Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck United States

Tesla Stock Hits 'Funding Secured' $420 Price (electrek.co) 121

Posted by BeauHD from the Elon-gets-the-last-laugh dept.
140Mandak262Jamuna writes: Elon Musk tweeted he had secured funding to take Tesla private at a share price of $420 right in the middle of a trading day in August 2018, without any prior approval from the board of directors. The plan fell through, SEC fined him and the company $20 million each and forced him to step down as Chairman.

The stock touched a low of $178 in Jun 2019 and it has been rising steadily and it has been on a tear in the last few trading days of the year. It briefly went above $420 today, touching a maximum of $422 and closing quite close to $420. Ihor Dusaniwsky of S3 Partners (a company that tracks short trades of hundreds of securities) is reporting that the people who sold the stock are finally being squeezed. They were $5.20 billion in YTD profit in the first week of June 2019 and have lost $7.3 billion in the last six months. Tesla supporters are euphoric and are lighting up twitterverse with lots of taunting messages directed at the shorts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Stock Hits 'Funding Secured' $420 Price More

Tesla Stock Hits 'Funding Secured' $420 Price

Comments Filter:

  • Haters (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @06:34PM (#59552024)
    They keep trying to bring this company down and they keep failing at every turn.

    • Re:Haters (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @08:25PM (#59552300)

      I honestly don't understand the hate, especially on this site. I know he beta tests on customers but lets be real here so does Linux. People here act like a $40k car is something only millionaires buy. Have you priced a truck or SUV lately? Because with a few options they're the same price.

      • The ancestors of those haters called Andrew Carnegie a "robber baron" even as he built the nation's heavy industrial base. The green monster has always been a part of the human ecosystem.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Tesla made some nice cars, but it's Musk that gets to me. He can't stop lying to customers. Full self driving and robotaxis are not happening next year and lying to people about the progress Tesla is making is unacceptable to me.

        I was going to buy a Model 3 anyway, but it was too small and uncomfortable. It's just me, lots of people are okay with them, but my body isn't compatible.

        • He can't stop lying to customers. Full self driving and robotaxis are not happening next year

          There is a vast difference between delivery schedules slipping because of optimism, and lying.

          It's very obvious full self driving is close. Especially if you watch the full presentation he (and his techncial staff) did.

          • It is substantially in error to judge the relative tractability of remaining problems by a presentation. That's true even when the problems are marginal. It takes a detailed analysis to judge the tractability of any unsolved problem, even when it lives next to a solved problem.

          • There is no such thing as "full self drive". That's marketing noise. There is a level 1 to 5 standard of automotive levels of self driving. Musk has implied FSD=level 5 autonomous driving. That's fucking forever away. Driving is -hard-. There are a zillion random things that can happen on the real,world. Humans are just better at dealing with unpredictable random shit than computers. When that changes, you'll know it and it won't be from a random PR video.

            • Humans are just better at dealing with unpredictable random shit than computers.

              1.25 million deaths per year seems to contradict that.

              (plus it's been rising in the last few years, probably due to cellphone use)

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

                You seem to have failed logic. In no way does your rebuttal provide evidence that computers would be better.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Pascoea ( 968200 )
                  Any time you can remove emotion from a decision tree, things improve. Humans are CURRENTLY better at handling the set of tasks that make up driving a car. But when you get down to brass tacks, the set of tasks needed to drive is finite. In the near future, I'd bet my left nut that computers will be better at it. ("Near future" in this case is likely somewhere beyond Musk's "next year" and 10 years) Of course there will always be situations that a computer doesn't know how to handle, but I agree with the

                • You seem to have failed logic. In no way does your rebuttal provide evidence that computers would be better.

                  His rebuttal doesn't but that doesn't make it incorrect. Go look up the numbers yourself. There are many published from a variety of self / automated driving scenarios and compared with standard rates.

                  Cars are already in normal conditions better than human drivers. In abnormal conditions the human is still superior at *navigating* but definitely not superior at handling "unpredictable shit" since human's reactions are inherently unpredictable, and human's sensory systems inherently fallible. This is precise

              • An absolute number like that without context (total commutes taken, distribution of crashes on location/safety features of vehicle) is completely meaningless. You used it as FUD- throw out big number with no reference.
                Shame on you.
                Any site that shares that 1.25M statistic likely also contains this:
                Over 90% of all road fatalities occur in low and middle-income countries, which have less than half of the world’s vehicles.

                That means no- it doesn't contradict that. Not even a little bit.

            • There is a level 1 to 5 standard of automotive levels of self driving.

              A set of levels created and standardised *after* Telsa started using their marketing terms.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Remember that he originally said the coast to coast demo would be in 2017. And it's obvious from their demonstrated capabilities and their presentations that they are years away.

            They haven't even demonstrated environment mapping yet!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

            There is not a lot of difference between Tesla's "optimism" and lying.

            I hate Elon Musk communication and Tesla fandom. But I still admire Elon Musk intelligence and business sense. That's why I can't believe that his "optimism" is honest.

            And full self driving is *not* close. Neither Waymo nor Tesla nor others are close. The big technical problems are solved, what remains are the thousands small ones, plus the non technical (mostly legal). What Tesla calls "full self driving" right now is *supervised* self d

          • Super old joke: What's the difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman? A car salesman knows when he is lying to you.

        • Right, right, right, and Colonel Sanders was not actually a Colonel.

          Hopefully nobody tells you that Keebler cookies are not made by elves.

          • Colonel Sanders was not actually a Colonel.

            Actually the Governor of Kentucky commissioned him in 1935.

            "Kentucky Colonel is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Commissions for Kentucky colonels are given by the governor and the secretary of state to individuals in recognition of noteworthy accomplishments and outstanding service to a community, state, or the nation. The Governor of Kentucky bestows the honor of a colonel's commission, by issuance of letters patent."
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Livius ( 318358 )

              In this context 'colonel' is a civilian honour, not a military rank, so to everyone outside of Kentucky Sanders was not a colonel.

              • Actually, he was a colonel. You may personally decide not to recognize it, but that doesn't make it untrue. According to the article, Kentucky Colonels are considered "aides-de-camp" to the Governor - which may not get used much, or at all, but it is still there.

                Applying your logic, anyone who is knighted by Queen Elizabeth II isn't a knight/dame if they are outside the U.K.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Pascoea ( 968200 )
                  Never thought I'd get to read a conversation related to fried chicken on Slashdot.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drnb ( 2434720 )

                In this context 'colonel' is a civilian honour, not a military rank, so to everyone outside of Kentucky Sanders was not a colonel.

                Funny, many people outside of Kentucky are aware of honorary state "Colonel" titles. Even us yankees.

                And no the title does not end at the border, the benefits mights, but not the title. Much like the military ranks do not end at the military base property line, and do not end with leaving the military. The authority ends at both of these but not the honorary titles referring to former rank.

        • That's more or less it. He makes demonstrable falsehoods and people drink that koolaid.

  • This was inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @06:35PM (#59552034)

    Well, at one point Tesla's success was not inevitable, but it has been for at least the past year. The shorts were all gambling some magical event would happen to reverse Tesla's fortunes, like maybe they would not meet sales goals or something - not sure what, but anyway that plan failed spectacularly and now we'll all be witness to what I think is the most massive short unwinding in history.

    Smoke 'em if you got 'em, shorts...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      The shorts, the size and scope, demonstrated they were not be accident but part of a fiscal conspiracy to drive down the Tesla share price, even to the point of forcing the economic collapse of loans to make it a ripe take over target, to be bought, likely buyer FORD backed by the corrupt banskters engineering the mass shorting. It failed and a lot of gullible idiots got burned unware of the scheme running in the background.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The bet is that Tesla can't deliver "full self driving" by next year as promised. It's a good bet as they have repeatedly failed before and are nowhere near even a controlled demonstration.

      Tesla is betting on robotaxis being a big source of revenue, and when that doesn't happen on time (if ever) there will be some consequences. Eventually people will stop believing Musk.

      Quite what te consequences will be isn't clear. People who paid for it might want a refund at the very least. Investors expecting that retu

      • That's a stupid bet because it hinges on a label where the person trying to do the thing is also in charge of the labels. We know they can achieve it or not, as they desire, we don't need to know anything about the technological progress to know that part.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Tesla made the mistake of defining "full self driving" back in 2016. The said you could summon it from the other side of the country, meaning no driver and charging and cleaning itself along the way.

          They also said it would drive you to work while you took a nap. They have to reach that level or they owe people refunds. Since those cars are nearly 4 years old now they are running out of time to deliver.

      • The robotaxi thing is one of the most bizarre things Musk has ever said and he's said a lot of weird shit. Doesn't anyone actually believe there will be fleets of personally owned Teslas roaming around picking up people while their owners are at work and then show up by 6pm to take their owner home? And of course if this actually happened, no one would ever fuck up someone else's private vehicle while no one was watching. There won't be YouTube videos of people having sex, smoking out, doing lines, and g

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The really funny thing is that he said a Model 3 would be with $350k by next year because of the earning potential.

          If it did happen sales would drop right off because no one would have to be driving around in a taxi.

  • Why is this relevent, and why is it here? Is there any reason besides slashdot being slavering fanbois?

    • Why not. It's still better than any article about how much the Cats movie sucks.

      • Do we actually know for a fact that anybody has actually seen the movie to tell us if it sucks?

        Have you seen it?

        It has Furries, how bad can it be?

    • Re:Why, oh why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @06:40PM (#59552056)

      Why is this relevent, and why is it here?

      Because Tesla is as close to a pure Nerd company as you'll ever see, and this site is for News for Nerds.

      Also there is a subset of stock nerdery at work here that is kind of interesting.

    • Re:Why, oh why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @06:56PM (#59552092)

      Why is this relevent, and why is it here? Is there any reason besides slashdot being slavering fanbois?

      Because Tesla stands for innovation and the technology of tomorrow , today. Because Tesla takes a huge risk making these bets and providing these products despite traditional markets and "safe" paths.

      Because if Tesla wasn't pushing as hard as they are then EV's, private solar, consumer flame throwers, and sports cars floating to Mars wouldn't be a thing.

      THAT'S WHY... slavering indeed.

      • Re:Why, oh why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @08:26PM (#59552306)

        Exactly. Without Tesla nobody else would be offering pure electric cars.

        • No, without Tesla Musk would be over at SpaceX fucking up their work. Instead he's just screwing up Tesla which isn't that important because there are a bunch of other electric car manufacturers (the world doesn't exist around Musk or the US).

          • No, without Tesla Musk would be over at SpaceX fucking up their work.

            Golly, it is almost like you don't know he's running the show and that they're having a lot of success!

            No, those are not mutants.

          • Instead he's just screwing up Tesla

            In what way? Point us directly to strategic decisions Musk is making that are negatively impacting Tesla.

            Bonus points for doing it in a reply to a story about how insanely well valued Tesla is currently under Musk's leadership, indicating a fuckton of investors directly disagree with you.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Except that people were offering pure electric cars before Tesla came along. In fact until this year the Nissan Leaf both pre-dated the Tesla Model S and out sold every car Tesla ever made combined.

          The Model 3 is still an expensive car. Other manufacturers are catering to the affordable end of the market. The MG ZS-EV is incredible value and a decent enough car, for example.

          Credit where credit is due.

          • Except that people were offering pure electric cars before Tesla came along. In fact until this year the Nissan Leaf both pre-dated the Tesla Model S and out sold every car Tesla ever made combined.

            The Model 3 is still an expensive car. Other manufacturers are catering to the affordable end of the market. The MG ZS-EV is incredible value and a decent enough car, for example.

            Credit where credit is due.

            Touche.

            They did not invent the electric vehicle. They just made it S3xy.

            You're welcome.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by bgarcia ( 33222 )

            Except that people were offering pure electric cars before Tesla came along.

            You mean the little 60-mile-range Nissan Leaf frog-eyed commuter special?

            There's not a single other car maker selling electric cars that you can practically take on a long road trip.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by radl33t ( 900691 )
              That's the one. Your criticisms of its looks and its range are not a refutation of the facts.

          • I had to look that one up and the MG ZS-EV is from an Indian company. The same country that lets you buy "modern" cars that are actually British designs from the 1950s. It's cheap for a reason. The brochure boasts that it has seatbelts!

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              No MG is Chinese now. They are nice cars, well built and they feel very good for the money inside. I drove one and it wasn't bad.

              Safety wise it's got AEB of course, and lane follow assist with adaptive cruise control. Oh and blind spot warning, and I think cross traffic warning is an option.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cusco ( 717999 )

              Just came back from Inda. Did you know they still make Royal Enfield motorcycles there? That 350 single cylinder still has that perfect Brit Bike sound. I **really** want one.

          • If I recall correctly, by around the year 2000, GM and the other US auto makers had successfully convinced everybody they'd made a good faith effort, but electric cars weren't going to be feasible any time soon. Electric cars were done and dusted.

            Then along came Musk, and he made them eat their words, get out of bed with the oil companies and get back in the game.

            Credit where it's due.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Nissan proved that a lithium cell powered car could be affordable and practical long before the Model S came out.

              Nissan pioneered a lot of the ideas we take for granted now, in terms of EV specific features. They really thought about how people would use the car. Tesla later added some of it to the Model S but actually even now it's a bit lacking in some areas like range estimation.

          • Except that people were offering pure electric cars before Tesla came along. In fact until this year the Nissan Leaf both pre-dated the Tesla Model S and out sold every car Tesla ever made combined.

            The Model 3 is still an expensive car. Other manufacturers are catering to the affordable end of the market. The MG ZS-EV is incredible value and a decent enough car, for example.

            Credit where credit is due.

            Why are you ignoring the Tesla Roadster? In my mind, that's the car that made people realize that electric vehicles could be serious cars. Was there a battery EV car in production prior to that? The Nissan Leaf didn't hit highways until two years later.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              The roadster was interesting but more of a high concept low volume car. The Model S was the first mass production one.

              Also the Roadster wasn't actually such a great EV. No rapid charging, very limited EV features. The Leaf showed what an EV needed to be like to be practical and developed a lot of the concepts that are now standard like range estimation, blended regen, rapid DC charging etc.

              • Interesting that you see it that way. I agree that it was pretty low volume, but it was a production car. Anyone could order one and it would be delivered.

                And the Roadster was the best BEV ever at the time it came out. The Roadster showed Nissan what they would need to improve upon if they wanted to be practical.

                Your bias is clear. The fact that you ignored my main points and try to make it look like Nissan was the one that developed EV concepts is evidence of this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by radl33t ( 900691 )
        Sorry, Tesla is irrelevant in the solar space. A different company, Solar City, pioneered a novel ownership model that exploded and imploded with the company. Near the end of that implosion, Tesla bailed them out in a highly questionable and potentially corrupt deal. Please don't invent history.

    • Partly to bring out the Tesla lovers to write more comments, and partly to bring out the Tesla haters like you, to write even more comments. Because more content means more pagerank means more ad impressions. Are you new?

  • Lets put things in perspective: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Socguy ( 933973 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @07:21PM (#59552144)
    At this point, people shorting the company have collectively lost themselves and their customers more money than all the money that Tesla burned building their factories.
  • ... let your CEO tweet under the influence of Adderall and alcohol and f up the company stock for a full 9 months? Notably the stock only recovered after he was removed as CEO and legally muzzled.

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by Jzanu ( 668651 )
    Where is the profit, the evidence of revenue in excess of costs but directed to research, or anything fundamental to stock prices such as evidence of growth? This price is driven by irrational exuberance, and is a sign of the idiocracy overwhelming US financial markets. This "success" is that of pure manipulation by astroturf - purchased marketing through modern social media manipulating the psychology of weak individuals.
    • Sounds to me like you shorted the stock and now are pissed off.

      I bought at $190 and am happy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jzanu ( 668651 )
        Not a single share. I don't buy US stocks. Now answer the questions since you are acting like an expert. Or is it that you are just another of those weak minds influenced by fads?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ezdiy ( 2717051 )
      Tesla is just a "build it, they'll come" company. For that, Musk is there to provide the showmanship. His business skills are irrelevant to that goal as he's in the business of selling dreams which can be bullshit half the time, but as long reasonable amount sticks...

      As of now, market tilted towards "those dreams can become reality" again. Don't forget there's decent track record with spacex. It's foolish to decry Tesla or Apple fanboyism, the irrational popularity and astroturfing inherent to it, when it
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Slightly off topic but did telsa ever have plans to release an electric motorbike? I'm not a big fan of the current chinese models being released.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close