TSLA vs Cybertruck expectations

[Crissa]

Sorry, not what I meant. After a court rules, the stock price has adjusted for the penalty. And, hopefully, the company changes their behavior. I was referring to PRIOR to the court ruling...

Prior to a court ruling, you still have a moral and ethical obligation.

You are wrong about that. It was never proven that what Microsoft did was illegal. Microsoft agreed...

Dude, it waited until a specific administration announced it on a specific horrible day at the beginning of the millennium.

They agreed they did the things. That's how proving in a court works.

Hardly anything gets adjudicated by a court. Saying you don't have to do squat is, as I pointed out, just abdicating your responsibility.

It's the position of encouragement, not discouragement. There's no inbetween here.

I now know not to trust either of you with any money.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

Prior to a court ruling, you still have a moral and ethical obligation.


Dude, it waited until a specific administration announced it on a specific horrible day at the beginning of the millennium.

They agreed they did the things. That's how proving in a court works.

Hardly anything gets adjudicated by a court. Saying you don't have to do squat is, as I pointed out, just abdicating your responsibility.

It's the position of encouragement, not discouragement. There's no inbetween here.

I now know not to trust either of you with any money.

-Crissa

Microsoft specifically did not agree they violated any anti-trust law in the settlement that they reached after the original verdict was successfully appealed.

And no worries, I wouldn't agree to invest your money anyway. I won't even invest friends or relatives money, even though they wanted me to. Call me selfish, but I just wouldn't like the stress of that.

 

[PilotPete]

Prior to a court ruling, you still have a moral and ethical obligation.
-Crissa

We’ve now gone all the way around the circle back to my original question. A moral and ethical obligation to do what? And on what grounds? If a company is accused of something, is that enough to cause you to bail? What if it isn’t true, correct, or accurate? Do you base your moral and ethical decisions on accusations? Rumors? Innuendo? Do you wait for charges to be filed? (Goodness knows that charges are NEVER filed incorrectly or for the wrong reasons!)

I understand the point you want to make, and there are companies I don’t like and I don’t invest in or do business with. HOWEVER, when it comes to a company with which I have no opinion, where is the line? And as I mentioned previously, a court ruling isn’t always correct either. The concept is certainly defendable and admirable, but the application is full of potential traps. So, how do YOU make that moral and ethical decision and what is it based upon?

And for the record, I’ve never ask you to trust me with anything. Not money, not data, not your passwords, not your goldfish, not where you hide your house key, nothing. But I find it very telling that all I have done is ask questions about how you make a decision, and you ”now know” you can’t trust me with money. Wow, ok.

If you were really curious, I can show my integrity in action. It has cost me probably 6 digits in cash this year, and multiples of that over the years. But I sleep well at night.

 

[Crissa]

Alot of characters spent defending looking the other way when you're making cash.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

Alot of characters spent defending looking the other way when you're making cash.

-Crissa

So I have asked, quite honestly, the same question two times. Both times you have dodged the question. I'll assume you have no logical answer and you are just taking shots at people. I've never even defended a single person or company about ethics. And I'm a very narrowly focused investor, long term only, and certainly not "making cash", nor have I ever said I did. But again, you dodge the question and take a shot.

I manage my parents money for them, to keep them with income. Their money is in EXACTLY ZERO direct stock holdings. Every single dollar is in some kind of fund, managed by one of 2 different entities. And the vast majority of the money is NOT in equities, but rather in bonds. At their age, we are very risk averse for them. And if you look at the stocks I hold, or have ever held, I can guarantee you that even the Pope would be ok with the companies I hold or have held. Your beef is not with me.

But again, I asked an honest question that you don't have an answer for, so rather than just honestly say "I don't know" or "I'm not really consistent because every situation is different" or "I just lick my finger and try and find a breeze", you start throwing insults. My kids used to argue that way, WHEN THEY WERE 6! A lot of characters spent attacking and not answering.

Well, I guess it's time to just ignore you, again. Whatever.

 

[Crissa]

Four paragraphs defending looking the other way now.

There's no question there.

I've already answered any question about why.

No.

You shouldn't buy companies that participate in misrepresentation. Not only because maybe they'll get slapped by the SEC. But because if you don't take the moral look at what you're doing, you're investing in what are basically con artists.

And con artists will steal from you, too.

And I already implied an answer to what...

They went from having multiple competitors considered 'the standard' to holding the monopoly on nearly the entire chain of software from firmware to Office.

They are life-changing returns. They also destroyed so many jobs, created so many security breeches, made so many misrepresentations and predatory contracts, and repeated so many mistakes that already had white papers and been solved in the open source and unix worlds...

I hate them, yes, because they lied, cheated, and then covered it up. Kids in the aughts were given Microsoft history of computing which taught them that Microsoft invented the graphical UI and basically every innovation.

I hate liars.

And then, when they'd built all that, they turned their predatory attitude towards their employees, requiring every department to turn over and fire some percentage of their workers every quarter. They defined toxicity at every level, and have repeated it over and over again.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

Four paragraphs defending looking the other way now.
There's no question there.
I've already answered any question about why.
And I already implied an answer to what...

I'm not defending anything. I have never held MSFT, nor have I defended what they did or didn't do. I'm not a windows or microsoft fan anyway. I didn't ask why, or what. I asked how and when do you decide an entity has behaved in a manner you don't find acceptable?

We’ve now gone all the way around the circle back to my original question. A moral and ethical obligation to do what? And on what grounds? If a company is accused of something, is that enough to cause you to bail? What if it isn’t true, correct, or accurate? Do you base your moral and ethical decisions on accusations? Rumors? Innuendo? Do you wait for charges to be filed? (Goodness knows that charges are NEVER filed incorrectly or for the wrong reasons!)

I understand the point you want to make, and there are companies I don’t like and I don’t invest in or do business with. HOWEVER, when it comes to a company with which I have no opinion, where is the line? And as I mentioned previously, a court ruling isn’t always correct either. The concept is certainly defendable and admirable, but the application is full of potential traps. So, how do YOU make that moral and ethical decision and what is it based upon?

Those aren't accusatory questions, they are honest questions. Intended to gain an understanding of your position. And if you knew anything about me, you wouldn't feel so comfortable questioning my ethics or integrity. And for the record, my ex has all the money I would have used to play with stocks. And my 401Ks are run by plan managers, I don't/can't manage them. I can pick percentages to go into certain funds, but have zero say about what the holdings of that fund might be.

But you just take shots, again, and again, and again. I'm done trying to have a discussion with you here.

 

[Crissa]

A moral and ethical obligation to do what? And on what grounds?

No.

You shouldn't buy companies that participate in misrepresentation. Not only because maybe they'll get slapped by the SEC. But because if you don't take the moral look at what you're doing, you're investing in what are basically con artists.

And con artists will steal from you, too.

You're not jailing them. You don't need the same level of accuracy that a criminal court does. And to pretend you do is a type of black and white fallacy.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

You're not jailing them. You don't need the same level of accuracy that a criminal court does. And to pretend you do is a type of black and white fallacy.

-Crissa

Ok, true that you aren't taking away their freedom. But as I asked in the group of questions, where is the line for you? Knowing accusations are sometime part of dirty business (See the FUD about Tesla battery fires) how does one substantiate an accusation? Knowing charges are filed in court sometimes on a reason not in keeping with a pursuit of justice, knowing that courts sometimes get it wrong, what line do you use? Honest questions. I think if people thought about it, it might change how people think about investing. I can see one side stating "I bail on just the hint of anything. There are hundreds of companies to choose from. I don't need to stay with XXX." And I can see someone saying "There was never a conviction. And/or the court punished the company and jailed the offenders. Haven't they paid their debt to society? And new blood is in charge, so it isn't the same entity." And there is merit on both sides. I can't find a point at which I'd be comfortable taking a stand, and you have. So where is that for you?

 

[cvalue13]

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I have no intention of selling any stock in the next 20 yrs.

Even before the Q3 earning call TSLA stock was down almost 17+% off it's previous high and since Elon's, "we dug our own grave" comments the stock is down another 19%.
Jul 18 - $293
Oct 18 (Q3 Earning report) - $242
Today (as of this post) - $196

Does anyone else think this has to do with range and price expectations for the CT launch the end of next month? Meaning they will debut something that has the range and pricing that looks a lot like what is already available, and that is not what the retail and even corporate investing wants to see to support the previous TSLA price.

The market doesn’t like change, and it is looking very much like Tesla has changed a LOT on the Cybertruck; features, range, performance. Someone said they thought TSLA might take a big hit on November 30th and I would not be surprised (and definitely not happy). I am more ready for the stock hit than the Cybertruck changes because the stock can recover in time.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I don't give a crap about the traders on Wall Street. The CT will be a great all purpose vehicle.

I am sure that you are right that the Cybertruck will be great. I thought the OP was asking about the stock value being dependent on the market’s expectations. Whether or not you give a crap you might still have an opinion on market behavior.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I think you have a misunderstanding about how investing in public companies works.

Investors buy the shares based upon which ones they think will be worth the most in the future. When you buy a stock, the money doesn't go to the company of the stock you are buying, it goes to the seller of the stock. In other words, it matters not at all to the company what the person who owns their stock thinks, except to the extent that shareholders can vote on corporate matters (like who runs the company, whether they operate based upon ESG principles, etc).

As you can see, by not becoming a shareholder in a company that you think needs improvement, you are giving up your right to have a say in how the company is run, however small that say really is.

As an individual investor who worked hard for his investment capital, I'm not about to limit myself to poorer performing companies simply for the false belief that I will be showing that company what I think of their governance. Too many people think simplistically like this. There is no correlation between a company's behavior and who owns them, beyond the fact that people who don't own them have no say.

By your idealistic (but wrong) way of thinking, I should only buy the stock of greedy companies, so I can vote for candidates who I think will run the company in a less greedy manner.

I am neither a businessman nor a trader by nature or profession. I have bought stock in a handful of companies in my life and only because I believed in them for one reason or another. I have never done particularly well by it either. I bought TSLA because I believe in Tesla. I hoped it would do well, and I still do, but I would not have bought if it was only about maximizing my net wealth.

 

[Diehard]

I believe that Cybertruck will be just a footnote when it's all said and done

May be true but depends on how much of the pie CT takes and what margins are, that could be healthy size footnote.

Q1 22 vs Q1 23 pickup sales:

 

[JBee]

Ok, true that you aren't taking away their freedom. But as I asked in the group of questions, where is the line for you? Knowing accusations are sometime part of dirty business (See the FUD about Tesla battery fires) how does one substantiate an accusation? Knowing charges are filed in court sometimes on a reason not in keeping with a pursuit of justice, knowing that courts sometimes get it wrong, what line do you use? Honest questions. I think if people thought about it, it might change how people think about investing. I can see one side stating "I bail on just the hint of anything. There are hundreds of companies to choose from. I don't need to stay with XXX." And I can see someone saying "There was never a conviction. And/or the court punished the company and jailed the offenders. Haven't they paid their debt to society? And new blood is in charge, so it isn't the same entity." And there is merit on both sides. I can't find a point at which I'd be comfortable taking a stand, and you have. So where is that for you?

Dude I have felt the same frustrations in conversation many times over the years. Change is hard, and being vague and disingenuous doesn't help get down to the truth about motivations. Much easier to be upfront IMHO but not everyone is the same.

Sponsored