5 ms·

This morning would have been a wonderful time to buy stock. TSLA was way down (due to this review?) and earnings are coming up soon. This makes me wonder if the

by cryptoz 14y ago

This morning would have been a wonderful time to buy stock. TSLA was way down (due to this review?) and earnings are coming up soon. This makes me wonder if the NYTimes or this reporter had some ulterior motive; a conspiracy to discredit Tesla? A personal vendetta? Why would a reporter lie about the test?

jstalin 14y ago
A negative review would get a lot more attention than a positive one.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
avar 14y ago
There's probably a much simpler explanation: That automotive journalists are really lazy, have a story in mind before they ever drive the car in question, routinely do stuff like this, and are only being called out now because of black boxes being embedded into some newer cars such as Tesla's.
- jonknee 14y ago
  He was not an automobile journalist, which is probably why it reads like he has no concept of how cars work or that planning a trip to test a car's theoretical range limit in winter is a poor way to review a car. John Broder is on the "Green" beat: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...
cma 14y ago
A positive review of something that is already Motortrend's Car of the Year would draw about zero views. A made up ordeal could draw millions (I've seen it posted all over the place). If the detour was really long, hopefully the NYT will get sued. If the car wasn't fully charged by the reviewer it will be much harder to prove.
cjbprime 14y ago
Stock prices usually go down on extremely-hyped stocks just before earnings; I'm not sure the review had much to do with it. > Why would a reporter lie about the test? To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good".
- Thrymr 14y ago
  >> Why would a reporter lie about the test? > To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good". And because it fit the reporter's expectation of what would have happened, without having to bother with actually following through with the experiment.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It seems from the article he did perform the experiment, but lied about his procedure. He drove further than he claimed to, and didn't fill the battery as he claimed to. Why he would bother to do that instead of simply lie, I don't know.
    - Thrymr 14y ago
      I agree, I would be surprised if the reporter did make it up completely. His description is quite detailed, and it would be a bizarre thing to do, especially for someone writing for the NY Times. But such bizarre things have happened. I will be interested to see the purported data. It may in fact turn out to be a relatively minor omission. I hope we'll see.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
scrabble 14y ago
The first thing I wondered upon seeing this story was whether or not the author was on the take with the oil or automotive industry. Is he paid to give talks at conferences? Or to speak at insider company events?
adventured 14y ago
Only if you're planning to flip it for a short term gain and are willing to gamble on earnings being good. You'll be able to get it for $25 to $30 / share within the next 18 months. Save your money, bide your time. If we're just talking historical analysis (assuming you have no special knowledge of Tesla earnings etc), it's rarely a good idea to buy near the 52 week high, on top of being at its all time high, much less on top of a stock market near all time highs. Tesla is so volatile it's almost guaranteed to fall back to earth and provide a far cheaper buying entry point. The stock price is completely unsupported by earnings, meaning it's completely driven - without a buffer - by the typically manic mood swings of investors. Let the investors running Tesla up, swing to depressed and buy it far cheaper. Or to put it another way, wait until the herd is fearful and then be greedy.
- baggachipz 14y ago
  Sounds like somebody is advocating a short!

by cryptoz 14y ago

jstalin 14y ago

A negative review would get a lot more attention than a positive one.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

avar 14y ago

There's probably a much simpler explanation: That automotive journalists are really lazy, have a story in mind before they ever drive the car in question, routinely do stuff like this, and are only being called out now because of black boxes being embedded into some newer cars such as Tesla's.

jonknee 14y ago
He was not an automobile journalist, which is probably why it reads like he has no concept of how cars work or that planning a trip to test a car's theoretical range limit in winter is a poor way to review a car. John Broder is on the "Green" beat: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...

cma 14y ago

A positive review of something that is already Motortrend's Car of the Year would draw about zero views. A made up ordeal could draw millions (I've seen it posted all over the place). If the detour was really long, hopefully the NYT will get sued. If the car wasn't fully charged by the reviewer it will be much harder to prove.

cjbprime 14y ago

Stock prices usually go down on extremely-hyped stocks just before earnings; I'm not sure the review had much to do with it. > Why would a reporter lie about the test? To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good".

Thrymr 14y ago
>> Why would a reporter lie about the test? > To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good". And because it fit the reporter's expectation of what would have happened, without having to bother with actually following through with the experiment.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It seems from the article he did perform the experiment, but lied about his procedure. He drove further than he claimed to, and didn't fill the battery as he claimed to. Why he would bother to do that instead of simply lie, I don't know.
  - Thrymr 14y ago
    I agree, I would be surprised if the reporter did make it up completely. His description is quite detailed, and it would be a bizarre thing to do, especially for someone writing for the NY Times. But such bizarre things have happened. I will be interested to see the purported data. It may in fact turn out to be a relatively minor omission. I hope we'll see.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

scrabble 14y ago

The first thing I wondered upon seeing this story was whether or not the author was on the take with the oil or automotive industry. Is he paid to give talks at conferences? Or to speak at insider company events?

adventured 14y ago

Only if you're planning to flip it for a short term gain and are willing to gamble on earnings being good. You'll be able to get it for $25 to $30 / share within the next 18 months. Save your money, bide your time. If we're just talking historical analysis (assuming you have no special knowledge of Tesla earnings etc), it's rarely a good idea to buy near the 52 week high, on top of being at its all time high, much less on top of a stock market near all time highs. Tesla is so volatile it's almost guaranteed to fall back to earth and provide a far cheaper buying entry point. The stock price is completely unsupported by earnings, meaning it's completely driven - without a buffer - by the typically manic mood swings of investors. Let the investors running Tesla up, swing to depressed and buy it far cheaper. Or to put it another way, wait until the herd is fearful and then be greedy.

baggachipz 14y ago
Sounds like somebody is advocating a short!