Down goes the Dow

One thing to note is that TSLA was steadily going up the whole day. Could be bullish sentiment that people kept buying consistently all day -- sentiment for a sustained steady pump in 2022?

A few valid fundamental reflections by Bernstein, although Tesla has little to do with fundamental trading:

"While we acknowledge Tesla's success and see continued near-term stock appreciation as likely, we continue to struggle to justify the company's valuation. TSLA's valuation is higher than all other major auto makers combined, and appears to imply huge volume AND industry leading profitability going forward, which is historically unprecedented. Looked at another way, TSLA trades at >$1M per car delivered, ~90x the traditional auto OEM peer average."

I suppose if the current bubble expands further, Tesla can trade at a valuation implying $1.5 million a delivered vehicle. Though not likely, but investors believe almost anything at the moment. So there you go, for now.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

A few valid fundamental reflections by Bernstein, although Tesla has little to do with fundamental trading:

"While we acknowledge Tesla's success and see continued near-term stock appreciation as likely, we continue to struggle to justify the company's valuation. TSLA's valuation is higher than all other major auto makers combined, and appears to imply huge volume AND industry leading profitability going forward, which is historically unprecedented. Looked at another way, TSLA trades at >$1M per car delivered, ~90x the traditional auto OEM peer average."

I feel like I'm the only one who thought today was pretty retarded. Tesla went up by Ford's market cap x2 in one day. But it's justified because of future growth and Elon. Then it I mention something like the above quote to the crazy bulls, they'll respond with "short it then I dare you".

I read Nancy Pelosi had 89% returns last year. I'm going to copy her trades, could have been rich by now. She bought 100 of RBLX 1/2023 100c. Yesterday it was $28 for one so $2800. If it's around that price today I'll jump in.

investing noob wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

A few valid fundamental reflections by Bernstein, although Tesla has little to do with fundamental trading:

"While we acknowledge Tesla's success and see continued near-term stock appreciation as likely, we continue to struggle to justify the company's valuation. TSLA's valuation is higher than all other major auto makers combined, and appears to imply huge volume AND industry leading profitability going forward, which is historically unprecedented. Looked at another way, TSLA trades at >$1M per car delivered, ~90x the traditional auto OEM peer average."

I feel like I'm the only one who thought today was pretty retarded. Tesla went up by Ford's market cap x2 in one day. But it's justified because of future growth and Elon. Then it I mention something like the above quote to the crazy bulls, they'll respond with "short it then I dare you".

not sure what "justified" means in this context.

I tried to explain the bull case for TSLA...but that doesn't mean the bull case for TSLA is rational.

Bulls are wrong all the time.

Bears are wrong all the time.

I'm just trying to explain what the thinking is when analysts slap a buy rating on TSLA, right or wrong.

Stepping back for a second, the stock market is not rational in many ways. It's a game at one level. Some of this is like being in Vegas and seeing a guy on a massive lucky streak, winning 10 bets in a row and thinking he is a genius when he's just lucky. Point is that lots of money is streaming into TSLA stock that isn't reason-based at all. Entertainment, pure momentum plays, boredom, trading algorithms, etc. Not a lot of thought sometimes.

The point of playing the markets is to make money.

How you use the markets to achieve that objective is up to you.

Superior players make more money, inferior players less. Superiority can result from good luck, inside information, intelligence and study, good gamesmanship, etc.

The bottom line is that money is all it’s about, unless you hold a majority stake in something—which on the open markets, basically nobody does.

People use different timeframes to argue/determine winners and losers, usually as suits their convenience, rather than reflecting their practical plan. Lol I hear some gold investors claiming that they are superior investors because performance has matched up well with the s&p since the early 80’s...before they were born!😂

I’m waiting for Igy to argue Hussman’s outperformance in the period after his (Igy’s) death.

agip wrote:Point is that lots of money is streaming into TSLA stock that isn't reason-based at all. Entertainment, pure momentum plays, boredom, trading algorithms, etc. Not a lot of thought sometimes.

I heard this expression one time. What was it again? Something rhyming with subnational protuberance or something. Yeah, maybe that was it, subnational protuberance…

😀

I like this explanation. I cringe when my in laws tell me "you have to look at the resale value of used cars. Tesla's hold their value more than any other car. There are fan clubs for model 3 and model Y but you don't see any fanclubs for ID4 or Chevy Bolt". As if those things have any bearing on the stock price.

Maser wrote:Superior players make more money, inferior players less.

This is one point of view, valid particularly if you’re concerned what your money means to other people, and you treat wealth building as a contest, or an external pursuit.

Another being the smoothing of income? That’s what bonds are for. Or, how about a political statement like ESG? That is minor, and is going down the tubes. Or, how about a sense of belonging, like buying a narrative? Not durable, narratives and conditions change...and see #2, political statement. Or, maybe as gaming entertainment. Always enjoyed by a very few.

Back when, stocks were seen as legacy instruments, designed to provide an income stream without permitting the beneficiaries to f things up. They were intertwined with other legacy devices and structures like trusts.

At some point things changed, and “playing the markets” became the dominant paradigm. This era acknowledged that it was a casino, and that one shouldn’t play with money one couldn’t afford to lose.

With increasing gov involvement and control, and the intro of 401k’s etc, it was popularized that the element of chance could be minimized.

Today, we have a true hybrid.

All along, the dominant point has been to make money. You can argue about smoothing, but that is just the timeframe argument.

Interested to hear what else it could be basically about.

doc idiot wrote:

Maser wrote:Superior players make more money, inferior players less.

This is one point of view, valid particularly if you’re concerned what your money means to other people, and you treat wealth building as a contest, or an external pursuit.

This seems a difficult comment, can you unpack it

“I’m waiting for Igy to argue Hussman’s outperformance in the period after his (Igy’s) death.”

Hopefully well after SARK hits $60, currently up 4.44% today. Too bad you missed it.

investing noob wrote:

I read Nancy Pelosi had 89% returns last year. I'm going to copy her trades, could have been rich by now. She bought 100 of RBLX 1/2023 100c. Yesterday it was $28 for one so $2800. If it's around that price today I'll jump in.

You may want to research the makers of Botox and size 42 underwire bras.

all-time highs today

SP500

Dow

Maser wrote:This seems a difficult comment, can you unpack it

If the point of investing is a game with the object of winning the most money, then those with the biggest gains are the superior players, sure.

I think for most people, investing is not a game, and where one ranks on the relative winnings scale has only so much meaning. That means to each of us exactly what we want it to mean. Maybe to some of us that’s the only important metric.

That’s my best mas-esque answer. You’re welcome!

I bought SARK kinda high but I'm green now. Debating getting out and throwing it into VTI. It's about 20% of my Roth.

JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman raised the price target on Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) to $295 from $250 and reiterated Underweight. The price target implies a downside of 72.1%.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/read-why-jpmorgan-bumped-tesla-114702818.html