Competition the main issue for Tesla, says analyst 7 Hours Ago | 01:38
More investors are betting against electric-car maker Tesla than any other U.S. stock, new data show.
The dollar amount of shares shorted on Tesla increased 28 percent in the last month to $10.7 billion, according to S3 Partners. The percentage of Tesla's available stock currently sold short exceeds 25 percent, according to FactSet.
"Tesla, which was overtaken by Apple as the largest U.S. equity short recently, is back on top of the league tables, a position it has held since March 2016," wrote Ihor Dusaniwsky, head of research at S3 Partners. "Tesla short sellers, after reducing their short exposure for the first two months of 2018, have reversed course and shorted Tesla stock heavily over the last five weeks."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/tesla-is-the-biggest-short-in-the-us-stock-market.html
Is anyone really surprised about this? The writing has been on the wall for months.
Its what they always do.
Not surprising, they only manufacture a fraction of the cars the big car companies make yet are valued higher.
Tsla has been the biggest short since 2016. The stock price is currently double it's lowest 2016 point
Isn't Tesla stock generally considered to be heavily overvalued at the moment?
There's a resurgance at looking at major tech companies and re-evaluating their stocks in general mostly because they've been promising profits and giving nothing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a bubble.
One way or another we'll find out when the Japanese/German manufactures truly enter the market.
I've been waiting for a second dot-com bubble soon, tbh. The startups are out of control and the hype around blockchain and other suck technologies is far overblown
Honestly, I'm actually curious what the actual value of tech companies like Google, Amazon and Facebook are to the economy.
Because in several ways, they actually are doing far more damage than they're worth. Amazon is leveraging their over-evaluation to work people like shit as slave drivers and somehow make Walmart seem like a decent place to work for. Google is busy drowning in nothing but PR and terrible design decisions with a majority of their products. And Facebook, well Facebook was designed by an anti-social awkward nerd...for social people?
I would not be surprised if their actual monetary was far smaller.
You're focusing on the most superficial aspects of those companies. Amazon revolutionized the entire way we order products, and AWS runs the entire internet. If AWS is the backend of the entire internet, Google is the front end. Facebook is a piece of shit but it's entrenched as hell and has an unfathomably enormous userbase
And is that not the least bit frightening to you?
A singular company is the backbone of the internet, and thusly, can abuse its workers and force them to work at super low wages to a point where those workers have to siphon in millions in food stamps and government assistance?
Google, through its monopoly, has basically become one of the best ways to invade our privacy and even has a browser that can do it as well? Facebook puts literal tracker cookies in our browsers so they can sell that information to advertisers, who then try to sell you shit which you google and then go to Amazon to purchase.
Do you not see how fucked of a circle that is?
Yes, I agree with that, but that's not even the current topic of conversation. You were saying they're drastically overvalued, I disagree. A lot of the issue lies in SF/Silicon Valley startups which have FAR too easy of a time acquiring capital these days. Juicero made the news but there are many like it.
I believe, in general, every single one of these companies are over-valued in some measure or way.
But true, I am getting off topic and there are far more hilarious fish to fry like Juicero.
I'm not sure you understand what "value" means in the corporate world
The market capitalisation of a company has nothing to do with the ‘actual monetary’ (I assume you mean balance sheet) of a company. Market capitalisation is what investors believe that the company would be worth to buy at any given moment. You could have a company with $1 billion of total assets, but investors might think that the company has a market value of $2 billion or even $3 billion or more, with the market value determined by which investors have however much cash to splash, and the expected future earnings of the company.
Arguably, any company is ‘worth’ significantly more than even what investors think it’s worth. Most measures of a company’s value, whether by contemporary accounting or speculation by investors, will focus on just the financial and cost accounting value of the company. Integrated reporting is currently being pushed by some accountants so that other kinds of value, such as social, environmental and cultural value can be captured and reported.
I got a feeling you don't know what a monopoly is.
Saying amazon is "the backbone of the internet" is silly when its market share isn't anywhere near 50% and there are a lot of viable competitors. Google also doesn't traditionally fall under a monopoly (closest is prolly monopsony with youtube,) and you'd still see companies selling data like mad without them.
TBH I kinda doubt this is a second dot-com bubble bust, saying that serious underplays just how inflated shit was during the bubble bust. Most of those companies that are still alive aren't even at the stock value they had then today and losses aren't really the same either.
The problem with the current bubble is that the private equity market is far more opaque than the stock market: no one really knows how much money those companies are spending, how much they're making, and how much they're really worth. At least the fallout will be contained largely to venture capital firms and their investors, whose hubris will be hurt more than their wallets.
As for Tesla itself, who cares if they're being shorted? Market sentiment is possibly the lowest rung on the ladder of valuation metrics. Tesla as a company is essentially unaffected by a change in their share price as most of their funding comes from issuing debt rather than equity. Sure they're probably overvalued as hell right now but that doesn't mean shit for their fundamentals, it just means that investors are fucking stupid as they always are.
Tesla and Musk don't sell cars, but dreams. I'm not even trying to be artistic here, it's how it is.
Tesla maybe (because they're stuggling to meet demand, which is best problem you could possibly have), but SpaceX pretty much ate half the private space launch industry overnight.
*According to graphs supplied by SpaceX themselves.
Do you really think that a multibillion corporation whose entire value is reliant on speculation would flat-out lie about easily disprovable numbers in marketing materials?
This is SpaceX were talking about. They devote a ton of money and energy to PR in order to make themselves look like the future and that all those others are merely stuck in the past. The reality is that they are just another launch company no different from ULA, Arianespace, or Roscosmos.
That chart is another example of their PR. Yes, SpaceX are launching more than any other company this year, but that's because they have a huge backlog from when their rockets were grounded due to technical issues. It's like if ULA didn't launch at all for one year then doubled their launch manifest for the next and declared that they were dominating the space industry. SpaceX cannot sustain such launch cadence because their backlog won't last forever and because worldwide satellite demand is on a downward trend. Plus they aren't "dominating" the launch market since both Arianespace and ULA are launching just as much as they would if SpaceX didn't exist.
We're getting off topic, this thread is about Tesla, not SpaceX. Let's stop here.
Let's stop here because you know your statement is full of shit.
https://www.theatlas.com/i/atlas_BkJmX-n_M@2x.png
Let's stop here because you want to get the last word in, eh
Way to completely ignore my post and my explanation for why SpaceX is launching more. Excellent reading skills there, I don't know why I expected more. Also, ULA has more than one rocket, they have 4, Delta II, Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy, and Atlas V. SpaceX have 1. Good graph you have there.
Go ahead and discuss all you want, just don't blame me when we both get banned for going off topic.
SpaceX has two rockets. F9 and FH. Both of which are reusable. Neither of which can be short sold, which is what this thread is about. Take it to the Science subforum if you want to keep arguing with facts what launch provider is better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
