4 ms·

I don’t think that’s actually true though it’s been repeated a lot - people have left without that large of a crash (and in this case it looks like they joined

I don’t think that’s actually true though it’s been repeated a lot - people have left without that large of a crash (and in this case it looks like they joined to help with going private so it’s not a huge surprise they left). The fast crashes seem more related to stupid media freak outs - similar to FB and the Cambridge Analytica thing.

geezerjay 8y ago
I don't think it's reasonable to disregard any meaningful explanation just to keep pushing a baseless assertion. Tesla's finances are a perenial source of concern and if Tesla's chief accounting officer leaves the company in the middle of another row regarding Tesla's financial health, I really doubt a puff is capable of raising more concerns.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I think you underestimate how many market moves are because of stupid overreactions to news events. Ultimately though the true cause of these moves can't really be known so reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
jstandard 8y ago
I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform. Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It might signal that people are jumping ship.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I am unconvinced about that. If it was the case that CA actually was able to do the things the media claimed they didn and affect people like that, FB would be in an even better position to affect people which means FB shares should have risen not fallen. We do not live in the world created by the media about the capabilities of CA not even close. But as they say. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. That irrationality is further fueld by the medias attempt to dumb down things IMO.
  - jstandard 8y ago
    I don't think it was about CA capabilities per se, but the privacy blowback which followed. The issue became mainstream and gave rise to the "Delete Facebook" movement which regular folks as well as celebrities[1] piled onto. It's fair to discuss the faddish nature of the #delete movements, but I don't see any positive angle in it for FB. It also forced FB to overhaul their platform, most notably applying larger restrictions[2] to the amount of data available via APIs. This wasn't grandstanding, it cut revenue streams for many advertising and data companies. I'm not sure this had a direct effect on FB's revenue, but indirectly it makes FB less attractive as a platform for hyper-targeted advertising. This can eventually lead to a lower ROI on FB ads vs. other channels and thus, lower share of a marketing budget. [1] https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-facebook-account-cambridge-analytica-1202738924/ https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-fa... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shut-down/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shu...
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I don't think I agree. This wasn't anything new for most people who knew just a little bit about how FB worked for 3rd parties. What changed was Trump. Had this been Hillary we wouldn't been talking about it at all and I am pretty sure FB wouldn't have been called to the hearing. So I would say it's mostly a media driven thing but of course don't have any final proof. Just pretty sure it wasn't the privacy part that was the problem but rather Trump.
      - jstandard 8y ago
        I think we're talking past each other a bit. I responded to someone drawing similarities between Cambridge Analytica and Elon Musk's joint toke, claiming both were examples of "stupid media freakouts" which caused a drop in the stock price of their respective companies. I think those 2 media events are very different from each other and have very different consequences for their respective companies. I might be proven wrong though if Musk is brought to task in front of a senate committee for his pot-smoking ways. I agree with you that Trump's election may have made it more likely that Cambridge Analytica became a big deal in the public eye. There's more controversy to fuel media frenzy if the person who got elected is seen to have unjustly ascended the throne.
- fossuser 8y ago
  The details of the Cambridge Analytica piece (as I understand them) were that a third party violated the terms of service and grabbed more data than they should have from friends of users that filled out a survey. Facebook had since restricted access to the API to prevent this terms of service violation a few years ago, but it was after Cambridge Analytica had already engaged in their bad behavior. The news was largely that a bad actor did a bad thing and FB had already locked down the API to prevent this a couple years ago, though in the news the details around this were mostly incoherent. The market reaction was a massive crash. It's probably worth Facebook focusing on bad actors more explicitly (which they're doing now with their focus on integrity teams), but the reaction to the CA news was disproportionate - even on HN. The market moves during sensational media stories seem to be an easy place to make money, I think this is where it's similar to the pot smoking CEO overreaction.
TrainedMonkey 8y ago
Normally I would say let's look at thing that matter, however Tesla stock always was a hype animal. Thus what affects it most are big splashy news.

geezerjay 8y ago

I don't think it's reasonable to disregard any meaningful explanation just to keep pushing a baseless assertion. Tesla's finances are a perenial source of concern and if Tesla's chief accounting officer leaves the company in the middle of another row regarding Tesla's financial health, I really doubt a puff is capable of raising more concerns.

fossuser 8y ago
I think you underestimate how many market moves are because of stupid overreactions to news events. Ultimately though the true cause of these moves can't really be known so reasonable people can draw different conclusions.

jstandard 8y ago

I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform. Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It might signal that people are jumping ship.

ThomPete 8y ago
I am unconvinced about that. If it was the case that CA actually was able to do the things the media claimed they didn and affect people like that, FB would be in an even better position to affect people which means FB shares should have risen not fallen. We do not live in the world created by the media about the capabilities of CA not even close. But as they say. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. That irrationality is further fueld by the medias attempt to dumb down things IMO.
- jstandard 8y ago
  I don't think it was about CA capabilities per se, but the privacy blowback which followed. The issue became mainstream and gave rise to the "Delete Facebook" movement which regular folks as well as celebrities[1] piled onto. It's fair to discuss the faddish nature of the #delete movements, but I don't see any positive angle in it for FB. It also forced FB to overhaul their platform, most notably applying larger restrictions[2] to the amount of data available via APIs. This wasn't grandstanding, it cut revenue streams for many advertising and data companies. I'm not sure this had a direct effect on FB's revenue, but indirectly it makes FB less attractive as a platform for hyper-targeted advertising. This can eventually lead to a lower ROI on FB ads vs. other channels and thus, lower share of a marketing budget. [1] https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-facebook-account-cambridge-analytica-1202738924/ https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-fa... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shut-down/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shu...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I don't think I agree. This wasn't anything new for most people who knew just a little bit about how FB worked for 3rd parties. What changed was Trump. Had this been Hillary we wouldn't been talking about it at all and I am pretty sure FB wouldn't have been called to the hearing. So I would say it's mostly a media driven thing but of course don't have any final proof. Just pretty sure it wasn't the privacy part that was the problem but rather Trump.
    - jstandard 8y ago
      I think we're talking past each other a bit. I responded to someone drawing similarities between Cambridge Analytica and Elon Musk's joint toke, claiming both were examples of "stupid media freakouts" which caused a drop in the stock price of their respective companies. I think those 2 media events are very different from each other and have very different consequences for their respective companies. I might be proven wrong though if Musk is brought to task in front of a senate committee for his pot-smoking ways. I agree with you that Trump's election may have made it more likely that Cambridge Analytica became a big deal in the public eye. There's more controversy to fuel media frenzy if the person who got elected is seen to have unjustly ascended the throne.
fossuser 8y ago
The details of the Cambridge Analytica piece (as I understand them) were that a third party violated the terms of service and grabbed more data than they should have from friends of users that filled out a survey. Facebook had since restricted access to the API to prevent this terms of service violation a few years ago, but it was after Cambridge Analytica had already engaged in their bad behavior. The news was largely that a bad actor did a bad thing and FB had already locked down the API to prevent this a couple years ago, though in the news the details around this were mostly incoherent. The market reaction was a massive crash. It's probably worth Facebook focusing on bad actors more explicitly (which they're doing now with their focus on integrity teams), but the reaction to the CA news was disproportionate - even on HN. The market moves during sensational media stories seem to be an easy place to make money, I think this is where it's similar to the pot smoking CEO overreaction.

TrainedMonkey 8y ago

Normally I would say let's look at thing that matter, however Tesla stock always was a hype animal. Thus what affects it most are big splashy news.