Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 3/24/2025 at 9:57 PM, The Royal We said:

 

Did Gina Raimondo go on CNBC and tell Americans to buy Stellantis or Ford stock? 

I assume their CEOs also donated ~$250MM to Biden's campaign too? 

Other than that, yea, totally the same thing. Both sides indeed.

 

Expand  

Are you confused perhaps by the offices of a regulator like the SEC or an economy stabilizer like the Fed, with implicit neutrality, versus that of the the *Commerce* office, whose job is as an advocator?

When the Biden administration invited manufacturers to bring electric vehicles to the WH lawn for the signing of his executive order mandating EV sales, but specifically excluded Tesla, was that “choosing winners and losers”? 

When he credited the GM CEO with “you electrified the entire automotive industry; im serious”, for having sold 1 electrified car to Tesla’s 100, what would you call that? An anointment, or a gaffe, or both?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 3/21/2025 at 1:38 AM, tbone_ said:

I hope maga loads up on it. And averages down all the way to bk.

 

How’s DJT doing btw?

Expand  

 

  On 3/21/2025 at 1:36 PM, Blotto said:

Pretty damn well considering it's still trading for a market cap of $4.4B, or greater than 1000X revenue ($3.6M). And they somehow managed to lose $400M last year while generating that revenue. 

Expand  

This market is broken.  Fundamentals and business models don't matter.  Tesla doesn't trade based on their car business anymore. They were always overvalued in that aspect and still are. They're going to live and die based on robotics and robo taxi.  

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 3/25/2025 at 12:30 AM, royiv said:

I think @52-80 needs a new avatar.

 

Expand  

Ah yes, if only your party had more billionaire support, it could have won.

I think maybe you need to stick to the topic, instead of sticking to me.

This is the statement from the Department of Commerce

  Quote

Through its 13 bureaus, the Department works to drive U.S. economic competitiveness, strengthen domestic industry, and spur the growth of quality jobs in all communities across the country

Expand  

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
  22 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

Expand  

Good lord man get a hold of yourself lol. Telling people to go buy specific shares in a company is not in the same solar system as "hey look at these efficient and hybrid vehicles". Although keep reaching, I'm curious to see how far you can stretch

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  22 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Ah yes, if only your party had more billionaire support, it could have won.

I think maybe you need to stick to the topic, instead of sticking to me.

This is the statement from the Department of Commerce

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

Expand  

 

  20 hours ago, Captainant said:

Good lord man get a hold of yourself lol. Telling people to go buy specific shares in a company is not in the same solar system as "hey look at these efficient and hybrid vehicles". Although keep reaching, I'm curious to see how far you can stretch

Expand  

This. The Department of Commerce should be promoting general economic development of sector in line with strategic objectives. It should be promoting US companies to foreign investors and businesses. It should not be advocating that the American public buy a particular stock. Surely @52-80 you can see the difference between these actions? 

Posted
  18 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The Department of Commerce should be promoting general economic development of sector in line with strategic objectives. It should be promoting US companies to foreign investors and businesses. It should not be advocating that the American public buy a particular stock. Surely @52-80 you can see the difference between these actions? 

Expand  

I agree, politicians should be more promoting entire domestic sectors and industries than cherry picking single companies.

But since you guys brought up the cherry-picking (I never posted on it before), what's your stance when the last administration did it? And since a govt representative advocating a single stock run such afoul of your morals, what's your stance when one antagonized that single stock just last week? 

Posted (edited)
  18 hours ago, 52-80 said:

I agree, politicians should be more promoting entire domestic sectors and industries than cherry picking single companies.

But since you guys brought up the cherry-picking (I never posted on it before), what's your stance when the last administration did it? And since a govt representative advocating a single stock run such afoul of your morals, what's your stance when one antagonized that single stock just last week? 

Expand  

The last administration did not advocate buying a single company's stock. It did advocate for a certain direction for a particular industry (EVs for automotive) and in that context and in the context of passed legislation, highlighted many efforts of prominent American manufacturers, including GM and Ford. It did not specifically invite Tesla to the same event, and perhaps that was politically motivated, but I frankly don't see the exclusion of one market participant from a general promotional event as anywhere in the same universe as promoting the purchase a particular entity's stock. You're making a false equivalence and you know it. 

I'll also add that promoting consumers to purchase goods from certain companies and promoting them to purchase STOCK is entirely different. The former at least is in the general ballpark of what the Department of Commerce is supposed to be doing. The latter isn't and looks more like a pump and dump effort than anything else. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted

I assume the CEOs of Ford and GM also personally donated hundreds of millions to Biden's election campaign, were rewarded with being appointed the head of a brand new federal agency, and then got invited to the Pentagon to discuss top secret planning? Oh, while spending most free time publicly attacking critics of the president?

If we're going to be honest with our "both sides!" takes 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  17 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The last administration did not advocate buying a single company's stock. It did advocate for a certain direction for a particular industry (EVs for automotive) and in that context and in the context of passed legislation, highlighted many efforts of prominent American manufacturers, including GM and Ford. It did not specifically invite Tesla to the same event, and perhaps that was politically motivated, but I frankly don't see the exclusion of one market participant from a general promotional event as anywhere in the same universe as promoting the purchase a particular entity's stock. You're making a false equivalence and you know it. 

I'll also add that promoting consumers to purchase goods from certain companies and promoting them to purchase STOCK is entirely different. The former at least is in the general ballpark of what the Department of Commerce is supposed to be doing. The latter isn't and looks more like a pump and dump effort than anything else. 

Expand  

You didn't answer the second question.

A politician (whose job is to boost US businesses) promoting a specific domestic company's stock is bad.  But a politician who actively cheered against a specific domestic company's stock is...what?

Posted
  On 3/24/2025 at 11:17 PM, 52-80 said:

Are you confused perhaps by the offices of a regulator like the SEC or an economy stabilizer like the Fed, with implicit neutrality, versus that of the the *Commerce* office, whose job is as an advocator?

When the Biden administration invited manufacturers to bring electric vehicles to the WH lawn for the signing of his executive order mandating EV sales, but specifically excluded Tesla, was that “choosing winners and losers”? 

When he credited the GM CEO with “you electrified the entire automotive industry; im serious”, for having sold 1 electrified car to Tesla’s 100, what would you call that? An anointment, or a gaffe, or both?

Expand  

Other posters have raised some of my answers to this already, but c'mon man. I know you're a card carrying member of the elon fan boi club, but you're really grasping at straws here. 

The original post you responded to was my reaction to the current Secretary of Commerce suggesting the American public go out and buy a single company's stock. Coincidentally I'm sure, but the CEO of that company is also the largest donor to the GOP and (a lot of people are saying) the shadow POTUS. Did Raimondo (or Wilbur Ross or Pritzker or Bryson or...) ever make a similar suggestion? I think you are confused by the umbrage being taken here.

Biden did invite execs from GM, Ford, and Stellantis to the White House for meetings while excluding Tesla. I don't know why for sure, but I assume it had something to do with Tesla being the only non-union car manufacturer in the country. Is that really "actively cheering against" Tesla's stock?

I know nuance is tough these days, but ain't no fucking ballpark on this one.

 

Posted
  16 hours ago, The Royal We said:

Other posters have raised some of my answers to this already, but c'mon man. I know you're a card carrying member of the elon fan boi club, but you're really grasping at straws here. 

The original post you responded to was my reaction to the current Secretary of Commerce suggesting the American public go out and buy a single company's stock. Coincidentally I'm sure, but the CEO of that company is also the largest donor to the GOP and (a lot of people are saying) the shadow POTUS. Did Raimondo (or Wilbur Ross or Pritzker or Bryson or...) ever make a similar suggestion? I think you are confused by the umbrage being taken here.

Biden did invite execs from GM, Ford, and Stellantis to the White House for meetings while excluding Tesla. I don't know why for sure, but I assume it had something to do with Tesla being the only non-union car manufacturer in the country. Is that really "actively cheering against" Tesla's stock?

I know nuance is tough these days, but ain't no fucking ballpark on this one.

 

Expand  

I know you have a blindspot but can you comment on a govt official on stage celebrating a domestic company's value going down. Can you compare the egregiousness of that to a govt official cheering for 1, but not all domestic companies? That was last week, w/ a current governor and ex VP candidate, not the ex President.

The Biden WH event was not a union event, signing a jobs order.  It was an EV event, signing an EV order. Don't need nuance to figure that one out.

If you want to argue the manufacturing and employment angle -- which is the right thing for the POTUS to promote-- which company employs more workers in America, the American one, or the Dutch one?

 

Posted
  16 hours ago, 52-80 said:

I know you have a blindspot but can you comment on a govt official on stage celebrating a domestic company's value going down. Can you compare the egregiousness of that to a govt official cheering for 1, but not all domestic companies? That was last week, w/ a current governor and ex VP candidate, not the ex President.

Expand  

I'll attempt an answer even though you keep dodging every question coming your way here. I'd say it's unseemly, but I understand. To put it in terms that you might understand, let's say someone, (George Soros?) owned a company and that company's stock made up a huge chunk of his wealth. And let's say he used that wealth to help his preferred party win a presidential election and buy himself unprecedented access to levers of power in government. A government that has provided massive financial assistance to many of ole George's  companies btw. Could you understand why someone like Greg Abbott might celebrate publicly if George's company stock price tumbled? I seem to remember this exact thing happening with the "controversy" with Bud Light, 'member?

  16 hours ago, 52-80 said:

which company employs more workers in America, the American one, or the Dutch one?

Expand  

You keep doing this for some reason. Was Jeep the only company invited to the White House, or was it Jeep, GM, and Ford? Indeed, which White House guests have more American employees?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Posted
  15 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Expand  

That the current US administration has a policy goal of not letting that specific stock tumble, and will bend policy to ensure that it happens. 

Posted
  15 hours ago, Foosters said:

That the current US administration has a policy goal of not letting that specific stock tumble, and will bend policy to ensure that it happens. 

Expand  

The most likely support is with tax credits and I’m very skeptical there’s consensus support for that in the House.  Reps like Massie and our very own Chip Roy also appear sufficiently ideological that the transactional give and take of lawmaking is going to be, best case, slow.  
 

It’s not that it can’t be done, it’s that it’s going to be subordinate to a tax cut, which will likely require wringing every bit of outstanding political capital before 2026 campaigning begins.  Moreover, the tax cut it’s likely going to be unpopular (like the last one was).  
 

None of this is particularly hard for the investor to imagine.  So what’s the magical thinking that supports 100+ price/earnings?  Patents?  The Mar-a-Lago accords?  I’m a little surprised the whole market isn’t piling into shorts because narratively it just seems to follow the historical pattern of a founder/CEO thinking they are special and not lucky.  

Posted (edited)
  17 hours ago, 52-80 said:

You didn't answer the second question.

A politician (whose job is to boost US businesses) promoting a specific domestic company's stock is bad.  But a politician who actively cheered against a specific domestic company's stock is...what?

Expand  

What politician and what statement are you referring to? I'm not aware of Biden, or any part of his administration, "cheering against" Tesla while he was President. Some other politician who isn't the current executive of the country criticizing Tesla or Elon would be completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
  15 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Expand  

The market can be irrational for a longer time then you can be liquid. There has been a good argument to short Tesla for a long time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  Quote

Tesla (TSLA) sales in the European Union (EU) tumbled for a second consecutive month in February, even as overall new electric vehicle registrations increased.

According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, Tesla EU new car registrations, which serve as a proxy for sales, plunged 47% year-over-year to 11,743 cars in February, a month after they plummeted 50%.

Meanwhile, battery-electric vehicle (BEV) registrations in the bloc jumped nearly 24% overall.

Expand  

Doesn’t seem good for the health of the enterprise.

Posted

I'm honestly surprised that European sales only fell 47%, year over year, in February.  How much has Tesla sunk into it's Gigafactory Berlin and its Austin Cybertruck factory?  

I know MAGA can prop up the stock, but at some point the company will be in serious trouble of running out of capital due to low sales. 

Posted
  15 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Expand  

 

  12 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

The market can be irrational for a longer time then you can be liquid. There has been a good argument to short Tesla for a long time.

Expand  

As hornmpa points out, TSLA has been irrationally overvalued for years and far more shorts have been burned than have profited. It's stock price is a joke, but I won't short it because there is no telling what Elon and Donnie can cook up to inflate TSLA stock price. The president has been recommending people buy the stock and the cars already, whats to stop them from artificially propping up the price by buying shares through the sovereign wealth fund, or the US army to decide to buy a million cybertrucks? Who is going to say no? Trump could declare it's in the interest of national security or some shit, and all will be greenlighted. There are simply very few checks on their power right now.

There are plenty of other overvalued stocks to consider shorting that aren't in the middle of our idiocratic culture war, and subject to the whims of Donnie and Elon. When there is no rationale for a stocks valuation and it trades irrationally for years, you might as well just go to Vegas and score some coke and hookers while you're gambling.

  • Hook 'Em 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...