Those 10 buys are all Jensen Huang's options executing and "Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security." He makes regular automatic sells.
Owners selling is not indication of anything else than diversification. 80% of Huang's net worth is in NVDA stock. He is never going to buy more if he can avoid it.
Tesla stock is very overvalued and has been for a long time. Of course Elon wants it to continue to be artificially inflated but those in the know, know it's time to bail on it. I suspect it still has a lot further to fall before it hits an appropriate value.
Tesla’s stock is valued on the basis of the self driving tech.
That’s slated to be out this summer, but the insiders are certainly not behaving as if it will be. In fact, they’re acting exactly as one would if they expect it to be delete once again and/or underwhelm greatly.
do you copy paste “this summer” ever year for a decade or you type it up every year manually?
also, in 2078 when this might actually happen - how many people you think would even get into these using a tech of a company that uses hot glue from walmart to put cars together? :)
Elon Musk Promises Full Self-Driving 'Next Year' For The Ninth Year In A Row[1] - this article was published over 3 years ago.
Are there many examples of a valuable company's stock being based on something which it has failed to deliver on for over a decade and is set to continue failing to deliver?
The problem is that Tesla stock is so ludicrously overvalued compared to its peers that even wildly outperforming them still wouldn't justify the current stock price based on financial fundamentals. A P/E ratio 15 times that of Toyota feels like a joke even if you believe Tesla has future potential that would outpace even their own growth over the last few years.
The price really seems almost entirely speculative, which is why it doubled after the election despite no obvious change in fundamentals for the company, almost certainly why it crashed back down just as quickly.
My understanding was that Tesla had been suckling at the government's year for years in the form of carbon credit trading and would have expired already if not for this.
Potentially, yes, but it’s wildly high compared to any of its competitors. To get there that state support would have to be something like banning competitors or saying they’ll buy every soldier a Cybertruck.
I'm not sure what you specifically mean by transportation infrastructure, but it's not obvious Tesla has many relevant skills or resources to overhaul anything I'd consider transportation infrastructure. They don't build roads or bridges or airports or rail lines. They do build chargers, which is certainly relevant for an electric car future, but that seems inadequate to support a mandate to build transportation infrastructure.
> They do build chargers, which is certainly relevant for an electric car future, but that seems inadequate to support a mandate to build transportation infrastructure.
And the current government is cancelling plans to build charging infrastructure and actively removing it from federal buildings, not ordering more.
I don’t think that being partially owned by the state and the overall convoluted and organizational structure (unions etc.) have helped VW’s stock. It hasn’t been doing that well for a while and is quite cheap
> I wonder if Elon has given them the same speech about holding on to their shares and that Tesla would soon be the most valuable company in the world?
> If they believed him, they would buy Tesla stocks, not sell them.
> Not a single Tesla insider who requires SEC reporting to buy or sell Tesla stocks has purchased it in the last few years.
I wouldn't make too much of that. Those are all people who have to worry about the rules against short-swing trades, which have been in US securities law since the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Here's some background.
A short-swing trade is a sale of a given company's stock if you have purchased any stock in that company in the previous 6 months, or a purchase of that company's stock if you have sold any stock in that company in the previous 6 months.
The regulations want to discourage those kind of trades among officers and directors and people who own more than 10% of the company. Basically everyone who is required to report their trades.
I believe the idea is that those people should be focusing on running the company rather than trying to personally gain from short term fluctuations in the market.
The way it discourages these trades is if someone covered by the regulation makes a short-swing trade they can be compelled to turn over any profit from that trade to the company.
There are three things that make this quite effective.
1. It is enforced by any shareholder suing the trader. The shareholder does not have to have been a shareholder at the time the trades took place. They only need to be a shareholder when the lawsuit is filed.
2. If the shareholder wins (which they will because there isn't really a good defense) the trader has to pay the shareholder's legal fees.
3. The way short-swing trade profits are calculated is by matching up the lowest priced purchases with the highest priced sales, and then recursing on any shares that have not yet been matched.
Remember that the people this applies to have to report their trades and that data is public. When that data started becoming available in digital form a long time ago (on tapes bought from the SEC back in the mainframe days) there were securities law firms that started buying it and running programs to automatically find short-swing trades. It was then an easy matter to purchase a minimum amount of stock in the company, and sue the trader. They could get enough in attorney fees from this to come out ahead.
Even if the high probability that you will be caught and have to disgorge your profits wasn't enough to stop you, #3, the way profits are calculated might.
Suppose you bought 1000 shares at $100 a share, then a month later sold than at $90 a share. A month after that you buy again at $80 a share. A month later you sell at $70 a share.
In reality you have lost $20 a share on that series of transactions. If you started with $100k in your brokerage account and no shares, you were at $0 after the first buy, then at $90k after selling those, then at $10k after the second purchase, ending up at $80k and no shares after the second sale.
But in short-swing trade accounting this highest sale ($90 a share) is matched up with the lowest purchase (the $80 a share purchase a month later) and the difference counts as profit ($10 a share in this example). That's $10k you owe the company, leaving you at $70k and no shares.
Your $20 a share loss has become a $30 a share loss. Ouch!
The bottom line then is that people required to report their trades really tend to pick a direction (buying or selling) and keep with. They need to take a six month break from trading every time they want to make a trade in the opposite direction from their previous trade.
Thanks for writing this out, it's helpful for me as a layman.
Isn't part of the prohibition on trades among officers and directors also because of the inside knowledge they have? Public companies generally report quarterly but the insiders presumably have up to the minute information on sales etc.
And while we wait on the quarterly data, consistent insider selling is indicative of ... something.
And from what I've seen is some top insiders are shifting from. Consistent buys to sells. Which will just tank the stock slower than instant due to regulations.
Regardless, it's not like the current administration would enforce much on the matter even if they all dropped.
I agree with everything else, but this narrative seems correct, but misleading.
>This comes after Tesla’s stock dropped more than 40% so far this year
Tesla had huge spike lasting just few months that coincided with Trump's win. TSLA is back in the same level it has been circling since 2020 (last five years).
That said, it's truly amazing feat of belief that P/E is 120 while there are no other prospects for fast growth except constant talk about pivot to something else. First it was automated robot factories, then self-driving, then it was "energy company", solar panels, then humanoid robots, some crypto, then AI, .. Are there professional investors somewhere who have been eating this stuff for 15 years straight, or do they rotate in and out?
Tesla did have pretty massive growth over the last few years. Now that’s all over. Even their last quarter was quite awful and it’s going to be downhill in the foreseeable future (losing Europe as a market alone is going to hurt and make any revenue growth near impossible).
Professional do make mistakes overvaluing tech sales pitches they don’t understand but I imagine most of them understood Tesla’s meme-stock transition half a decade ago and are quite happy betting that they’ll get rich unloading before retail investors run for the exits.
> Data from JPMorgan shows that net retail buying of the stock was positive for 12 consecutive days, totaling $7.3 billion.
>"While this is not the longest consecutive streak of Retail buying in TSLA, it is the highest magnitude among all past 'buying streaks' in over a decade," Emma Wu, a strategist at JPMorgan said in a note on Wednesday.
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla/insider-a...
Compare that with another arguably overvalued stock:
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nvda/insider-a...