through the criticism (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/tesla-workers-in-ga4-tent-de...)
- Brazenly lying about his company on Twitter in an attempt to manipulate the stock price (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-2...)
This is all true. But how does it compare to companies building machines that are emitting toxic gas to billions of people and destroying the Earth’s climate?
There’s a good reason why mainstream media doesn’t talk about it as seriously as it should be doing.
There’s a good reason why mainstream media doesn’t talk about it as seriously as it should be doing.
There's also that story about oil companies sitting on the secret of perpetual motion...
Also, those companies happen to build products that are needed and can actually be afforded by people who need them to, you know, make a living, unlike Elon's shiny toys.
This conspiratorial mindset on part of Tesla's fans is far more detrimental than any mythical shorts' conspiracy or anything.
Also, those companies happen to build products that are needed and can actually be afforded by people who need them to, you know, make a living, unlike Elon's shiny toys.
This conspiratorial mindset on part of Tesla's fans is far more detrimental than any mythical shorts' conspiracy or anything.
> But how does it compare to
Wattaboutism does not address the man's problems, including all the problems he brings onto himself, the company he runs, and its investors.
Wattaboutism does not address the man's problems, including all the problems he brings onto himself, the company he runs, and its investors.
Other than the last one you've linked it doesn't appear that any of these are actually true or were proven. It seems more evident as time goes on that these sensational troll stories come out yet there's no recourse against Tesla. It's hard to tell but I would guess one of two things are happening: 1) Tesla is paying these people to go away 2) these allegations are targeting Tesla either for financial gain (shorters) or competitive (dealers/manufacturers).
While I've yet to actually see the latter I'm not so sure what to think, quite honestly. However it seems odd of the timing of this - right before earnings. I'll be curious to see how CNBC drums this up today.
While I've yet to actually see the latter I'm not so sure what to think, quite honestly. However it seems odd of the timing of this - right before earnings. I'll be curious to see how CNBC drums this up today.
That is the tweet of a man who slept through 2014.
Elon gets himself into it. He wants to be the center of attention (Thailand, pedo, 420). Creating a profitable business comes second to his need to be seen as a tech luminary.
I seriously doubt this. Writing a tweet doesn't take much time, and it is probably fun to him to irritate the opposing forces.
For profits, I think it's pretty obvious that both Tesla and SpaceX will start making a profit quite soon, and will probably make a lot of it in the long term. (Maybe they are making a profit even now? Sorry, don't know, I'm just a random developer...)
For profits, I think it's pretty obvious that both Tesla and SpaceX will start making a profit quite soon, and will probably make a lot of it in the long term. (Maybe they are making a profit even now? Sorry, don't know, I'm just a random developer...)
> (Maybe they are making a profit even now? Sorry, don't know, I'm just a random developer...)
SpaceX is private, so its books are closed and there is no publicly reviewable valuation.
Tesla is public and has had < 5 profitable quarters in its existence. None of Elon's existing companies have been able to turn a profit. Paypal does not count as "his" since he joined there on an acquisition and he was only CEO there for a few months before getting the boot.
SpaceX is private, so its books are closed and there is no publicly reviewable valuation.
Tesla is public and has had < 5 profitable quarters in its existence. None of Elon's existing companies have been able to turn a profit. Paypal does not count as "his" since he joined there on an acquisition and he was only CEO there for a few months before getting the boot.
You can't be serious? It's not like Tesla is a bakery where on the 6th month the bread sales pay off the one-time asset purchases (e.g oven and other equipment) and then it's all profit down the line. It takes time, especially on the scale Elon appears to be doing it.
I'm serious. Before Elon took over, they were profitable selling high performance vehicles [1],
They didn't need to become huge right away, that was his gamble, and it remains to be seen if that will pay off.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/TxDbHX7.jpg
They didn't need to become huge right away, that was his gamble, and it remains to be seen if that will pay off.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/TxDbHX7.jpg
It doesn’t take time to get profitable, all it would take is to stop putting billions of dollars into building new factories. The problem is that stopping growth would never bring humanity closer to sustainable transport (nor would it make sensible investors happy)
Yeah.. My argument perhaps wasn't put in the best way, and yes, Tesla is growth-heavy, and probably could have been profitable already if they would have wanted to.
With what I said was more aimed at the argument that building electric vehicles isn't a straightforward business where there is nothing to innovate and the purpose is just to get profitable as quickly as possible. But yes, as you say, they invest it all back.
I wonder if the negative side in the whole argument would just like the profits and stock go up as fast as possible, and that is the reason for unhappynes?
With what I said was more aimed at the argument that building electric vehicles isn't a straightforward business where there is nothing to innovate and the purpose is just to get profitable as quickly as possible. But yes, as you say, they invest it all back.
I wonder if the negative side in the whole argument would just like the profits and stock go up as fast as possible, and that is the reason for unhappynes?
Reinvestment of profits into PP&E doesn't affect the bottom line on the net income statement. That's not what Tesla is doing. They're printing losses (aside from one-off "miracle quarters" where they skim high margin backlogs) and then filling the gaps with newly raised capital.
> It doesn’t take time to get profitable, all it would take is to stop putting billions of dollars into building new factories.
Are you serious? I can throw a rock at any newly minted tech IPO in the last year and almost guarantee that it's not even remotely close to being in the black without even hearing the name.
Are you serious? I can throw a rock at any newly minted tech IPO in the last year and almost guarantee that it's not even remotely close to being in the black without even hearing the name.
Tesla isn't a newly minted tech IPO. They're just riding the wave of an economy with good lending rates.
Did Paul Graham write an algorithm which crawls twitter and counts all this robo haters?
The bigger reason is that Tesla really put themselves out there and now negative stories getting a lot of views.
The bigger reason is that Tesla really put themselves out there and now negative stories getting a lot of views.
That's not an objective source.
Clean Technica is to Elon Musk as Fox News is to Donald Trump
Clean Technica is to Elon Musk as Fox News is to Donald Trump
If you have any examples of companies who weren't doing something unsavory and had a recurrent problem with whistleblowers I'd love to hear them.
Since you made both a condition, 99% of large corporations.
If you meant either/or, Patagonia. Clifs. Panera. In n out. There's way more but hopefully you get the point.
If you meant either/or, Patagonia. Clifs. Panera. In n out. There's way more but hopefully you get the point.
Well, whistleblowing, by definition, requires the target to be doing unsavory things. Otherwise, it's just "leaking" and many companies have ongoing problems with things like product plans being leaked.
Whistleblowing by definition means reporting something that (someone thinks) is unsavory. You can argue whether a given set of whistleblowers are misguided, but otherwise you don't call them whistleblowers.
No need to rush to judgement, this will be an interesting case to follow,
> “It’s taken a long time to get to this point, and I remain steadfast regardless of any monetary outcome. The only thing we are guaranteed to take to our graves is our name. I’ve spent a career of integrity, and won’t stand idly by when someone like Elon Musk runs roughshod over others because he happens to be a billionaire.”
edit Please give me the courtesy of explaining downvotes. Thanks.
> “It’s taken a long time to get to this point, and I remain steadfast regardless of any monetary outcome. The only thing we are guaranteed to take to our graves is our name. I’ve spent a career of integrity, and won’t stand idly by when someone like Elon Musk runs roughshod over others because he happens to be a billionaire.”
edit Please give me the courtesy of explaining downvotes. Thanks.
> At least from a PR perspective you don't want to engage like this if you have nothing to hide.
Responding in public fashion is a rational choice for TSLA to make assuming:
1) There exist short sellers who are willing to engage in malicious activities that hurt shareholder value
2) Publicizing their efforts to fight back against said actors acts as a deterrent for further malicious activity.
I don't know for sure, but I think there's a reasonable likelihood that both these statements are true.
Responding in public fashion is a rational choice for TSLA to make assuming:
1) There exist short sellers who are willing to engage in malicious activities that hurt shareholder value
2) Publicizing their efforts to fight back against said actors acts as a deterrent for further malicious activity.
I don't know for sure, but I think there's a reasonable likelihood that both these statements are true.
I find both extremely implausible, both individually and (especially) in combination.
You've never heard of rumor-mongering short sellers?
Very much a real phenomenon, hard to catch them and it's very lucrative.
Very much a real phenomenon, hard to catch them and it's very lucrative.
My favorite example of this is when 4chan spread a fake death rumor of Vitalik Buterin to make money on Ethereum
My favorite short seller is the guy who said Tesla was in delivery hell. Then logistics hell. Then short seller hell.
Because apparently figuring out the basic business functions of your chosen industry is hell.
Because apparently figuring out the basic business functions of your chosen industry is hell.
Fake news right?
Dude. You gotta let it go. These are pretty unsurprising allegations for a company like Tesla. And short sellers are not the boogieman, they're just an indication that the value of Tesla is highly uncertain.
IDK man, TheDrive pushes non-stop anti-Tesla stories, it's not unreasonable to suspect their motives. Just look at their story history; not exactly unbiased.
Short Sellers are a massive plague on the market, short selling should be banned in general
Free markets work better than controlled markets as history has shown.
the Stock market is VERY far from a free market
We aren’t talking about how it is, we’re talking about how it should be. Banning short selling would remove the ability to hedge a large long position and would remove a necessary check on overvalued companies by providing an incentive to predict their collapse. Short selling serves an important role in the markets and banning it would be overkill and counter productive.
That's not a very libertarian position to take.
Believing the Stock market is a Free market or Supported by Libertarianism shows how little you understand about either the stock marker or libertarianism
Someone motivated to short-sell might be further motivated to state their case publicly. What's wrong with that?
Short selling is part of a functioning market. It's not some evil thing. It's one mechanism the financial world uses to gauge company value. I'm shocked every time I read this conspiracy theory on HN. The positions of these traders are public.
The only response to short sellers is to focus on your business. Responding with "it's a conspiracy" does not help your business.
Short selling is part of a functioning market. It's not some evil thing. It's one mechanism the financial world uses to gauge company value. I'm shocked every time I read this conspiracy theory on HN. The positions of these traders are public.
The only response to short sellers is to focus on your business. Responding with "it's a conspiracy" does not help your business.
It just seems odd that a healthy market has actors that profit from the failures of companies. If it's healthy how do I profit from global climate disasters? I'll just keep investing in prison companies for now. /s
Essentially every stock sale (barring a need for immediate cash for another purpose) is a bet that stock isn’t going to perform as well as alternative investments over time. So, yes, pretty much anyone who trades in stock is betting on companies to, if not fail, underperform the market over time.
that's not the same thing, betting one thing will perform better relative another is not the same as profiting from the failures of a single company.
But it doesn't matter what I write if ones only motivation is profit.
But it doesn't matter what I write if ones only motivation is profit.
People who are short selling are expressing the thesis that the probablity adjusted return from a bet on drop in stock price of one company is worth more than investing in alternatives like an index fund etc. It's exactly equivalent in a market set-up and is balanced by someone else taking the other side of the deal.
> It just seems odd that a healthy market has actors that profit from the failures of companies
Try googling "why do markets allow short selling". First response [1]. tl;dr - short selling helps your retirement account & balances the market when there are bad actors, such as Enron.
> If it's healthy how do I profit from global climate disasters?
You're conflating things. Profit != world health.
Profit is just a human motivational tool, and money is paper trust. I wrote this software that helps your farming equipment run, and I need food. Money smooths these transactions so I don't need to trade goods-for-goods in every scenario.
I don't know how anyone could profit from hurting climate. Ultimately, destroying your environment destroys you. That's like kicking the amniotic sac open. Why do that? To the extent someone is so-motivated, I'd argue they're depressed, not profit-oriented.
> I'll just keep investing in prison companies for now. /s
I don't know whether that's possible for the average person. For a wealthy entity, it's still a risk, because that industry could disappear due to public pressure. Your money may have been better invested elsewhere.
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-short-selling-legal-allowed
Try googling "why do markets allow short selling". First response [1]. tl;dr - short selling helps your retirement account & balances the market when there are bad actors, such as Enron.
> If it's healthy how do I profit from global climate disasters?
You're conflating things. Profit != world health.
Profit is just a human motivational tool, and money is paper trust. I wrote this software that helps your farming equipment run, and I need food. Money smooths these transactions so I don't need to trade goods-for-goods in every scenario.
I don't know how anyone could profit from hurting climate. Ultimately, destroying your environment destroys you. That's like kicking the amniotic sac open. Why do that? To the extent someone is so-motivated, I'd argue they're depressed, not profit-oriented.
> I'll just keep investing in prison companies for now. /s
I don't know whether that's possible for the average person. For a wealthy entity, it's still a risk, because that industry could disappear due to public pressure. Your money may have been better invested elsewhere.
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-short-selling-legal-allowed
r00fus(2)
Short sellers have been causing the company a lot of trouble, Musk is correct in pointing them out so that their activities become known.
No, they really haven't. The best way to deal with shorts is to have a good quarter and crush them all. Or wait for a short squeeze. Lots of companies have misinformation spread by shorts all the time, but very few companies engage and attack shorts.
Tesla’s stock is shorted FAR more than any other company with comparable market cap. 30% of outstanding shares are shorted. It’s bonkers.
It's not bonkers at all. Musk's strategy from the beginning has been hype-driven. This gives him low cost of marketing and low cost of capital. But the downside is that the stock will appear overvalued to observers who don't buy the hype.
This would be true even if things were going well and Musk were going from strength to strength. But Tesla has had a whole raft of problems, many of them self-inflicted. This is catnip to shorts.
Further, part of Musk's strategy has been to bank on the genius-founder stereotype. It has clearly paid off as well; I'd bet that that there's an order-of-magnitude difference between the percentage of people who can name Tesla's CEO and that of any other car company. But again, it's risky; if Musk quit or were forced out, confidence in the company would collapse. And he has made a number of unforced errors; no other car company CEO is in dutch with the SEC. This kind of risk is also hugely appealing to shorts.
It's also worth noting that the shorts were right. Tesla's managed to lose half its value from the peak, and it's still down something like 30%. Some of them have surely made a ton of money.
This would be true even if things were going well and Musk were going from strength to strength. But Tesla has had a whole raft of problems, many of them self-inflicted. This is catnip to shorts.
Further, part of Musk's strategy has been to bank on the genius-founder stereotype. It has clearly paid off as well; I'd bet that that there's an order-of-magnitude difference between the percentage of people who can name Tesla's CEO and that of any other car company. But again, it's risky; if Musk quit or were forced out, confidence in the company would collapse. And he has made a number of unforced errors; no other car company CEO is in dutch with the SEC. This kind of risk is also hugely appealing to shorts.
It's also worth noting that the shorts were right. Tesla's managed to lose half its value from the peak, and it's still down something like 30%. Some of them have surely made a ton of money.
But which is the more likely causes of this: That TSLA is the victim of an evil coordinated effort to cause the company to take, or just that 30% of the market genuinely believes they're overvalued.
Given they have a higher market cap than either Ford or Honda, I'd be betting on the latter....
Given they have a higher market cap than either Ford or Honda, I'd be betting on the latter....
~“Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
Shorting a stock is not just a statement that you think the stock is overvalued. It’s a statement you think the stock will soon drop, because each short costs money and expires.
Eventually being correct is useless. If for example it performs poorly over the next 20 years and never actually drops you will lose everything.
Shorting a stock is not just a statement that you think the stock is overvalued. It’s a statement you think the stock will soon drop, because each short costs money and expires.
Eventually being correct is useless. If for example it performs poorly over the next 20 years and never actually drops you will lose everything.
Shorting Tesla actually pays a rebate right now, because the stock is cheaper to borrow than the interest paid on the cash proceeds from selling it up front.
Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks around.
There is no way you can get a rebate just by shorting the name.
You're probably thinking of the rebate rate, which is the money received by people long Tesla who are lending it out.
There is no way you can get a rebate just by shorting the name.
You're probably thinking of the rebate rate, which is the money received by people long Tesla who are lending it out.
Tesla is also one of the most widely held stocks around which means there is an ample float to borrow for shorting. Interactive Brokers pays a rebate.
When you consider how rich and well-connected the players who stand to lose if Tesla wins, I don’t think it’s at all crazy to suggest that they are using some of that wealth to slow them down. If you happen to have 10 billion hanging around and there are billions more on the line, it’d almost be stupid not to. There’s no law against malicious short selling assuming you’re not outright lying about them in print. Oil companies have a the means, motive, and opportunity. Exxon Mobil alone made $20b in profit last year. 30% of TSLA is 12b or so. If they can delay the electric transition by a couple of years by kicking in a few billions along with the other big ones, that’s a great return on investment even if they take a huge bath on the shorts.
Can I prove that’s what’s going on? No, I’m just some dude on the internet. But it really is not implausible at all.
Can I prove that’s what’s going on? No, I’m just some dude on the internet. But it really is not implausible at all.
Are you suggesting Exxon Mobil is placing huge short bets on Tesla? How would that affect the company apart from deflating the share price?
At a stretch, it might make it more difficulmore expensive for Tesla to refinance/raise capital via issuing stock, but that sounds like really bad ROI for billions of dollars.
At a stretch, it might make it more difficulmore expensive for Tesla to refinance/raise capital via issuing stock, but that sounds like really bad ROI for billions of dollars.
Wouldn’t a public company like Exxon need to disclose any massive short position on it’s quarterly public statements?
I think someone would have noticed if Exxon’s balance sheet said something like “Derivative securities - $2.8B”.
I think someone would have noticed if Exxon’s balance sheet said something like “Derivative securities - $2.8B”.
Exxon mobile also has a heavy investment in clean energy. Bigger than the total value of the Tesla shorts.
They're not just oil anymore.
This isn't about a coordinated conspiracy although there have been multiple examples of such in the past in other situations. Multiple independent malicious actors through their own self interest if sufficiently capitalized can easily destroy a company through actions like this purely in the persuit of self profit. Especially if they are competing in the same space.
The 80s was rife with things like this, to the point many became famous for it.
The 80s was rife with things like this, to the point many became famous for it.
That’s not a dichotomy. Literally they could be both.
Big money has a lot of legal levers to keep their investments in dirty economy profitable that also make sense for them financially.
Big money has a lot of legal levers to keep their investments in dirty economy profitable that also make sense for them financially.
It's not either or. It's safe to assume the vast majority of TSLA shorts believe the stock is overvalued. In addition, some minority of shorts take overt actions to hurt the company's share value.
Equity value (market cap + debt) the real measure of company valuation, since debt holders are owners too.
Ford's EV is 145B (42B market cap + 103B debt).
Tesla's EV is 56B (44.5B market cap + 11.5B debt).
Ford and Honda are still valued considerably higher than Tesla.
Ford's EV is 145B (42B market cap + 103B debt).
Tesla's EV is 56B (44.5B market cap + 11.5B debt).
Ford and Honda are still valued considerably higher than Tesla.
Don’t profits make a difference there? Ford is actually making quite some profit.
Ford has over 250 billion in assets. Quoting enterprise value without context is highly misleading.
Ford's debt and assets are largely from its financing arm. It doesn't make the car making part of Ford worth more.
Ford's debt and assets are largely from its financing arm. It doesn't make the car making part of Ford worth more.
Investors have valued Ford at $141B. Assets doesn't affect that statement one bit.
It's a piece of evidence that investors might be wrong.
It's an easy double. Buy Ford, sell of the assets, pay off the debt and pocket $110B for a cost of $42B. Since that's not happening, nor anything like it, investors don't think Ford assets are worth $250B.
It's a piece of evidence that investors might be wrong.
It's an easy double. Buy Ford, sell of the assets, pay off the debt and pocket $110B for a cost of $42B. Since that's not happening, nor anything like it, investors don't think Ford assets are worth $250B.
Sure, the statement is correct, but misleading.
An apples to apples comparison between Ford and Tesla to compare valuation means teasing out the part of Ford that actually makes cars. Lumping in the financial services arm makes no sense if intellectual honesty is the goal.
And in any case, EV isn't at all the final word you're making it out to be. If Ford takes on $100bn of debt to finance $100bn of cars with zero margin in order to move metal, now Ford has a $241bn EV. Is Tesla now suddenly even-more-undervalued compared to Ford? Nope.
You're right that Ford probably can't be broken up and liquidated at book value, but my argument doesn't hinge on that.
An apples to apples comparison between Ford and Tesla to compare valuation means teasing out the part of Ford that actually makes cars. Lumping in the financial services arm makes no sense if intellectual honesty is the goal.
And in any case, EV isn't at all the final word you're making it out to be. If Ford takes on $100bn of debt to finance $100bn of cars with zero margin in order to move metal, now Ford has a $241bn EV. Is Tesla now suddenly even-more-undervalued compared to Ford? Nope.
You're right that Ford probably can't be broken up and liquidated at book value, but my argument doesn't hinge on that.
> Is Tesla now suddenly even-more-undervalued compared to Ford? Nope.
Who said Tesla was undervalued?
Who said Tesla was undervalued?
Less overvalued works too, if you prefer.
I take it you're not interested in addressing my actual argument given you've deflected twice.
I take it you're not interested in addressing my actual argument given you've deflected twice.
Ford is perhaps the most undervalued company on the stock market, according to a bunch of metrics, one of which you've pointed out.
So saying that Tesla is overvalued compared to Ford is like saying "water is wet". By that measure all 499 of the other companies on the S&P 500 are also overvalued.
I haven't addressed most of your arguments because they're both not wrong and irrelevant.
The original point I was refuting was the belief that the stock market values Ford less than it values Tesla. I'm saying that the stock market values Ford at about 3X what it values Tesla. If you disagree with that statement you need to give an actual number, and why.
So saying that Tesla is overvalued compared to Ford is like saying "water is wet". By that measure all 499 of the other companies on the S&P 500 are also overvalued.
I haven't addressed most of your arguments because they're both not wrong and irrelevant.
The original point I was refuting was the belief that the stock market values Ford less than it values Tesla. I'm saying that the stock market values Ford at about 3X what it values Tesla. If you disagree with that statement you need to give an actual number, and why.
[deleted]
It’s not if the stock is overvalued. Time will tell. I’m actually a Tesla shareholder. I bought it when I believed in their vision. Musk’s antics have caused me to rethink the wisdom of my position though. I wouldn’t be surprised by a crash in share price. Then again I’m not betting on it either.
Because the market cap itself is bonkers. For every short seller there’s three to five fanboy speculators propping the stock price up.
Why don't more companies "engage and attack shorts"? Aren't people taking short positions on companies effectively lowering the stock price of the company compared to someone just not buying their stock, and therefore doing potential damage to that company's valuation and future?
I'm surprised any company has the time to engage and attack those kinds of threats, but I'm not surprised there is an incentive for them to do so. Is it just the lack of time (or maybe optics, for whatever reason) that other companies don't "fight back"?
I'm surprised any company has the time to engage and attack those kinds of threats, but I'm not surprised there is an incentive for them to do so. Is it just the lack of time (or maybe optics, for whatever reason) that other companies don't "fight back"?
> Why don't more companies "engage and attack shorts"?
Because it's incredibly pointless, an utter waste of time, a distraction from things which actually matter, and can veer all-to-quickly into illegal actions as Musk has already found out? (His "taking Tesla private" tweet seemed to have been driven, in part, by a desire to punish shorts. It was later found, of course, to be illegal stock manipulation, and it wiped billions of dollars off Tesla's market cap.)
> Aren't people taking short positions on companies effectively lowering the stock price of the company compared to someone just not buying their stock, and therefore doing potential damage to that company's valuation and future?
In much the same way that people choosing not to buy Tesla shares do, yes. The effect is real, but even in extreme cases, trivial.
It is quite clear that Musk has done vastly more damage to Tesla by worrying about short sellers than the short sellers themselves could have possibly done (eg, with his "taking Tesla private" tweet, but there are many other examples).
> I'm not surprised there is an incentive for them to do so
There is no incentive to do so. It is actively harmful.
Because it's incredibly pointless, an utter waste of time, a distraction from things which actually matter, and can veer all-to-quickly into illegal actions as Musk has already found out? (His "taking Tesla private" tweet seemed to have been driven, in part, by a desire to punish shorts. It was later found, of course, to be illegal stock manipulation, and it wiped billions of dollars off Tesla's market cap.)
> Aren't people taking short positions on companies effectively lowering the stock price of the company compared to someone just not buying their stock, and therefore doing potential damage to that company's valuation and future?
In much the same way that people choosing not to buy Tesla shares do, yes. The effect is real, but even in extreme cases, trivial.
It is quite clear that Musk has done vastly more damage to Tesla by worrying about short sellers than the short sellers themselves could have possibly done (eg, with his "taking Tesla private" tweet, but there are many other examples).
> I'm not surprised there is an incentive for them to do so
There is no incentive to do so. It is actively harmful.
If you want to see the correct way to deal with a short seller, look up what HerbalLife did against Pershing capital’s massive short.
They basically continued to grow and show positive financials. Eventually Pershing exited his position.
It’s not worth playing a PR game. You’re just asking to get called out on some statement you made.
The proof is in the pudding. Sell lots of cars. Don’t claim your going to sell 500,000 vehicles this year, then come back and say “oh, I meant if you annualized our peak month”.
They basically continued to grow and show positive financials. Eventually Pershing exited his position.
It’s not worth playing a PR game. You’re just asking to get called out on some statement you made.
The proof is in the pudding. Sell lots of cars. Don’t claim your going to sell 500,000 vehicles this year, then come back and say “oh, I meant if you annualized our peak month”.
I think it's fair to say that Tesla managed to do both.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2019/03/05/after-ho...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2019/03/05/after-ho...
lazyjones(1)
I don’t have any problem with someone shorting a stock if they don’t engage in spreading lies and trying to take the company down.
If you don’t see what shorts are doing against Tesla, I recommend reading articles about them more often.
There is nothing wrong with shorting Tesla. Short selling is a necessary corrective to overhyped stocks.
If the short sellers are wrong about Tesla being overpriced, they will pay for it. They are taking all of the risk, and they are not hurting anything except Musk's feelings.
If the short sellers are wrong about Tesla being overpriced, they will pay for it. They are taking all of the risk, and they are not hurting anything except Musk's feelings.
Apparently there's a bit more to that. Tesla is very leveraged right now and apparently it would be an issue if the share price dropped too much, forcing Tesla to do some sort of liquidity event?
So the big short sellers are trying to force the share prices down enough that Tesla is forced to deal with this, which would push the share prices down even more and let them profit hugely.
So the big short sellers are trying to force the share prices down enough that Tesla is forced to deal with this, which would push the share prices down even more and let them profit hugely.
> Tesla is very leveraged right now and apparently it would be an issue if the share price dropped too much
In other words, the shorts are totally right to be taking their position? A company that depends on its stock price to stay afloat is not a healthy company. Let’s take AAPL as an example. Their stock could plunge to $1/share and they would be absolutely fine because they have positive free cash flow, and thus don’t need to rely ok raising capital via selling shares.
In other words, the shorts are totally right to be taking their position? A company that depends on its stock price to stay afloat is not a healthy company. Let’s take AAPL as an example. Their stock could plunge to $1/share and they would be absolutely fine because they have positive free cash flow, and thus don’t need to rely ok raising capital via selling shares.
> In other words, the shorts are totally right to be taking their position?
Many of the shorters just think the company's overvalued.
But anyone aiming for that event to trigger is making a bet that enough people will make the same bet, in deliberate disregard of whether the stock's value is appropriate for the actual business.
It's kind of like a prisoner's dilemma. Is it 'right' for someone to defect?
That motive isn't saying anything about the company. It's a pure meta-move. That places outside of the normal "markets efficiently allocate capital" logic. It's profitable but very much not efficient to swing your weight around and make a company go out of business in a way that owes you money.
Many of the shorters just think the company's overvalued.
But anyone aiming for that event to trigger is making a bet that enough people will make the same bet, in deliberate disregard of whether the stock's value is appropriate for the actual business.
It's kind of like a prisoner's dilemma. Is it 'right' for someone to defect?
That motive isn't saying anything about the company. It's a pure meta-move. That places outside of the normal "markets efficiently allocate capital" logic. It's profitable but very much not efficient to swing your weight around and make a company go out of business in a way that owes you money.
Yeah, good point, it's less an efficient market move and more of a profit-forcing move.
In your example, Apple would not be absolutely fine. Key employees are compensated largely in stock and many would start looking for other jobs if their trailing four years of RSU grants suddenly became nearly worthless. Now Apple could step up and issue additional RSUs to employees to keep them onboard, but that has consequences too. So you can see how a tanking stock price is extremely disruptive, even if you don't need to raise capital.
Issuing additional RSUs for retention is something which, with their positive cashflow, they absolutely would do (handled by share repurchase) if the stock price dropped to the point it made rational sense. Who wouldn't stick around at Apple if they're printing money and your RSUs have a basis of $1?
> Apparently there's a bit more to that. Tesla is very leveraged right now and apparently it would be an issue if the share price dropped too much, forcing Tesla to do some sort of liquidity event?
Umm, yeah. There is nothing special about that.
In fact that is the point.
Umm, yeah. There is nothing special about that.
In fact that is the point.
That kind of scheme fails spectacularly if people know it's happening. It's really really hard to make money by deliberately mispricing something.
> they are not hurting anything except Musk's feelings
Investors help companies, right? They add to the demand for the stock, and keep the price up. Stockholders have invested in the company. When shares are created and sold, the new stockholders inject capital into the company, and when shares are re-sold that property of "have injected capital into the company" is in some moral sense transferred at the same time.
Short-sellers do the opposite -- they depress the price of the underlying. If short seller S borrows TSLA from holder X and sells to Y, two people are long TSLA (X and Y), but there is only one share between the two of them. If S hadn't been there, the stock price would be higher.
From the perspective of market efficiency (and the economy) I agree that short-selling is important. I wish it were easier to do. From the perspective of individual companies, though, short sellers are directly harmful to their success.
Investors help companies, right? They add to the demand for the stock, and keep the price up. Stockholders have invested in the company. When shares are created and sold, the new stockholders inject capital into the company, and when shares are re-sold that property of "have injected capital into the company" is in some moral sense transferred at the same time.
Short-sellers do the opposite -- they depress the price of the underlying. If short seller S borrows TSLA from holder X and sells to Y, two people are long TSLA (X and Y), but there is only one share between the two of them. If S hadn't been there, the stock price would be higher.
From the perspective of market efficiency (and the economy) I agree that short-selling is important. I wish it were easier to do. From the perspective of individual companies, though, short sellers are directly harmful to their success.
Deliberately manipulating his stock price to damage short sellers is profoundly unprofessional behavior though. And apparently just a little bit illegal.
"Pablo Escobar’s brother recently demanded $100 million in cash or Tesla shares from Musk for purportedly stealing his flamethrower idea, but the Escobars are Colombian."
(Edit: sorry, didn't see the first part where it is stated that the lawsuit includes Mexican nationals. But, I still think it's crazy that this is included in an article about Tesla and whistleblowers)
(Edit: sorry, didn't see the first part where it is stated that the lawsuit includes Mexican nationals. But, I still think it's crazy that this is included in an article about Tesla and whistleblowers)
It's not clear from your one word comment exactly what you're "whatting" about. Perhaps it's the silliness of the demand. Perhaps it's the "Colombian" thing at the end?
If it's the Colombian bit, what you didn't quote makes clear what's happening. The lawsuit alleges links to a Mexican drug cartel. The Colombian comment at the end was to make clear that the Escobars are (allegedly) part of a different drug cartel.
Here's the full paragraph:
Paragraphs 16 through 19 of the lawsuit identify thefts ranging between $37 and $150 million dollars, along with links to a Mexican drug cartel. (Pablo Escobar’s brother recently demanded $100 million in cash or Tesla shares from Musk for purportedly stealing his flamethrower idea, but the Escobars are Colombian.)
If it's the Colombian bit, what you didn't quote makes clear what's happening. The lawsuit alleges links to a Mexican drug cartel. The Colombian comment at the end was to make clear that the Escobars are (allegedly) part of a different drug cartel.
Here's the full paragraph:
Paragraphs 16 through 19 of the lawsuit identify thefts ranging between $37 and $150 million dollars, along with links to a Mexican drug cartel. (Pablo Escobar’s brother recently demanded $100 million in cash or Tesla shares from Musk for purportedly stealing his flamethrower idea, but the Escobars are Colombian.)
I have no perspective on the merits of these claims, but the approach smells a bit off.
1. Make a name as a whistleblower
2. Invite further insiders to volunteer new negative stories
3. Solicit "the right people" to fund your operation
The concern here is insider trading. It's implied that funding contributors (Tesla shorts) may receive preferential access to negative news stories.
Edit: insider trading is not the correct legal term. Extortion perhaps? Which law would prevent them from just coming out and saying "fund us and get the scoop on bad news for Tesla"?
1. Make a name as a whistleblower
2. Invite further insiders to volunteer new negative stories
3. Solicit "the right people" to fund your operation
The concern here is insider trading. It's implied that funding contributors (Tesla shorts) may receive preferential access to negative news stories.
Edit: insider trading is not the correct legal term. Extortion perhaps? Which law would prevent them from just coming out and saying "fund us and get the scoop on bad news for Tesla"?
620 lawsuits over about 10 years seems remarkably small for a company the size of Tesla. Is there an attorney who can shed light on how many lawsuits a company with a 50 billion market cap would normally receive?
Anecdotally: I worked for a company with a sub hundred million dollar market cap and they had /thousands/ of open lawsuits every year.
Anecdotally: I worked for a company with a sub hundred million dollar market cap and they had /thousands/ of open lawsuits every year.
I work for a company right in the 100 million range and they've only been sued 3 times in their entire history.
It's not common for companies to get sued. 620 over Tesla's lifespan is extreme.
It's not common for companies to get sued. 620 over Tesla's lifespan is extreme.
What industry was the company in?
meritt(2)
I never see stories about Ford's current lawsuits, or GM or Chrysler. I'm curious what goes on behind the scenes to get stories like these published and pushed out onto social media sites across the globe. Must be a pretty expansive operation because I see it every week, same stuff week in and week out. Is it true that other companies don't have disgruntled employees? I find that difficult to believe.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the auto industry that Tesla is trying to seriously disrupt.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the launch industry that SpaceX is trying to seriously disrupt.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the ride-share/taxi industry that Tesla/Elon is trying seriously to disrupt.
There are a lot of people who are working very hard to paint a very negative picture of Elon/Tesla/SpaceX right now.
It's amazing that stories like this make headlines while the news that the Tesla Model 3 is outselling every other electric vehicle combined doesn't make a blip.
Follow the money.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the launch industry that SpaceX is trying to seriously disrupt.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the ride-share/taxi industry that Tesla/Elon is trying seriously to disrupt.
There are a lot of people who are working very hard to paint a very negative picture of Elon/Tesla/SpaceX right now.
It's amazing that stories like this make headlines while the news that the Tesla Model 3 is outselling every other electric vehicle combined doesn't make a blip.
Follow the money.
> Follow the money
And yet if you do this at the actual companies (SpaceX, Tesla) or industries (rideshare) you mention, most traditional economists will tell you they have questionable futures based on their balance sheets (all of them have been consistently losing extremely large amounts of money for years) and some believe they will actually go to zero. So by following the money, it's not hard to see why some would think these companies are overvalued.
And yet if you do this at the actual companies (SpaceX, Tesla) or industries (rideshare) you mention, most traditional economists will tell you they have questionable futures based on their balance sheets (all of them have been consistently losing extremely large amounts of money for years) and some believe they will actually go to zero. So by following the money, it's not hard to see why some would think these companies are overvalued.
Over what timescale?
United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's main (only?) competitor pulls in a few billion in revenue a year. Profits are well under $100 million, so we're talking Trillions over a couple thousand years. Arguably, if we're disrupted into a spacefaring species, this could change, but there's physical problems with that.
You might be correct about rideshare/taxi industries over a 100 year timespan or something, but not before Elon dies.
So that leaves car industries. Which are the closest, but EVs aren't going to take over any time soon, and other carmakers are better at logistics than Tesla, and that's the important part.
United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's main (only?) competitor pulls in a few billion in revenue a year. Profits are well under $100 million, so we're talking Trillions over a couple thousand years. Arguably, if we're disrupted into a spacefaring species, this could change, but there's physical problems with that.
You might be correct about rideshare/taxi industries over a 100 year timespan or something, but not before Elon dies.
So that leaves car industries. Which are the closest, but EVs aren't going to take over any time soon, and other carmakers are better at logistics than Tesla, and that's the important part.
>EVs aren't going to take over any time soon, and other carmakers are better at logistics than Tesla, and that's the important part.
Ask Norway.
Ask Norway.
It's quite unlikely many other countries are going to go quite as far disrupting natural pricing to make Tesla look almost affordable as Norway did.
If Pablo Escobar’s brother ever threatens Ford with a lawsuit over flamethrowers I guarantee it’ll make the news. Tesla gets more coverage because Tesla has a more dramatic story.
The CEOs of those companies aren’t committing securities fraud or insulting random people on Twitter, for starters.
>aren’t committing securities fraud
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
Can someone explain to me (a simple European scrub) why these sorts of lawsuits seem to invariably target Elon directly? Surely they should be directed at Tesla, you know the company that employed them? Does adding Elons name to the lawsuit actually do anything in US law? Or is it merely to gain publicity by adding celebrity to a complaint?
In at least one instance, there's evidence that Musk personally instigated an effort to use a Nevada Sheriff to retaliate against a whistleblower: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378658
The Sarbanes-Oxley act requires corporate leadership to take personal responsibility for the accuracy of certain company-generated reports. This lawsuit is against both Musk himself and Tesla the company.
These claims reek of personal vindictiveness, not corporate strategy. I honestly don't find it hard to believe that Elon has allowed his savior complex to become pathological, or that - like Zuckerberg and Kalanick - he's personally responsible for his company's most problematic behavior.
I have not been in a Tesla with Full Self Drive (FSD) and I was hoping someone here can confirm/deny my theory. The theory is that there will be this dangerous trough with the FSD feature. So at the no FSD end of the speactrum the driver is engaged mentally trying to safely get to were they want to go. At the other end of the spectrum, with fully working FSD that is better than people can drive you are are by definition safer. But! In the middle you have this dangerous middle ground. Its dangerous because the car is doing say 85% of the work, but, you need to be eagle eyed to grab the wheel and/or hit the brakes when the FSD falls into the 15% not working part. The fact that the car is doing most of the work is going to lead to people being bored and spacing out and not being ready to hit the brakes. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki9RK_JDtIg. To anyone who has spent time in a FSD car, is that the case? Or is it sufficiently fear inducing that you pay super attention?
[deleted]
Disappointing that the majority of the comments here are conspiracy theories about nefarious short-sellers somehow influencing coverage (including this article) and not a single person is discussing the seriously damning allegations of 1) millions of dollars of embezzlement 2) connections to organized crime and Mexican drug cartels 3) systematic firing of those who report impropriety to upper management and 4) using law enforcement to intimidate whistleblowers
Seriously this comment section of conspiratorial Tesla apologists is pathetic.
Seriously this comment section of conspiratorial Tesla apologists is pathetic.
I feel the same way. If I could find another tech forum where I could find topics like this and discuss them without hearing from anti-media conspiracy theorists I would join it in a heartbeat.
Even just a view of HN comments without having to weed out the threads complaining about fake news would be great. I bet it's not so hard to train a classifier to identify comments that amount to "This article is paid for by short sellers". They all make the same point and never address the issues in the article.
Even just a view of HN comments without having to weed out the threads complaining about fake news would be great. I bet it's not so hard to train a classifier to identify comments that amount to "This article is paid for by short sellers". They all make the same point and never address the issues in the article.
>discussing the seriously damning allegations
Oh please, provide some reliable sources.
So far, all the allegations -- including the ones pushed by the NYT about the company hiding unsold Model 3 inventory in the desert to cover lack of demand -- proved to be nothing.
Oh please, provide some reliable sources.
So far, all the allegations -- including the ones pushed by the NYT about the company hiding unsold Model 3 inventory in the desert to cover lack of demand -- proved to be nothing.
There's plenty of debunkers here as well.
At least from a PR perspective you dont want to engage like this if you have nothing to hide, so either they're doing something wrong or they have terrible terrible PR sense. Both seem equally likely right now.