are you making the insinuation that 100% of short volumes are naked? 

i am aware of the mechanics behind trading stocks, long & short positions, naked shorts, et al... however, there really isn’t a way to quantify how much of TSLA’s volume are true naked shorts that would ultimately results in a “failure to deliver” scenario.

And on a side note, naked short sellers should fucking die in a fire. That is all.

imagine if Amazon had a CEO that was able to keep the company on a long-term growth path despite mounting short interest, cash burn, and operating income in the red quarter after quarter.... oh, wait. 

...but the program chooses who they give scholarships to? they bare the risk of the player not panning out. that’s part of the game. you are on fire in the comment section lately. 

they most certainly do not test d3 college football with any degree of rigor. the Worcester State football team would give the Bulgarian weightlifting team a run for their money in the amount of piss cups they have melted. 

it doesn’t get much better for pro sports names than “Mookie Betts.” I am also a big fan of “Dick Butkus,” for... obvious reasons.

Deadspin Comment Section; the moral arbiters of the internet until someone they don’t like wants to kill themselves. 

cardboard is out.

ageism, fam. 

well, they kind of have to, otherwise Mr. Musk committed securities fraud and TSLA will go the way of ENRON. 

the market needs a dissenting (short interest) opinion, especially when a company’s fundamentals do not support it’s valuation. 

that’s really not how it works when the bank is demanding collateral from you just to maintain, not increase, the borrowing base. you can’t really spin that. shoring up liquidity is protection from cash-flow downside. their primary capital demands are near-term maturity bonds, not operating assets. 

1. every company is subject to a hostile takeover. Musk welcomes activist investors by being adversarial in earnings calls and not having the ability to effectively communicate to sell-side firms that they ought to look past quarterly earnings (something Amazon has done very effectively). it’s the job of the CEO to…

i guess?

i’m not saying the factory isn’t “worth it,” but using the factory as collateral is only saying it is “worth” the value of the the PP&E. it is not at all a measure of it’s productivity or profitability. having to use their factory as collateral for a revolving credit facility is a signal that the company in pinched…

right, ok. i kind of thought you were making the insinuation that his contempt for doing so is admissible.

re: Amazon profitability. 

i don’t really see how it is... yet? not to mention TSLA had to pledge the facility as collateral to maintain their credit facility. saying “hey look, they built something!” isn’t saying that they have effectively used capital. 

and guess what... now they are? and they didn’t even have to pull their shares out of public exchanges.