The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

[Trusty]

The point is they (Tesla) don't really have any passive flows. They have a business thats vastly current income based, based on car sales.
They have an investor base thats assuming that tech side they have is 1) real (plenty of people think its also a bubble to burst in regards some of the AI stuff etc), 2) actually develop into marketable and saleable future revenue as opposed to just currently being used by tesla in their cars.

Yes they are kind of loved by wall street, but thats beside the point. Its happened to many many companies that bubble bursts.

Come under X, maybe. Thats just pure speculation right now.

What do you mean Tesla don't have any passive flows, they are literally one of the highest weightings in ETF's, across the board. Dealers have to buy an outsized amount of their stock when the market moves. The underlying fundamentals don't mean jack****, it's purely momentum.

 

[jigger]

I think Tesla are in for a tough time TBH. Tesla cars aren’t that great and the competition is stiff.

 

[Trusty]

I think Tesla are in for a tough time TBH. Tesla cars aren’t that great and the competition is stiff.

Not unless ETF's start dropping the weighting within the indexes. It provides a massive floor underneath the price.
As a side note, i agree about Tesla as a car, i've no idea why people buy them when you can get BMW, Porsche or Merc etc

 

[jigger]

Not unless ETF's start dropping the weighting within the indexes. It provides a massive floor underneath the price.
As a side note, i agree about Tesla as a car, i've no idea why people buy them when you can get BMW, Porsche or Merc etc

It’s the quality and price of your products that reflects the company’s value. Any company’s valuation has to be reflected in its recent sales figures and products. Anything else is just make believe.

 

[Trusty]

It’s the quality and price of your products that reflects the company’s value. Any company’s valuation has to be reflected in its recent sales figures and products. Anything else is just make believe.

Yes and no, the small cap stuff with very little to no weighting in the passive can be reflected. The larger stuff, not so much, it's one of the issue with these passive flows, price discovery goes out the window. IE - the share price is not reflecting the fundamentals very well. MAG7 or what used to be FAANG, large cap tech stocks have a huge issue with this. It's why NVDA is trading at over 100 p/e. Total lunacy tbh.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

What do you mean Tesla don't have any passive flows, they are literally one of the highest weightings in ETF's, across the board. Dealers have to buy an outsized amount of their stock when the market moves. The underlying fundamentals don't mean jack****, it's purely momentum.

Sorry I am working based on the real world financials.
Passive refers to things like licence fees that tech companies receive. IE unlike Tesla their income and PE ratios etc are based on non physical sales.

Tesla right now are like a dotcom company. Share price is based massively on future potential.
Problem when you have investors working based on this is there is a really high chance that it will end up being false, and then the price will crash.
Which is again my point, I do not believe the fundamentals of Tesla are as good as many have hopium for.
Eg their self driving. There are already better systems out there from what I have seen.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about Twitter and not the alt investment world.

 

[visibleman]

Do you think I give a single ****, genuinely?

Yes...quite a lot of them in fact.

 

[Roar87]

Then why did you bring them up?

Are you paying attention to the actual direction of the conversation or just trying to point score? Do you think I give a single ****, genuinely?

You didn't mention the actual point, and indeed the topic of the thread, which was concerning Twitter and it being small relative to Microsoft, Google, Apple and Meta.

 

[Trusty]

Sorry I am working based on the real world financials.
Passive refers to things like licence fees that tech companies receive. IE unlike Tesla their income and PE ratios etc are based on non physical sales.

Tesla right now are like a dotcom company. Share price is based massively on future potential.
Problem when you have investors working based on this is there is a really high chance that it will end up being false, and then the price will crash.
Which is again my point, I do not believe the fundamentals of Tesla are as good as many have hopium for.
Eg their self driving. There are already better systems out there from what I have seen.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about Twitter and not the alt investment world.

I'm not sure how you didn't know i was talking about passive ETF flows and the "value" of Tesla.

But anyway, it depends whether they can keep that demand for the cars. Net margin % is in the top 10% across the industry. And the goal of Tesla from what i've read is to continue lowering the price over the coming decade, aiming at companies like Toyota rather than Audi/Merc/BMW. You'd think that would provide plenty from the demand side of things. That net margin % plus increasing demand is a pretty explosive combo, providing they continue to do that.

 

[Murphy]

You didn't mention the actual point, and indeed the topic of the thread, which was concerning Twitter and it being small relative to Microsoft, Google, Apple and Meta.

Doing a bit of backseat moderation now are you? You made a point that...

Tesla is big in the car industry, SpaceX is big in the satelite industry;

I responded to those points you made, if you don't like that the facts contradict what you said don't take it out on me. You can't just do a 'I reject your reality and substitute my own!' simply because you're not capable of admitting when your wrong.

 

[Roar87]

I responded to those points you made, if you don't like that the facts contradict what you said don't take it out on me. You can't just do a 'I reject your reality and substitute my own!' simply because you're not capable of admitting when your wrong.

You've decided that selling 1.3m electric vehicles, a product that they popularised, doesn't make them "big" in the car industry. I would disagree since EVs are the future and they're the joint leaders in market share.
I incorrectly categorised SpaceX as a satellite company, their only satellite product is Starlink, SpaceX is really one of a handful of private spaceflight companies, and in that regard they are obviously extremely important and one of the leading companies. I'm just not sure why this is at all relevant to the point of the discussion.

 

[Murphy]

You've decided that selling 1.3m electric vehicles, a product that they popularised, doesn't make them "big" in the car industry.

No, the facts 'decided' that it doesn't make them big, you can try arguing with numbers and maths all you like but it just makes it seem like you've lose any and all objectivity, what little you had in the fist place.

Basically, from what i can make out, you got called out on your obvious Musk sycophancy and now you're trying to move the goalposts. It's not longer that Tesla is big in the car industry but Tesla is big in the EV market and it's no longer SpaceX is big in the satellite industry it's SpaceX is big in the private spaceflight sector.

 

[Roar87]

No, the facts 'decided' that it doesn't make them big, you can try arguing with numbers and maths all you like but it just makes it seem like you've lose any and all objectivity, what little you had in the fist place.

You've decided, arbitrarily, that big refers simply to total units sold. I would argue Ferrari is "big" in the car industry as well, I'd argue Rolex is big in the watch industry; irrespective of their market share or sales volumes. You don't get to define what I meant in a sentence I wrote when I said Tesla was "big" in the car industry.

 

[C Kent]

I would argue Ferrari is "big" in the car industry as well

Ferrari only sell around 10-14k per year, clearly aren't a big player in the motor industry...

 

[Roar87]

Ferrari only sell around 10-14k per year, clearly aren't a big player in the motor industry...

Sure, but they're one of the most famous brands in the world, their brand recognition is incredibly strong, they have an F1 team, people view their cars as almost an artform. They're not a "big player" like VW or GM; but they're "big" in terms of influence, history and their brands strength.

 

[C Kent]

Sure, but they're one of the most famous brands in the world, their brand recognition is incredibly strong, they have an F1 team, people view their cars as almost an artform. They're not a "big player" like VW or GM; but they're "big" in terms of influence, history and their brands strength.

Identifying sarcasm isn't a strength is it dude

Ferrari are clearly one of the biggest brands in the motor industry

 

[Penfold101]

Sure, but they're one of the most famous brands in the world, their brand recognition is incredibly strong, they have an F1 team, people view their cars as almost an artform. They're not a "big player" like VW or GM; but they're "big" in terms of influence, history and their brands strength.

That was 10-14k cars, not dollars.



Just in case you missed that part.

 

[Jono8]

You don't get to define what I meant in a sentence I wrote when I said Tesla was "big" in the car industry.

Yet you seem to think you do when it comes to what is considered a "big" player in social media (and also decide to compare them to entire tech/umbrella companies of other social media sites).

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Identifying sarcasm isn't a strength is it dude

Ferrari are clearly one of the biggest brands in the motor industry

What you have highlighted is that when people use terms like "big" they really need to clarify the metric.

Brand, history, units sold, influence etc etc

 

[Roar87]

Yet you seem to think you do when it comes to what is considered a "big" player in social media (and also decide to compare them to entire tech/umbrella companies of other social media sites).

JRS said Twitter is the "largest social media site". Feel free to argue that point, on his behalf obviously. I don't see how Twitter can be considered the largest social media site; most important - probably.