Home / Tag Archives: $TSLA

Tag Archives: $TSLA

Germany Clears Tesla Of Fire Probe…??

(Business Insider) The German Federal Motor Transport Authority, Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA) has concluded an investigation into three recent Tesla Model S fires and found “no manufacturer-related defects,” Tesla said today.

In a press release, Tesla said it provided the KBA with relevant data on the accidents, and received a letter saying “no further measures under the German Product Safety Act [Produktsicherheitsgesetz (ProdSG)] are deemed necessary.”

In November, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into the three fires. Tesla said it has “requested” the process, but NHTSA Administrator told a House panel that was untrue, according to The Detroit News.

That investigation is ongoing, but at least the Germans have been placated.

If you woke up this morning and read this, as I did, upon seeing TSLA up 6% before the open and my puts reversing lower on this “news”, you could be forgiven if your first impression was, “when the hell did Germany open an investigation?”

You see, I remember being told about the investigation being conducted by the NHTSA, the US based auto safety agency. I remember they opened an investigation following three fires, two of which occurred in the US, and the remaining one in Mexico. Barely a few weeks ago…

But it’s funny, as I don’t recall there ever being an announcement of a German investigation. It must have got lost under the Blankenship resignation announcement.

In fact, swinging over to Tesla’s Investor Press Releases – it’s astounding – but it seems completely devoid of any bad news at all. Not even a mention of the US based investigation, much less a German one, or a peep about the VP of sales leaving the company.

Meanwhile, in the real world, real men and women are throwing their money into this company, shaking off oversold conditions on a hard bounce. And class action lawsuits are raining from the sky. I’ve mostly been thinking those lawsuits were warrantless before now, but if this is how Tesla handles communications, I’m not so sure.

This isn’t a game, people.

Comments »

What Part Of “I’m Using Puts” Isn’t Sinking In With You?

The next person to offhandedly quote Keynes to me, explaining why my Tesla short is doomed for failure, gets boxed in the scrotum, then lit on fire. The 9th floor is declaring taboo any and all “mainstream” financial references. If you heard it in high school, that trash is not welcome here.

I wouldn’t care if it were even remotely applicable to what I am doing.

But it isn’t.

Do you understand what a put option is? It’s a contract, that costs a finite amount of money to establish up front. Its value is derived either absolutely through execution, or else by pawning it off prematurely to startled counter-parties who are sweating profusely at the thought of massive losses, for a fat premium of course.

Do you know what never comes up as a concern, remotely, when you have 2-3% of your account in a non-margin put position?


It’s crazy, but not fucking once lately have I worried, “OH MY GAWD, THE MARKET CAN STAY IRRATIONAL LONGER THAN I CAN STAY SOLVENT”.

Do you know why?

Because I’m fucking solvent.

These products have been cut in half since I bought them. I am solvent.

These products can go to absolute zero for all I care. I am solvent.

I am solvent because I’m not a complete dumb ass, and know how to take a negative view of something in a way that only has massive payoffs. I’m solvent because I understand how to set aside 1-2% of my account annum (less than I make in dividends) to buying something that has well defined losses attached.

I don’t need to know what will happen to Tesla to make it sell off. That is an adminicular point. I just need to believe that something none of us here can possibly expect will occur to shock people. It then requires only modest stipulation that, at current positioning, that something is more likely to be really bad than really good.

If my January 2014’s expire worthless (of which there is a strong possibility), then I will put another 1-2% of my account into January 2016 puts (I currently hold January 2014’s and January 2015’s).

Do you know what my upper bound is on losses?

6.1%, spread out over three and a half years.

Do you know what I will lose, in real terms, if I am wrong about Tesla?

Probably <6.1% in losses, spread out over three and a half years.

Do you know what I don't care about?

6.1% of losses, spread out over three and a half years.

I'm up ~20% this year alone. The amount of money we're talking here, 1-2% of my account annually, is just so de minimis…

Please, stop slaughtering economic quotes by using them out of context. It may shock you, but I actually am quite familiar with Keynesian-isms. That happens when you've followed the markets and finance for a long time. And frankly, if you can pick up a bit of financial advice out of a copy of the Rolling Stones, it probably isn't worth anything.

Comments »

There Is No Sound Explanation For TSLA

Wednesday, a NYU professor put out a post on his personal blog talking about everyone’s favorite, Tesla (TSLA).

My readers know my own frustrations with the stock and personal contempt for its valuation (which is not to be confused with contempt for its product) – even if they don’t understand it.

The professor created a model you can download and play with, putting in various assumptions to spit out different ends. The verdict?

He has no idea why Tesla is going for this much either.

While he did say there were a few outcomes which were as profitable for current buyers as they were farfetched, the probability of realizing those outcomes is dismissible.

This guys seems to have done more in depth work than I did. I just grabbed the growth estimates and studied the exponential curve generated from those assumptions…then recognized any variance is no friend of TSLA shareholders.

It’s worth pointing out that all of the assumptions this professor used to reach his conclusions are actually very optimistic, in the favor of Tesla. Even after that, he still can’t reach the current valuation. If you use my colder, less favorable assumptions, you get to my numbers

At this time, I still hold my TSLA puts, with targets in the $30’s and $40’s. They have basically been cut in half (spaced out 6-18 months out from purchase), but constituted an investment of about 2-3% of my account at the time of purchase.

Comments »

The TSLA Cult Marches On

There is a reason why I put (at the time) 2-3% of my account into TSLA puts, when I wanted to bet against the stock, rather than trying to short it. Shorting a cult favorite is absolute madness. TSLA can run as high as you can imagine – give them a $30 billion market cap, with one factory sitting half empty – why the hell not?

Sure it makes no sense, but as a short seller, you will not survive the process.

Now, I am reserving the right to judge Tesla’s earnings for when they actually file. I want to look through the books, read the notes, and compare some things. But, I do have an early concern.

First, Tesla did not have surprise earnings this quarter. They lost money. What they claim is that they made money from operations (unlike the opposite last quarter where they lost money from operations but came ahead selling pollution credits). But it’s funny how sometimes little word games we play can sugar coat what amounts to pure semantics.

Tesla’s “operation profit” is based after factoring out “leasing” and other items; that’s pretty vague and since I was already concerned about Tesla’s leasing practice anyway, it doesn’t reassure me, especially at these prices for the stock.

How is leasing not a part of operations?

The second red flag here is the owners who are allegedly purchasing these vehicles.

Aditya Satghare – Lazard Capital Markets
Got it. Okay. The second question was on the U.S. Market so, could you give us a little bit more color about your buyer base here and you know what kind of potential brands do you think your customers are swapping out and who do you think you are grabbing share from?

Elon Musk – Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Product Architect
We hit some pretty good numbers for that. It’s a really broad mix of cars. It’s not and not just a premium sedan. In fact, I think we

Deepak Ahuja – Chief Financial Officer
I believe we used off that in our last earnings call that we shared

Aditya Satghare – Lazard Capital Markets
..it’s a the capital raise

Deepak Ahuja – Chief Financial Officer
Probably that’s right.

Deepak Ahuja – Chief Financial Officer
If you go back and look at our capital raise presentation,

Elon Musk – Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Product Architect
And we haven’t go ahead and just talk about some of the cars we are replacing. Yes. It’s a wide range of cars. It’s not like you can say or it’s been probably five or something like that or it’s quite short right now, it’s like. (Inaudible).

Deepak Ahuja – Chief Financial Officer
This is from the ALG overview taking data from that bulk and they are showing sort of its various events and hybrids, so are the big ones. But it’s interesting like we have got the largest one here is sort of in the order of 10% and 11%. A lot of people are buying our car instead of the Prius, but that’s 10%. Obviously things like the E-Class are buying our cars there is a lead which also coming from so, it’s like E-Class, Prius, lead the Highlander, BMW 5 Series, Odyssey Honda Odyssey it’s like it’s 4% in the Honda Odyssey very like Model S (Inaudible) is 4%. Volkswagen Jetta is 4%.

Aditya Satghare – Lazard Capital Markets

Elon Musk – Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Product Architect
Mix of Honda Civic is 3%, so it’s really a pretty broad range just from previous segment.

Aditya Satghare – Lazard Capital Markets
Got it. Now that’s helpful and congratulations on the good execution this quarter.

Alright, the BMW-style high performance vehicles excluded, most of the cars being listed here are significantly cheaper than a Model S. The range of these electric/hybrids is $25,000-$40,000. So you have people trading up $30,000-$50,000.

Okay, so how many highly affluent Prius owners do you think are out there? I did a quick push and found some statistics that actually quite a few millionaires do buy cheaper cars – that sort of thrift sort of plays to having millions of dollars in the first place. So I guess if Tesla sales are being driven by millionaire Prius drivers who just desperately wanted a high performance electric vehicle, then that’s great.

But if you question the depth of the pool of Prius-driving-millionaires-wanting-to-spend-$70,000-on-an-electric-car, then you’re left wondering if Tesla doesn’t have a pricing/contract problem that’s letting people climb into one of their vehicles who should never be climbing into one.

Because at $70,000 on the low end, any pricing problem is ultimately going to be a Tesla liability.

I have no evidence of this, but it doesn’t smell right, and I’m betting there’s a problem with the way Tesla’s leases have been set up, from the get go. Those parts of the last earnings release and filing felt wrong before. And since they drove the company into a loss this quarter, they still feel wrong now.

It might not matter at all, but any lurking issues, at – now – $150 a pop could easily derail this company.

Again (I’m sure you little pricks, getting ready to spam my comment section aren’t going to take any stock in this), I don’t have a problem with Musk or the Model S. But paying this much for the shares is madness.

Comments »

Here’s Why Tesla Is To Be Avoided Or Sold

I’ve alluded to numerous parts of my aversion to TSLA stock, but I’d like to lay it out now in a more complete manner. The basic disposition is not any contempt for the company or what Elon Musk has managed to accomplish. On the contrary, you may be shocked to learn that I actually like Mr. Musk, and secretly root that he displaces the major auto companies for a piece of their market share.

However, I do hold the utmost contempt for anyone buying the stock at these prices, and wish upon them losses ranging higher than 60% of their principle. Such as is only due to them for what is a total disregard for due diligence and common sense.

I personally value the shares much closer to $20 as a growth stock, but feel that even numbers from the most optimistic of forecasts barely justifies a price between $30-60. I wouldn’t buy them for anything more than $10-20.

The reasons are as follows:

Power Series And Excessive Risk Encouragement From Bad Modeling

The steady stream of increasingly fanciful storytelling (you cannot call these projections) are a blemish on the world of finance and anyone daring to call themselves an analyst. They are made to be startling (in this case, in a positive way for the company) for the purpose of garnering attention to the analyst. If the analyst is right and the stock does make their several hundred dollar price target, the will have “earned” a reputation for themselves as a “brilliant” mind with “vision and tenacity”.

When they are wrong (most of the time) they bury the piece and pray no one mentions it.

There is a complete lack of ethics as I see it in this process, and these men and women, who are leading every day investors into compromising positions that may cause them serious harm, are the scourge of the financial industry. Eventually, the Henry Blodgets of the world all get ousted as shams, but not before causing serious injury to those that trust them and always in a victory that is a hollow as it is non-redeeming for the victims.

Below is a chart demonstrating the consequences being sewn in the creation of these projections. The three lines show the length of time at various hypothetical growth rates it would take for TSLA, as measured against two theoretical generic 10X and 20X EPS stocks, to attain the earnings level they are being priced at.

This type of distribution, while not perfectly conveying the “real world” fluctuations of a dynamic company, gives a good idea how an average, normal company would make towards paying off capital risked on future earnings, at various growth rates, under three circumstances: a 10X EPS company, like many blue chips; a 20X EPS company, which is usually reserved for growth stocks…

And then, there’s Tesla


Buying TSLA today at the astronomical projected growth rates of 40% or more is already more than double the demands on the investor for taking what are professionally viewed as “larger risks” of buying a 20X EPS tech company.

And what this graph does not convey well is what happens when the average, normal rate of growth is interrupted.

To get a sense of that, look at the accompanying table, which details the consequences of a mid-projection period miss.


Let’s suppose our stock is forecasted to grow earnings a rate of 40% for 10 years, theoretically increasing $1 of hypothetical annual earnings to $98 of earnings per share, per year. This is most fantastic.

But, I regret to inform you of a sensitivity of our projection to unintended consequences. You see, of the $98, $29 of that is earned only in the last year of this growth. This accounts for 30% of all earnings over the 10 year period. Similarly in severity, the last two years of earnings account for $50 of all our earnings (more than half).

Now what would happen if our high flying stock were to slow the earnings growth just slightly before ahead of schedule to a less fabulous 10% rate of growth? As the celebrity analyst that I am, forecasting huge prices for the future, such a small inconvenience should not be a big stumbling point – after all, I was dead on about this company delivering 8 years of exceptional growth!

But, for my slight error, the consequences are most grave. For because I encouraged you to pay a whopping 230X EPS for the shares of this company (which is where Tesla stood last check, measured against just one measly quarter of profits), I can see from the table above that it would take you an additional 16 years of profits at that 10% growth rate to break even.

As an analyst trumpeting forces of a high flying growth stock I do not fully understand, the repercussions have cost you 24 very dear years of your life, just to get back to even. The problem is that all of the gains come at the very end of the line, and so does most of what’s needed to get back to even.

The Competition And The Danger They Pose To Sales And Pollution Credits

It is not a secret that Tesla lost money on basically every element of the automotive business last quarter. To my knowledge, they lost money on every car sold, every human body in their plant, every piece of equipment they own, and every square inch of their facility. But then they made $40 million selling GHG/CAFE and ZEV credits, which put them into black.

What is perhaps a secret is how quickly they could stand to lose proceeds from those.

It is unclear who Tesla is selling these credits to. However, when thinking of automotive companies with poor fuel economy in need of offsetting pollution credits to keep selling cars, companies with large SUV and Truck lines and lacking successful, smaller and more fuel economic models inevitably come to mind. And that greatly limits the field to the Big 3 American autos.

With GM’s electric Cadillac set to launch in November, the real looming danger to Tesla is not that this car may be a big hit and still sales from it (that is also a threat, but not the chief concern). The biggest threat is that GM’s launch, if set with just the right level of production, may substantially reduce the number of pollution credits it needs to buy (or knock it out of the market entirely). GM will now have three electric/hybrid platforms, of varying degrees of success.

If Ford and Chrysler start to match these lineups, Tesla could see any market for its credits start to vanish in as little as 12 months.

With GM now announcing that they intend to study Tesla’s Model S (read strip and reverse engineer), GM or one of the other major auto makers may attempt to push out a comparative model at a loss. The danger here for Tesla is that such a move may be undergone, even if it loses that competitor money, as it will strangle Tesla.

The Problematic Costs Of The Vehicles

(I’m putting a temporary hold on this section. The $38,000 number was picked up from various estimates of others online. However, it’s come to my attention that those numbers were picked off an interview with Musk in 2009. Obviously battery costs have come down substantially since then by estimates ranging to about half. This seems to effect primarily the chart and the implied work to create a <$40,000 vehicle – there is no real work needed to create a cheap vehicle, but there is substantial work to create a cheap battery; whether it effects much else depends on whether or not you believe Tesla can put out that type of vehicle before any of the other automotive companies. I'll leave that to you. I intend to fix the chart later. I'll also point out that I didn't get into the effect that replacement cost of the battery at every 8 years has on the resale value of the vehicle and secondary ownership)

The saving hail Mary for TSLA is supposed to come in the form of an affordable, under $40,000 sedan that can be sold to the masses. What would it take to build such a vehicle?

If we take estimates of the battery at around $38,000, the there are two means by which Tesla can hope to reduce the lower end $70,000 price tag for a Model S. They can reduce the cost of the drivetrain/batter components, or they can try and deeply reduce the cost of the rest of the vehicle development.

This process can be shown here:


What we see is that very steep cuts in any element of vehicle construction are needed to reach the $40,000 sticker price. Do I think this can be accomplished? Of course. Mass production and economies of scale are immensely powerful things.

But, as we discussed in the first section, time is not on Tesla’s side here.

It’s not enough to envision that mass production can be used to steeply cut the cost of battery construction. We’re on a strict time schedule imposed by the very high demands of the stock price, and any delays at this current share price will open up TSLA stock to deep losses.

In addition, the longer it takes TSLA to put out a cheaper electric car, the greater the risk becomes that one of the major auto companies like GM, Ford, or even Tesla frenemy Toyota will beat them to the punch. Any major auto company is in a much better position to take advantage of global supply chains and leverage cheaper costs. If Tesla has become enough of a threat to garner this sort of attention, then it’s a threat that’s about to receive the costs of that attention – patent infringements and all.

I read over an article today that insinuates Tesla has already managed to create a $30,000 vehicle; you just need to stop selling batteries.

The article points out that if you don’t sell the batteries, but instead keep them in a sort of Tesla controlled limbo, that you can offer the vehicles for much cheaper. I like the idea of Tesla not selling their batteries anyway – particularly if you want to make a battery change scheme work, battery ownership needs to be captive under a separate domicile so that you can insure them and separate adverse selection from the equation.

This article goes beyond that to suggest that Tesla can ignore the battery completely, and instead recoup the costs of the batteries by charging about $70 for a swap (you can find the article easily, and I’ll just accept the numbers presented for the moment as it matches Musks statements).

This is a smart and interesting idea certainly, but with one line of flaws that makes it unworkable – the real cost of batteries is there and it’s enormous.

At some point you’re forced to consider one of two viewpoints:

1) Tesla is selling a $40,000 sedan that costs $70 to fill up (compared to $40-50 for all other vehicles)


2) Tesla is giving away free batteries

Remember Tesla has no control over how often someone takes advantage of the battery swap feature. With no supporting data, this sort of speculation, if acted upon by Tesla, is more likely to open Tesla to enormous, long term losses.

Tesla can definitely play games with the costs of its vehicles to increase sales (and destroy my puts in the process). But at the end of the game, what’s in it for TSLA shareholders?

Standards Of Excellence Lacking With Sales Data

Tesla remains a black box on its sales records and that concerns me. So much so that I was willing to wildly speculate that they weren’t selling any vehicles at all, just leasing a bunch. (Sorry, but it’s a tough world – you want to fend off the unwarranted criticism? Show that it’s unwarranted…)

Starting in Q2, Tesla is set to revamp their means of recording vehicle leasing numbers. This has led at least one analyst to opine that the move could “create shareholder value”. Obviously it hasn’t dawned on anyone that needs to revamp reporting methods usually lead to restated earnings numbers, not sudden piles of money appearing out of thin air. Especially in a young start up that just used its flashy new vehicle sales and first ever profitable quarter to raise just under a billion dollars in equity offerings and bond sales.

If they’re doing that, is it technically fiddling with GAARP rules? Of course, but you’d need to show it was blatantly intentional to warrant regulator attention. And it’s not like regulators don’t already have their hands full or are renowned for their quick uptake and willingness to wade into a heated battle with a popular start up; especially one where it will look like they’re defending entrenched legacy companies that received public bailouts as little as four years ago.

Until I see some more solid sales numbers and know that the lease/sale distinction isn’t creating some long term liabilities for the company – especially at 230X EPS – I’m skeptical.

There’s The Wrap

The biggest problem with TSLA isn’t Tesla. It’s people trying to sell you Tesla for too much money. There’s no good justification for paying this much, in the face of so many unknowns. The problem is human emotion. It takes self control to not get involved in something – particularly something you find as exciting as Tesla.

But just because Tesla is a good company led by a visionary who has had a stellar career so far doesn’t mean you should buy it at any price. At current valuations, Tesla is priced to deliver next to nothing to buyers in exchange for a very large transfer of risk directly into their net asset values. Heads you get nothing, tails you lose.

There are lingering questions for Tesla and problems that will take more than a few months to sort out. And every day longer than what is being forecast is running out the clock on the shareholders, who are down big and need to see some major plays to tie it up.

And at these prices, there are plenty of other companies you could be buying that would probably deliver bigger surprises anyway. Interestingly, buying one of Tesla’s competitors or suppliers might be a more cost efficient play .

I know you want to be a part of something special. But the best course of action here is for you to exhibit some self-restraint, and sit this one out.

Comments »

What A Post I Had For You

No I wasn’t keeping my head low after Tesla rallied back 10% today. I have nothing to hide over since I never said this was “THE BIG ONE”. The move in Tesla was a powerful shot across the bow, but if it rallies back above $130, it wouldn’t really concern me. I have 5 1/2 months before any of my contracts expire, and a year and a half for most of them. For the meantime, my insistence that you not short the stock directly stands.

Actually, I prepared to detail the Tesla trade for you today, as a summary of all the key points. I had it about worked out too.

As I was wrapping up the post, I looked down and realized it was a quarter after five, and that I had 45 minutes to get to an appointment an hour away with a client.

Rushing out the door, flinging my walking accessories in my pockets as I sprinted, I quite forgot to finish the correspondence for your delivery.

And so I am sorry.

Comments »