Thứ Sáu, 28 tháng 10, 2016

TSLA Investor Discussions part 32

  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Sounds like total BS to me. Tesla has really been pretty up front about where their parts are coming from.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Stock is getting crushed this morning, hard to believe that one rather bogus article matters that much. Yesterday it was up on little news and the market wasn't, today is the reverse. Never makes any sense :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Crush away. I want to pick up a little more.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I agree. Buy the dip. 33.63 is a good spot where i'm adding even more.

    It's actually acted like a negative beta stock on a daily basis for the last few weeks. Just basing this off of observations. Not sure what it means or why.


    Stock's trading like crap today though. Gaps everywhere. Looks like theres some buying volume coming in though. It needs to get over the 1m 50ma
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    +1 :biggrin:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It's interesting when people say things like crash and crush, when the low today has so far gotten down to $33.60.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Please crush - somehow I still have $$ left after getting my car ??
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Spoke too soon. Looks like the fall is done. Broke and held on volume. Buy here. I'm on the ask for March 31 puts (selling the puts) here.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-04%20at%2012.12.42%20PM.png
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm just gonna say it: it is no accident that this news is getting cycled today given the stock hit $35 yesterday. I think we need an SEC probe into why this news is out today. I suspect short sellers are behind it, and I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy; I just know that is how the game is played.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is the source article which the other reports seem to be based on:

    U.S. electric-car maker praised by Obama probed over foreign parts - Washington Times

    This seems to be about a year-old investigation which was rendered irrelevant, based on info in that article itself:

    The timing of the article seems a bit questionable, especially since the info in the article removes its own basis. The info seems to have come with some kind of routine response related to "summaries for dozens of investigations" which don't seem to be Tesla specific, but are for "probes involving federal stimulus funds":

    However, in this case, no stimulus funds were involved.

    In other words, the best I can tell, this investigation was started a year ago and turned out to be without basis. It seems to be over and done with.

    That the WT publishes such a page-long article makes me very suspicious, given that most people don't read such an article to such length, and probably miss that this is non-news. Combined with the response by other brokers, one gets the impression that this is being (ab-)used for certain agendas.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Just going by the time stamp on Google News and Musk's tweet. The article was posted two hours before the tweet. So unless the author had some really good insider info, I don't think it was planned in conjunction with the announcement. Maybe to cover shorts, since the article is a lot of non-info.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think if anything, Musk's tweet was in response to the article.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The market maker stands to earn 2 mil if Jan 35 call options expire worthless. However, if it is above that amount, they risk having to put up $38 million of cash. That's about one day's worth of volume for Tesla stock. Because of the amount of money that's involved, I am guessing they have a bigger gun reserved for January. If there's a whale here with more than 38 mil, hey, crush them.

    drinkerofkoolaid you are right. I looked it up. The "Silence period" before earnings is a self governed period, I guess it gives company an excuse when they don't have any rebuttal to whatever news is used to crush their stock pre earnings.:

    For years, publicly traded companies have been citing rules from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as reasons not to discuss almost anything related to corporate operations in the weeks preceding a quarterly report. "SEC-mandated quiet period" often becomes a boilerplate phrase for public-relations personnel when earnings are less than a month away.
    Yet it's not even an SEC rule.
    "The quiet period phenomenon is a matter of practice rather than regulation," SEC spokesman John Heine said. "You're not going to find a regulation that says 'you have to be quiet for 30 days' or something like that. However, there are provisions in securities laws that lead people...to be careful in how they handle certain types of information."
    Companies tend to be more than a little careful these days. Take chip-equipment maker Applied Materials as an example.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The article also mentions that they communicated with Tesla on Friday. So it's not related to the tweet itself, but given that this info comes from an investigation a year old, and apparently has no basis in the first place, yet still is a page long, and comes with such a headline, makes me suspicious about the agenda. The timing, I would guess, is more related to other news indicating Tesla is becoming a viable company, and consequently the stock going up well above $30. So those having a negative view of Tesla start thinking "wait a moment, this can't be right" and then get inclined to launch (apparently) misleading articles like this, in their own mind getting things to where they should be.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I shed a few tears. Tesla is entering the big leagues now and some of the usual players are using their news channel to sling mud at it. Rejoice, this is a great day.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Reading the article, it looks like a partisan slam on Obama. The timing may look suspicious because a little faux "bad news" might help shorts get out with their shirts intact. Or maybe the partisan slam is just cover... you'll never know.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In the last two weeks, the same author, Jim McElhatton, wrote two articles warming up the Solyndra investigation (which however is active and ongoing, but doesn't seem to have real news either). I'd say that confirms the impression that this is part of a "partisan slam on Obama", as you say. And found worth of an article since Tesla is becoming relevant on a national level, now.

    - - - Updated - - -
    -----

    Unless the news (about Tesla becoming cash flow positive) already came out last week in back channels, I'm once more surprised that positive news seem to have little effect on the stock price.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yah, its very very surprising. Them being cashflow positive means no more secondaries. That removes a huge risk.

    I still think we're going to get a huge move up because of this news very soon. Today was a flush to test whoever bought on the way up yesterday. The day is not over yet, what happens at the close will be significant either way.

    I added some very short dated calls (Dec) and started my put spread strategy.SOLD -3 TSLA 100 MAR 13 31 PUT @3.20. $350 margin req per put
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    While your posting is accurate, it is irrelevant. Tesla's loan was not made pursuant to the ARRA of 2009, and consequently Tesla Motors is not subject to its requirements.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm not sure I agree with that statement, but I think I agree with what your underlying conclusion. Cash-flow positive means there won't be anymore "oops, almost ran out of cash there!" secondaries. But faced with very high levels of demand, Tesla may want to invest in some more machine tools and other capital goods, and they may need equity to do that. OTOH, Tesla hasn't tapped the bond market yet, and with a few solid quarters, it should be able to get a decent bond issuance, if needed, to fund future growth.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That's not how market-making works in the option market. At least not by any market maker that wants to stay in business very long. Market makers manage their position through delta-hedging, that is continually buying/selling the underlying stock to match the current "delta" of the option. When managed correctly, the market maker is guaranteed the "risk-free" return on their money no matter what the price of the underlying security is on option expiration. In other words, the "house always wins".

    So for example, the Jan 35 calls currently have a delta of 0.41 as I write this. That means if a market maker were to sell one contract (worth 100 shares) to you, they would have created a negative delta of -41 (-100 * 0.41). So they would immediately buy 41 shares of TSLA, to create a positive 41 delta, netting them a delta neutral position. As the stock price goes up and approaches the option strike price, delta will tend to rise, so they will have to buy more shares. Likewise, as the stock moves away from the strike price delta will fall and they will sell shares. The net of all of this buying/selling of stock and the option premium should be the risk-free rate of return for the market maker. Or so the theory goes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black�Scholes).

    For an excellent technical discussion on options pricing I recommend:

    Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives and DerivaGem CD Package (8th Edition): John C. Hull: 9780132777421: Amazon.com: Books

    It is worth every penny, but can be quite technical, so you had better like math. :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    just looked up Washington Times on wikipedia. sections on funding and political leanings below:

    Funding

    The Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing theTimes.[SUP][45][/SUP] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times".[SUP][46][/SUP] In 2002, Columbia Journalism Reviewsuggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[SUP][21][/SUP] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Timesas a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[SUP][47][/SUP]

    [edit]Political leanings

    200px-Washington_Times_dispenser.jpg
    [?IMG]
    Times dispenser?

    The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP] The Washington Postreported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[SUP][5][/SUP]
    Conservative commentator Paul Weyrich has called the Times an antidote to its liberal competitor:
    The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Times has forced thePost to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence.[SUP][51][/SUP]
    ?
    In 1999 the Times was criticized by the Daily Howler for misquoting vice-president Al Gore.[SUP][52][/SUP] In 2000 the Howler criticized the Times again, this time for making unsubstantiated allegations about Gore's campaign fundraising.[SUP][53][/SUP] In 2004 the Howler criticized a Times' front page story which made fun of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry's vacationing in France.[SUP][54][/SUP]
    Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight on the News, said in his 2002 book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In his 2004 book The Republican Noise Machine, Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias" and that its journalistic ethics were "close to nil."[SUP][55][/SUP]
    In 2007, the liberal Mother Jones news magazine said that the Times had become "essential reading for political news junkies" soon after its founding, and quoted James Gavin, special assistant to Bo Hi Pak:
    We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values. The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down. Causa is doing the same thing, by explaining what the enemy is trying to do.[SUP][56][/SUP]
    ?
    In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:
    There is even a daily newspaper�the Washington Times�published strictly for the movement�s benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[SUP][57][/SUP]In 2009 the New York Times reported:
    With its conservative editorial bent, the paper also became a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement. A veritable who�s who of conservatives � Tony Blankley, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Larry Kudlow, John Podhoretz and Tony Snow � has churned out copy for its pages.[SUP][35][/SUP]
    ?
    Though not listed, another conservative writer who trained there was New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks, a Washington Times editorial writer in the 1980s.[SUP][58][/SUP]
    The Times has generally opposed gay and transgender rights.[SUP][59][/SUP] In 2010, the Times published an editorial opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Actbecause it granted legal protective status for transgender people.[SUP][60][/SUP][SUP][61][/SUP][SUP][62][/SUP] The editorial criticized transgender people and said that gender identity can be a choice, not an innate characteristic.[SUP][6[/SUP]
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wow, risk-free return. How much starting capital would you need to give up your day job and become a market maker with a decent 6 figure income?

    And after you've mastered the market-making trade, how much time per day would you need to put in?

    Just dreaming...
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Keep dreaming. The LIBOR and treasury yield curves are the most common proxies for the risk-free rate, so we are not talking about a big rate of return here. The 1-month LIBOR is 0.21% (annualized), so if you were doing this every month that would be your rate of return. So, you would need about $47.6M to make $100k/year. If you already have $47.6M, I think you can find plenty of money managers who could make you a lot more money than that every year.

    Of course, real market makers use much more complex hedging across their entire portfolio, operate primarily on margin (they can borrow money at the risk-free rate!), so they get better returns.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Thanks for the education, I will look up that book. In this case, then somebody stands to have to put up collateral for 38 million and it's not the Market maker?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wrt the cash flow positive statement not having as big of an impact as you might have expected... Not long ago we heard Tesla was hoping to b positive for the month (or that's how I read it, not positive for a day, although hitting a turning point may be what that was what they were talking about)

    That's all to say maybe getting positive has already been priced in, until big $$s are known or fully hitting 400 deliveries a week happens there is not new news yet..
    Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So much for that theory of the "left leaning" media:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    +1. One of my favourite movies too.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm not sure where your $38M number comes from. But I'll assume you are referring to the 11k open interest on the Jan 35 calls, multiplied by the strike price, which is about $38M. In either case, the "collateral" is usually stock (or options) that is owned as part of the trade.

    For example, I frequently write covered calls against stock I already own. In this case the collateral is my stock that I have previously purchased and I'm the one creating new open interest in the option. The other side of the trade may have been taken by another investor or the market maker. If it was another investor, they may be buying on pure speculation, and unhedged. If it was a market maker, they will immediately sell shares short to become delta neutral on their position to manage their risk.

    If I were buying calls, it is very similar. The other side of the trade could have been another investor selling covered calls or a spread. If the market maker sold the options, they will buy some shares to become delta neutral. Those shares they purchases are the collateral, same as the case of writing covered calls. If the calls are "in the money" as expiration nears, the delta of the option will approach 1, so at this point the market maker will have already purchased shares (at a price below $35) to fully cover their position through delta hedging. They will simply forgo those profits above $35.

    The last case is somebody who writes naked calls that are not covered or hedged. These people are the ones that usually end up bankrupting themselves or their companies (see Nick Leeson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

    It is doubtful the entire open interest of Jan 35 calls is one big naked short by some rogue trader, so the majority of the collateral for those options already exist as long stock and option positions held by investors or market makers. I'm sure the majority of that open interest is covered call writing or the top strike of a vertical spread and are fully covered positions held by investors.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    And then there's running and screaming.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yeah... I used to have a custom bumper sticker "Crush the ICE" (Internal Combustion Engine), but now that the acronym is used frequently for "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" I destroyed the sticker out of concern that it could be misinterpreted...

    Tesla doesn't want to have anything to do with the "ICE" (either meaning...)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Still would be a good sticker for the new Electric Monster truck
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Short sentiment is still very high in TSLA. Today I bought a synthetic long position for June at $32 and got $1.35 credit. That's like buying Tesla today at $30.65 with a 7.5 month horizon.

    Typically, synthetic longs are enterable at about par for the then going price of the stock. To get a credit on a buy-in at a lower price is, well, nice.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Although no source is mentioned, the knowledge of the exact date suggests that this can be taken as a confirmation of our interpretation of the article :

    EDIT: Actually, the date seems to come from the "investigative memo" linked to in the reference Washington Times Article.
    ( http://media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2012/12/03/tesla_ig.pdf )

    December 22, 2011 is the date on which DOE OIG advised the DHS ICE that they would not investigate the matter any further.

    Since in general the DHS ICE will apparently "neither confirm nor the deny the existence of ongoing investigations ", this in itself would not necessarily mean that the DHS ICE investigation was closed as well, however since DHS ICE conducted this investigation as a matter of determining whether Tesla's application for a "sub zone" was valid, and since this application was approved in September 2012, on can safely assume that the DHS ICE investigation had been closed as well.

    Whereas the articles manages to present that information in a way that one could easily get the impression that there would be an ongoing investigation and possible wrong-doing. Which there obviously is not.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Indeed. A suspicious mind might suspect stock manipulation. That would be, for example, me. :mad:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Just shows how ridiculously stupid it would be to make investment decisions based on those websites.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Could be valuable. Use them for negative advice. It's hard to be consistently right, and much easier to be consistently wrong!:tongue::biggrin:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    saw a couple of items today that are encouraging as far as Tesla hitting delivery target for the year (believe it is 2750-3250).

    first an article where an analyst estimated 1,150 November Model S deliveries...

    Electric Car Sales Hit Another Record - Forbes

    and right here on TMC, a new thread. apparently Tesla is looking to see who would be ready for December delivery if their car was produced in time. Reservationists, with 85kwh, some with production numbers up to 8,000, were emailed by the company.

    Model S December Production email

    personally I think Tesla's doing just fine whether or not they hit the range, but reality is hitting the range or not has short term impact on TSLA.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Do any of you longs have open sell orders in case of the short squeeze? What's your sell price?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I have sell orders with small portions in an not linear progression starting with 38.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I sell everyday once the price is $1 above my purchase price. Ironically, the stock likes to fluctuate enough to allow me to buy back the shares at nearly the same price every couple days. No sell limits in the IRA accounts those are in for the very long haul.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wasn't that the strategy that sent Lenny Dykstra to bankruptcy? Basically capping gains at $1, but unless you similarly cap losses you're screwed the stock ever takes a long term dive.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I know that you guys don't have crystal balls, but do you feel its possible for this stock to fall below 31 ever again? I would like to buy more shares, but a price of 33 I feel may be too high. I am long on TSLA and have very little investing experience so maybe I am being picky and should just get a price at 33 since I won't be selling for a few years anyway. What do you guys think?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Unless there's some news, it may not fall to 31 anytime soon. Why not sell some 31 puts until it happens? You make money waiting.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    OT but it looks to me like he was living beyond his means and got nailed by the 2008 financial crisis.

    "In July 2009, Dykstra, whose net worth was estimated at $58 million in 2008, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, listing less than $50,000 in assets against $10 million to $50 million in liabilities. Dykstra claimed to be a victim of mortgage fraud and lost a house purchased for $17.5 million from Wayne Gretzky to foreclosure.[23] The house is located in the Sherwood Country Club development in Thousand Oaks, California. [24]"

    Lenny Dykstra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I am pretty new to investing and puts even more so, never did one. A good suggestion as I understand their premise so I will have to do more research on how to do them and fully understand them before I shoot myself in the foot. Right now I have 257 shares at avg 29.31 so that is a decent amount for my income, heh. Hate to screw it up.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Always have trailing stops to make sure the losses don't overcome the gains.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That house went to a famous baseball player I saw a HGTV show covering it. Wayne got a new house the next hill over.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This was obviously not done on the open market, at least not most of the acquisition, since there was no large volumes on or around the 30th of November. Maybe they have been buying in over time though on the open market, and just made the news public on the 30th? In that case that could be one of the drivers of the upwards price in the last weeks.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    There's some very weird activity in the options of tesla today. Calls trading at 0 IV. more details coming.


    Update:

    Ok here are the trades that have gone through. Calls at 0 IV, which generally isn't ever supposed to happen.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla%20iv/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-07%20at%202.38.32%20PM.png

    Not a tiny amount.

    And the person doing it is still on the ask.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla%20iv/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-07%20at%202.40.02%20PM.png

    Like, what's weird isn't that someone wants to buy them at 19.20, thats the intrinsic value, its that anyone is willing to sell them at 19.20 when thats the current intrinsic value of the stock. The only reason you'd sell those calls rather then just short the stock is no shares to borrow. This is someone entering a 100 contract or so ($150,000 nominal) short postion for January. Presumably they're doing it this way cause the puts are very expensive.

    The problem is that the market for those calls will go back to being quite illiquid (look at the march 15 calls, more then a dollar bid/ask spread). So they won't be able to close the postion very easily, no matter how the stock moves.

    I haven't really seen this ever so um, no idea what the implications are. Possibly just a novice person thinking they found a clever way to short and will end up getting crushed. Stock would have to move down about a dollar just to make up for the bid/ask.

    I'm mentioning this because this person is the one keeping the price at 34.20 during this afternoon. Been on that ask at 14.20, so every time the price goes over a Market Maker fills it, buying the call, and shorts shares above 34.20. Fully hedged postion, arbitrage. Explains why their are small fills. It's why the ask is sitting at 34.21 for so long.

    Once this person's orders are all filled (22 contracts left, so 2200 shares) should finally break this range.


    EDIT:

    On second thought, its very very weird that these aren't getting filled faster. Shares have traded at 34.22 without any more fills on those calls. This is an arbitrage opportunity that is being ignored, which never happens. Only explanation is that the arbitrage opportunity requires the ability to short shares. Which MMs seem to be unable or unwilling to do.

    There's also similar 0 IV activity in other strike prices. over Dec/Jan calls. All small orders.

    Take a look at what just happened.
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27431/tesla%20iv/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-07%20at%203.10.36%20PM.png

    .03 arbitrage. But the order was sitting there for about 10m.

    Seems likely its the same person since all of the orders are xx.20. There are more like 35 more contracts to fill, and i estimate the total order size is about 150 contracts actually.

    This is so weird. If this is just a retail person there going to get crushed when they try to close the postion. If anyone wants to look, the calls are Dec 22 strike and Jan 15 strike.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Apparently didn't finish, closed at 34.20. Seems there were few sellers even at that price. Must be one very convinced investor going to those lenghts to get into a short position?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Nasdaq does not show complete information. As of the end of the third quarter, it shows Blackrock and its affiliates as holding:


    BLACKROCK ADVISORS LLC 3,042,228
    BLACKROCK FUND ADVISORS 572,934
    BLACKROCK GROUP LTD 132,394
    BLACKROCK INC. 348,221
    BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC 24,909
    BLACKROCK JAPAN CO. LTD 1,000

    That�s about 4.1 million shares, but more than likely Blackrock collectively held almost 5.9 million shares on 9/30/12.

    The key to the most recent disclosure (which amends and earlier filing) is item 5:
    �Item 5.

    Ownership of 5 Percent or Less of a Class. If this statement is being
    filed to report the fact that as of the date hereof the reporting person has ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of the class of securities, check the following [ X ].�

    The original filing was in February which show Blackrock collectively controlled nearly 5.9 million shares or about 5.65%

    Tesla Motors - Statement of Beneficial Ownership

    Selling about 218,000 shares or less than 4% of Blackrock�s holding is probably not material, but it does have the opposite implication from that suggested in the originally cited blog post.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I wonder if its an inside transaction to the short described in agelston post above. Some weird stuff going on alright. As agelston noted stock price is locked down at a constant 34.

    - - - Updated - - -

    My wife says I do in fact have crystal balls..
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    They're frail and brittle? Or beatiful and precious?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    :) I'd ask her but I'm afraid of the answer! :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ahem....Stay family friendly please.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Think I may grab more shares at 33.5 or below. But I feel like I am relenting on my goal of below 31, not sure if I should hold out. I may be being impatient.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Article by Malcome Berko 12/8/12
    Dear BP: Tesla Motors (TSLA-$34.45) makes a hot-looking car that runs on battery power. The biggest concern about TSLA�s car, and all battery-powered cars, is that it may not get you where you want to go. That�s also my concern about TSLA�s common stock. Even though Tesla�s Model S sedan earned rave reviews, great products often fail to make great investments. And one of the fund managers (I�ll call him Bob) of a very large mutual fund family, told me that he would personally short the stock. TSLA had a secondary offering at $28.75 last September and told investors that the company �is on track to deliver 20,000 Model S cars in 2013.� Those cars sell for $80,000 plus state tax and Bob said he nearly fell off the floor when TSLA made that announcement. Toyota Motors, which may have the best R&D engineers and scientists in the auto industry, recently killed plans for an all-electric car. Toyota believes that battery technology is still in the 1940s, that technology necessary to meet consumer demand is at least 10 years away, and that the costs are unacceptable. Tesla�s Model S has the classy lines and looks of an Italian sports car. Realistically though, would American consumers want to own a Maserati that has an electric lawnmower engine under the hood?

    Bob is also highly critical of the company�s accounting. He believes the Deutsch Bank valuations are obviously unrealistic and doubts that TSLA can survive without constant cash injections or additional secondary offerings. I can�t find a single, compelling reason to own the stock of a company that burns cash like firewood, has lost nearly a billion dollars in the past six years and is selling cars for $80,000 (plus tax) to consumers who need to save money on gas. Tesla is not an investment but rather a rank speculation based on hype, hope and more hope.

    I emailed him -
    Regarding your thoughts about Tesla Motors:

    You mention �it may not get you where you want to go�. This is the so-called range anxiety and has been addressed with ranges of between 160-300 miles depending on battery option. In addition a super charger network is under construction (presently 6 stations in CA) for the US with station ~ 150 miles apart operational in 3-5 years. These are solar powered and free to Tesla owners for the life of the car. There are many other options for charging that can be located with a search of the web.

    Your mention about Toyota�s lack of interest is not supported by their investment of $50 million dollars in Tesla motors and contracts with the company to support their automotive efforts.

    Your mention about owners having a Maserati style car with a lawn mower engine is misleading. The Model S does nor have an internal combustion engine, but electric motors with equivalent horse power of a Maserati and acceleration surpassing sport cars such as those.

    Tesla Motors has spent a lot of money designing and bringing to production first a roadster and recently a sedan the Model S. The roadster has sold out and is out of production. There are ~ 15-18000 paid reservations for the Model S with planned production of 20,000 cars in 2013. There has been a price increase in the car for new reservations in 2013. I should have mine in Feb.-Mar. The company has said it will move from the red to the black in 2013.

    I disagree with your comment that TSLA is �not an investment but rather a rank speculation based on hype, hope and more hope�. I wonder if there were similar views when we moved from the horse and buggy to the automobile. I�m hoping and investing that TSLA is the new Apple on the horizon.

    I enjoy your articles, but think you were misled by the fund manager �Bob� and should have done some more research, see Model S Facts | Tesla Motors . Visit a store 515 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, FL 33139 and take a ride. You�ll come away with the Tesla smile.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I dislike how the term "burning cash" is constantly thrown around, whether it be "Tesla is still burning cash" or "Tesla has stopped burning cash" (the former apparently according to some "journalists" equating being cash flow positive). Now I'm not a professional investor nor economist but I don't believe that the term "burning cash" has any real definition. In my mind it would mean being extremely wasteful economically, with synoyms being "throwing money out the window" or "bleeding money" etc. Now, we all know that Tesla has been reporting consistent losses for a very long time due to the fact that the company is using more money than it is earning. I would not however equate using with burning. This money has gone towards:

    1) A whole lot of R&D which has payed off for Tesla in form of: Bringing the Roadster and the Model S to market, having Model X in the pipeline, any development already done on Gen III car, numerous patents on battery- and drivetrain technology the value of which is obvious when we see the kind of partnerships Tesla has formed with Daimler and Toyta where both these giants are using (Toyta) or planning to use (Daimler) Tesla's actual technology in their actual vehicles (Rav4, B-class and Smart).
    2) Aquisition of the NUMMI plant (at an extremely good price) and the staffing and tooling of this plant to make it one of the most modern and complete car factories that I'm aware of.
    3) Development and building the value of the Tesla brand including the Stores/Galleries which to me it would seem is a very cost efficient way to build the brand and Tesla has gotten a great deal of good publicity with using very little economical resources.

    So if you could somehow calculate the value of the above mentioned things, that is the intellectual property/patents/technologies (very hard to calculate a value but I would think the value is hughe since Tesla is basically the filed leader when it comes to electric cars, battery tech. and drivetrains), the factory with it's tools and trained staff and the stores+brand then IMO that value would greatly exceed the investments ("cash burned") up to this point in time. If we also factor in the possible/probable future revenue from the actual sales of vehicles (with a good profit margin) together with the opportunities for growth globally (hughe IMO) that will give us the correct valuation of TSLA as stock.

    "Burning cash". The term has bothered me too long. Also, the burning of cash is illegal in most countries, in the US prohibited under 18 U.S.C. � 333: Mutilation of national bank obligations, which includes "any other thing" that renders a note "unfit to be reissued".

     burning-money.jpg
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wow. It's just a phrase.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The difference is that you're not writing an article that has a negative slant to it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Is there a thread for Solar City? Is anyone here interested in investing in them? Anyone have prior experience good or bad investing on an IPO day? I am new to investing and IPO's obviously so I was hoping for some input on this.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Just in case any Option newbies are trying to follow, that's a typo. The options are not trading at zero IV (Intrinsic Value), they're trading at zero TV (Time Value). Also, the options were not "on that ask at 14.20" - the ask price was $19.20.

    At the time, the stock itself was priced at $34.20. Thus a Jan $15 Call has an IV (Intrinsic Value) of $34.20-$15 (stock price minus strike price), or $19.20. As agelston notes, the calls were actually trading at Intrinsic Value, which means there's no Time Value (TV). With 6 weeks of time left on the contracts, I agree there should be some Time Value. But, my explanation is simply that option prices for Tesla are inherently bearish - for instance, I recently initiated a Synthetic Long in TSLA below the current price of the stock for a net credit!

    For the option newbies still with me, a Synthetic Long is selling a Put and buying a Call at the same expiration date and typically at the same strike price. The Put and Call will typically be about the same price, so this is a no-cost way to do something that acts like buying the stock, but without the up front capital. What's weird is that usually the Call costs a tad more than the Put and you're paying trading fees - but in this case the Put paid me $1.35 more than the Call cost me! It's like buying Tesla at $30.65 when it is trading at $34 a share, and not having to put any money in up front. One has to resist the temptation to do too many of these since your potential losses are the same as buying the stock.

    As for closing the positions on the Jan $15 Calls, if Tesla drops enough the Call price will go down and the Call seller can buy the Call options back cheaper than $19. If the stock goes up, the Call buyer may choose simply to acquire shares at $15, which he can then sell for a profit. If anything, the Call buyer is the one who has to worry about closing the position out in the relatively illiquid option market for Tesla - there may not be enough option buyers, even if Tesla goes up, for the Call buyer to close out his position, so he may be forced to actually buy shares. So, that's my guess as to why more people aren't taking advantage of the guy that's selling the Jan $15 Calls, even at zero Time Value. Note that many option contracts are not entered with the intent of actually buying or selling shares, but just to make money on the price of the option itself going up and down.

    Tesla usually takes a few weeks before announcing end of quarter and end of fiscal year results. So, Jan 12th may be too soon to have heard from Tesla on how Q4 production and cash flow actually went. Personally, I'm staying away from the Jan options, since any rumor could swing the stock one way or the other and wouldn't be corrected until after option expiration. For instance, the Synthetic Long I just entered was for June (and it looks the same even days later). I also sold some March $20 Puts for $2.45 that I could buy back for $0.70, but I'm going to just let them expire for full profit. Should disaster strike, I'd be happy to buy Tesla at under $18/share.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    My understanding was that literal burning of cash in the U.S. was only legal for the government to due (as part of the cycle of life for getting newer paper).

    Literally and figuratively government is definitely the most thorough at burning money.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I was using IV as implied volatility which is calculated based on TV. Using Intrinsic/Time values by themselves works too.

    Implied volatility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    What are the margin requirements for a Synthetic Long?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You need to be able to write naked Puts (ETrade calls it Level 3, but levels vary at different brokerages). That does typically means a margin account, although some brokers will let you write cash-secured Puts in an IRA account. If you haven't been writing covered calls or buying calls, you'll need to get those levels first and use them for a while before they graduate you. The margin requirements are typically just having enough other money/securities to be able to pay for the stock should you be forced to buy it. You may get only 50% credit for the value of your other securities, for instance, but that shouldn't matter since you shouldn't use that margin anyway (in my somewhat risk-adverse opinion).

    Without the ability to write Puts, you could still do the other leg and just buy Calls. This has the advantage of limiting your downside to the price of the calls, but the disadvantage of requiring a larger stock price increase before you make a profit, since you have to overcome the price of the calls. If you want to do this, I'd recommend looking at longer term options to give yourself time for things to play out. For instance, Jan 2014 $35 Calls will cost you about $5. That means Tesla has to hit $40 for you just to break-even, but in no case will you lose more than $5. If Tesla goes to $50 in a year, then you made $10 - or a 200% profit - pretty sweet. But, will Tesla actually hit $50 within 13 months? It's not risk free.

    While buying Calls is better than buying stock in that you don't have to front as much money and so you get more leverage, it's worse than buying stock in that the stock price has to move more and within the limited time that the option is valid. With a stock purchase you can always just sit tight and wait years and years for an eventual payoff (as our Petersen is doing with his Axion stock), but with purchased Calls you need the price to move up before the option expires.

    Jan 2015 options are available right now and one can make a pretty good case that if Tesla stock doesn't appreciate substantially in 25 months, it's probably never going to. Let's say you think Tesla is going to at least $50. You could spend $3400 and buy 100 shares right now. When it hits $50 and you sell, you'll make $1600. Nice. If, however, you put that money into Jan '15 $35 Calls instead, you'd be spending $3200 to buy 4 contracts (at about $8 each right now, but thinly traded). When Tesla hits $50, those options should be worth at least $16, so you've made at least $3200, or twice as much as buying stock. And, if Tesla hits $75, then with stock you've made $4100 with the stock purchase, but with the 4 Calls you would have made $16,000. Awesome! However, if Tesla only gets to $40, then you still have made some money ($600) via a stock purchase, but you have lost money on the Call option. And if Tesla crashes, with stock you still have some value and can wait for a turnaround, but with Calls you've lost it all and have only until Jan 2015 for the turnaround.

    That's leverage for you - great when you're right, really bad when you're wrong.

    BTW, I love Malcome Berko's "burning cash" term. So many people still want to short Tesla that they're willing to pay higher prices to buy my Puts, which gives me money to buy Calls at a strike lower than the current stock price. It's almost like buying Tesla stock at a 7% discount.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    And I thought the computer industry was rife with overlapping acronyms. That's for clearing that up for me.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Tesla was awarded its Class I Dealer license tonight by the Natick Board of Selectmen, provisional on its assigning its lease on its Natick sales location to the Tesla Massachusetts corporation. Big win for GeorgeB and the team, which also removes some doubt about the legal status of non-dealer-based sales in Massachusetts.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The biggest difference is, if you trade in a car now, the trade in value can be deducted on your invoice, and you only pay %6.25 MA sales tax on the cash amount (your save the sales tax your trade value). This would have been a pretty big number for Ben, for example.

    I hope this kills the MA auto dealers association lawsuit, but, I think they are tenacious and won't give up easily.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yep; he figures about $5k. It also means I wouldn't have had to spend an hour getting to, returning from, and waiting at the Registry of Motor Vehicles; that I wouldn't be trying to sell my current car myself because Tesla can't accept trade-ins of non-Tesla vehicles; and that my DS could directly oversee the vehicle delivery on Wednesday. (He still can't, because the license is conditional on the lease assignment, which won't be done before Wednesday AM.)

    I'm sure the MADA will seek ways to fight this award, but they have an uphill battle. Massachusetts law grants towns the exclusive right to grant dealer licenses and is very explicit about who has standing to challenge such an outcome. Competing auto dealers don't have standing.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Could this boost in stock price tomorrow be the catalyst for a short squeeze? Small issue but does remove some uncertainty
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Still no jump in volume. I'd imagine there must be a bump in volume to begin the squeeze.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Fallout from the Massachusettes dealers lawsuit being eviscerated a few weeks ago, IMHO. The application was being slow-walked to give the dealers time to fight it out in court. That litigation has now been reduced to zombie status, and once dismissed Tesla would be free to put legal pressure on Natick for holding up an application for reasons already dismissed by the courts. So this is just them recognizing reality.

    Natick selectmen grant license to Tesla cars - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News

    Presumably, the next move for the dealers will be to tap friendly legislaters to move a bill modeled on the one passed in Colorado. But that is a year away, assuming it can even succeed.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Or you could just move to NJ where there is no sales, use, or luxury tax on zero-emission vehicles ;)

    I am hoping this win in MA pushes any investors with doubts that are still holding out over the edge and finally realize that Tesla is the way of the future and to get in now before the short squeeze explodes the stock.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Up to 35.15$ now...

    Darn, to sell or not to sell???

    I'll resist my urges and stick to my plan - long TSLA.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Quiet boards this AM. I'm surprised there's not more chatter, given the solid rise in TSLA this morning. Nice to see the stock >$35.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I am holding out for it to go below 33 dollars. I was waiting for a sub 31 price but I feel like that may not happen. Though I am not well versed in investing so who knows! I don't have any limits so I will play this by ear. Definitely glad its going up, but I wish I had more in. :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    its a good breakout morning on volume.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Definitely good morning (currently at 35.12). Market cap over $4b now. I'm glad I bought my full position last month. If I was in the market to buy, I'd think a $33-34 range would be a good deal now. Of course the market can always change (ie., TSLA goes down) but I think probability has it that TSLA is on the way up (especially with increased production).

    Btw, do you guys think whether or not there's a fiscal cliff resolution will affect TLSA's stock price at all?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    No thanks, I'll stick to MA. You have enough issues in NJ, don't count on no sales tax forever.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If we go off the "Cliff" the whole market will go down and TSLA with a higher beta (more volatile) will go down more and visa versa. However, I do not see it going much below 29 unless fundamentals change.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Does anyone think the $7500 tax credit might go on the chopping block as a cost-cutting measure? I haven't heard one way or the other, but it seems that some politicians love to knock anything "green" (except money). Do we know how much the credit adds up to per year on a national basis? Obviously losing the credit would take a bite out of the stock price.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think the volotility will remain. My plan is to sell around $40 (not all - Thanks Cit-T) during peaks, and buy more on the downs (around 30-33). I'm guessing we won't go much below upper 20's now. I think sub-25 is pretty much extinguished for the most part, unless something changes.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I haven't heard any proposal to that effect (and I've been keeping my ears open for one), but it's the sort of credit that you could imagine gets cut in some last-minute, back-room negotiation as part of a big package. I'm certain that somewhere on Capitol Hill there's a long list of deductions and credits, along with projections for how much they impact revenues. I guess the good news is that there haven't been a lot of takers for the EV credit so far.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'll keep preaching it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    if they cut Ev taxcredit, I hope they cut also petrol taxcredit

    they will be in the black in no time then
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    hedged out 1/4 of postion by selling dec 35 calls this morning for 1.00.

    edit:
    nice volume today
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Just curious: Can you explain your thinking?

    As I see it, you're committing to selling 1/4 of your TSLA shares for an effective $36 within a week and change, but the stock was trading above $35.50 when you made this trade. If the stock doesn't stay above $34 in the next week, you're down versus selling right now, but if the stock goes above $36 you're down versus waiting. What am I missing?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The fiscal cliff has a couple of different effects that need to be considered.

    First, the capital gains tax rate will be going up to ~21.2% in 2013 (see note). Second, my current take is that Republicans are going to pass the Senate bill to immunize the middle class from the scheduled tax increases. Then we will roll over the cliff with all the scheduled cuts from the sequester, as well as the other cuts which both parties agreed to during the last fight over the debt limit.

    The tax increases that will pass through probably (IMHO) wont affect the economy directly in the near term, but might put a downward drag on the market. However, the scheduled austerity is enough to push us into recession, in very much the same way that austerity has thrown the EU into recession in the last year. That is not an immediate issue, and a deal in January or February can probably avoid it altogether, as Obama will likely front load agency spending to smooth things out.

    The critical issue is that Republicans appear to be taking this tack (passing the Senate bill, allowing >$250k tax rates to rise) in an effort to gain leverage by shifting the debate past the fiscal cliff and onto the debt ceiling, which is going to be reached sometime between January and March. This increases the potential damage from the cliff as the parties extend the bargaining period, and opens the country up to the possibility of an unprecedented government shutdown and potential default on U.S. debt obligations.

    Just the possibility of this tanked the economy in mid 2011, and the same will happen this time, only it will happen in the context of a major (and increasing) fiscal drag from having gone over the cliff.

    Worse, if we actually do move past the cliff and turn the debt ceiling into an issue, there is every indication that the Democrats will refuse to even negotiate this time around. Unlike last time they appear to have an economic and political strategy in place in the event that we hit the borrowing limit. It is unclear to me whether their strategy involves Hail Mary efforts to bypass the limit (via platinum coins or the 14th amendment option), or just a really granular plan to shut down most of the government in a way that most limits damage to their constituencies.

    Either way, I expect to see chaos in the market as the government at all levels of the country (state and local as well) are forced to shut down or curtail operations. A huge portion of our GDP will just cease until we see a resolution, and the knock on effects are likely to be even worse.

    Regardless, unless we get an agreement by the end of this year, or very early in January, we are likely to see a massive increase in risk for stocks in general. In the worst (or even not so worst) case scenarios there will be real economic impacts that could result in reduced sales for Tesla. And if Republicans decide to pull the trigger on the debt limit, I really believe Democrats will let them this time. We literally do not have a precedent for the potential chaos and damage to the global economy that could result.

    For my part, I've made a lot of money in TSLA in the last couple of months. I expect to lock in my 15% rate on most of those gains over the next couple of weeks as I finish closing out my position by the end of the year. TSLA is a beautiful stock, and it will still be beautiful in a few months when we have some clarity about these issues. It's entirely reasonable to just ignore these issues and stick with the stock, hoping that Washington will sort things out. But I'm not a sophisticated investor. I bought low, and now its time to sell high.

    Note: The Bush rate of 15% expires, pushing the rate up to the 20% level set by Clinton in '98. Also (albeit with less certainty on my part) there is a surcharge of (I think) 1.2% that is being implemented as a result of the ACA. The last part might only be affecting folks with incomes over $250,000, but I haven't verified that with my accountant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I believe republicans will cave. Once Obama gets what he wants he also assumes full blame for results. So far he has Teflon coat but can't blame another recession on bush. If we go over cliff to easy to blame republican house. If they continue to fight him they actually will be giving excuse. He is not running but of course as most politicians he is unable to stop and his ratins will affect next democratic candidate. Cliff will hurt all companies but tesla with low volume cars to affluent will not be hurt as much and it may present interesting buying opportunity. If you get out you might miss short squeeze that could occur with a run up with deal. Difficult decisions for difficult times
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    at support here.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Agree that the company would probably be fine, but that doesn't mean the stock will. It will get crushed, more so than the rest of the market, in all likelihood.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    profit takers today.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Seems like a big and sudden drop.

    Edit: seems like something must be up. This is the biggest one day drop in quite some time. The stock hovered around the same price all day yesterday, so it seems odd suddenly this morning everyone would take profit and drive the stock down.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Could be some investors splitting their investment and taking some of it over to SCTY. If they want shares there and don't want to be over-exposed to Elon.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Crammer tried as best as he could to get more info out of Elon this morning on TSLA's future. Small note if you choose not to watch the video. Crammer said he *almost* bought a Model S.

    Too Much Nonsense About : Tesla CEO
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Probably playing up Solarcity IPO I totally forgot about that.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This what I tried to do. Put in the buy order of SCTY at $8.90 but never got any! This sucks seeing SCTY is at $12+ now! Oh well, I can buy back in to TSLA at a lower price.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Elon said he'd love to give numbers about model s production.

    Got into solar city at 10 this morning.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    On the way down already? Time to think about buying. Anyone have an opinion on how much farther we have to fall? I'm not sure yet.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I suck at timing. I should have exited yesterday. I was doing so good but held on too long and got killed today. I took my losses and exited everything before it got any worse.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    given the average volume, I do think it is possible there is nothing substantial up. my gut says a little better than 50/50 nothing really material is going on (perhaps a brokerage report painting doom and gloom about fiscal cliff and EV credit, or something like that, but not an actual event today).

    (source: 12 years owning a volatile biotech stock)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think it might be related to the SolarCity IPO - people selling Tesla shares to take advantage of the low price on SolarCity. As mentioned, volume isn't very high and the decline has been very gradual.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Do we have a thread for Solar City? I didn't see one at a quick glance.

    While I'm bullish on Tesla, I'm worried about Solar City:
    - Cost of their goods is increasing due to US import duties.
    - Cost to their consumers is increasing due to reduced gov incentives.
    - Cost of competition, like electricity produced from Natural Gas, is decreasing.

    I know a few people who work in the solar industry. None of them have solar installations, and when asked why, they all said because it doesn't yet make economic sense. Yes, not a scientific sampling, but still.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You didn't list my #1 concern: relatively low barriers to entry. What is to stop some multi-national corporation from buying up a bunch of local installers and partnering with a bank to do the same thing SolarCity is doing? I don't know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm going to pick some some back up. This is just too good to pass on.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    *sigh*, biggest one day drop since when? That fluke "executives are leaving" thing?

    I had actually planned to take the "sell some on the way up" advice this morning, but by the time I got to my desk and looked the stock had dropped significantly. Guess I should have still sold as it just kept dropping. There's no point in selling now though, I'm almost underwater.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Order filled at $33.05. I think that's a good day at the office. Sorry for you guys that had a rough day. I hope tomorrow is better.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Nice move Citizen-T. You got in just before it shot back up. Or maybe you bought enough to skew the number? :wink:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The world may never know...
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)