5 ms·
The argument goes that bad actors are trying to tank TSLA by using massive short sales as a signal to the rest of the market that Tesla is a bad investment. Tha
by faitswulff 8y ago
The argument goes that bad actors are trying to tank TSLA by using massive short sales as a signal to the rest of the market that Tesla is a bad investment. That's not entirely a surprise. The surprise is that there's a historical precedence for it, from the very same bad actor investors. This pattern has played out with a company in the early 2000's called Fairfax, and then with SolarCity a decade later. The same thing is happening to Tesla - the graphs are striking. Tesla's response is to cut costs and become self-sustaining, wean itself from dependency on investors, and break the short-sellers' strategy.
- ringshall 8y agoWhy are they trying to tank it? Short term profit or some conspiracy theory?
- Robotbeat 8y agoBecause short sellers profit when the stock price goes down.
- superhuzza 8y agoAnd they stand to lose money if the prices go up.
- DiabloD3 8y agoLargely, afiact, they're trapped between their shorts and a hard place. They can't buy shares back at or below what they sold the shorts for, so unless they can manipulate the media, they will surely go bankrupt.
- jessaustin 8y agoFor a (quite plausible IMHO) "conspiracy theory", look upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17522791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17522791 and downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17522820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17522820
- compcoffee 8y ago>then with SolarCity a decade later. SolarCity failed because it was a bad business. Shorts believe the same about Tesla, which may or may not be true. Do you think short-sellers randomly choose companies to sell, or do they look at fundamentals and decide the company isn't viable? This idea that you can simply short a company until goes out of business is asinine. It's far riskier. The downside of shorting is unlimited. Fairfax still exists. People like to bring up Chanos and Farifax when talking about Tesla, but they rarely mention he was also early on Enron.
- ameister14 8y agoDid you read the post? He mentions Chanos was early on Enron right away, as part of his bio, and goes into SolarCity in some depth. I didn't invest in SolarCity, and don't know the specifics of what made it a bad company. Most of the news I read a few years ago was about how solar itself as well as their model specifically was failing, and that clearly hasn't happened. Is there another reason? Could you enlighten me?
- compcoffee 8y ago>I didn't invest in SolarCity, and don't know the specifics of what made it a bad company. My evidence is that it had to be bailed out by Tesla, then wound down. They spent vast amounts of money to grow; you know the old selling a dollar for $0.80. Borrowing short, lending long. Most of the time, that doesn't work. Solar power is a commodity, and prices are rapidly falling. I think the onus is on others to prove that it was a good business that couldn't handle short-sellers. Again, if it was so simple to destroy a company through shorting, why isn't it happening everywhere, all the time? Furthermore, who is "they"?: >They are not shorting because they think Tesla will go bankrupt. They are shorting during specific periods when Tesla is most vulnerable, and covering when they fail to achieve their targeted goal. They are shorting to bankrupt Tesla. I've been short TSLA twice (but net long through ETFs). The first time was early, and I lost money. The second time was in the recent run up after the 5k/week news, when I made a few bucks. Was I trying to bankrupt Tesla?
- 8y ago
- imglorp 8y agoContinuing the hypothetical short conspiracy idea, would Big Carbon interest also be involved? How would they relate to the shorting activities?