Yes. Short-selling pioneer Bob Wilson nailed the key insight on these situations. They are "manana stocks," Wilson declared, way back in the 1970s. Their valuation is premised on the notion that something wonderful will happen in the future. Time horizons keep being pushed out, but the stocks' fans don't mind.
Shorts can get very cranky and righteous about each little bit of slippage. But as long as new enthusiasts keep showing up, and old ones feel lenient, it's hopeless to insist on strict accountability. Even a short-lived burst of optimism is sufficient to arrange more funding, so manana always seems within reach.
Worst case: you're shorting Amazon. The bulls were right, and you go broke.
Best case: you're shorting something like Energy Conversion Devices, which eventually did run out of money and file for Chapter 11 in 2012. Shorts had been predicting its demise since the 1970s. That is a long time to wait.
Best case: you're shorting Sun Microsystems at the beginning of 2000, and it goes from $300/share to $3/share in the next 3 years. (http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_211.htm)
My advice is to just not touch tech stocks; going short on them is just as dangerous as going long.
Even the best case wouldn't have you more than double your money, if you put up 1:1 collateral. I guess you could have less collateral than this, but in that case, given a growth stock, you would be wiped out if there was a modest increase. I don't see the risk/reward curve for long-term shorting.
When the price starts dropping, you would have to sell more shares to maintain a 1:1 ratio. For example, you can double the number of shares each time the price drops by half, and make up to 200%.
Every company these days is a tech company in some respects, but I don't think Tesla fits the bill in the general sense. Tesla is a green energy manufacturing company.
The only reason I think this matters is their finances are a lot different than a tech company. You are correct that Tesla is currently priced like a tech company though, so maybe I'm way off!
"Technology ("science of craft", from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia) is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, and the like, or it can be embedded in machines which can be operated without detailed knowledge of their workings."
You can argue that that isn't accurate, but I don't see how you can argue that the categorical statement "tech companies have server costs" follows from it (I can't even find the word "server" on that page, or on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech)
Yes, but even they can't keep up with the projected demand for batteries which is why Tesla is building out its own factory [1] in partnership with Panasonic [2] to manufacture batteries.
They changed their name this year from Tesla Motors to Tesla Inc. to indicate a wider focus on technologies, not just cars (solar panels, batteries). How do they not qualify as a tech company?
Knowing the company's core competency is very important. Stray from that, bad things happen. Is Tesla an electric car company? or an electric supply chain company? or what? If EV manufacturing, then focus on the car construction & experience, doing what's needed to power the thing (battery production, home solar services) but realize those can/should be ejected when better solutions arise. If a "tech" company, then we'll see Tesla stray into solar strip mining, long-distance delivery, app writing, and a host of other activities utterly unrelated to EVs - eventually dropping the EV part altogether.
Apple dropped the "Computer" from its name when moving firmly into a market (pocket supercomputers) which was a natural extension of its real core competency (high-UI/UX computers), but which (phones) were deeply perceived by the public as something profoundly different from "computers". Steve Jobs rediscovered the company's core competency, focused on it, and adjusted name & strategy accordingly.
Kodak thought its core competency was photochemical consumables. That was a pivot away from imaging, and into oblivion when the imaging technology shifted.
Smith Corona's competency was typewriters. We still need typewriters, but because SC tried to compete with computers (a spreadsheet on an electric typewriter is a non-sequitur), rather than being the best product for a shrinking yet enduring market, the biggest world brand vanished overnight.
If a company is going to pivot (which a name change absolutely signifies), then it better pivot around its core competency. Tesla's "tech" need be absolutely about either electric cars (by which batteries and solar are incidental and expendable for more suitable power sourcing), or solar (by which the consuming device may be far different than just a car), or power storage (source and use of power being incidental). Tesla is only "tech" insofar as they're pushing the limits of technology for building & powering electric cars. Stick with the cars, with solar ONLY as a means to free their power sourcing (and extra powering one's home), and they'll do fine; self-identify as a "tech" company, and they'll die of confusion. Musk is smarter than that mistake.
Interesting sidenote -- after reading the keyboard.io adventures-in-manufacturing emails, what really jumps out at me are the extent to which Apple's true brilliance these days is on the manufacturing/supply chain end of things.
While my wife was getting her MBA, she one day turned to me and without context asked "what do you think of supply chain management?" Having no idea what she was talking about, I instantly retorted "I think it is evil and should be banned."
Now that I know what she was talking about, I'm deeply impressed by Apple's mastery of the subject, and see why Tim Cook is running the place.
I'm curious about what you would consider a tech company.
For me a tech company is any company that uses the development of technology as a competitive advantage. Solar is not, major solar companies are not developing innovative technology. Tesla is, they do not have an advantage in scale or low prices, but have advantage in how their vehicles function.
For me a tech company is any company that uses the development of technology as a competitive advantage.
So then is Ford a tech company? If not, then I'd be interested to hear why not, based on that criteria. Their cars are technology and they continuously develop and improve them as a competitive advantage.
I think people think of Tesla as a tech company because the founder is Elon Musk. If Tesla were a spin-off brand of GM or Ford, it would be another car company.
You know, at first I thought this was a silly question, but as I think about it, there's a lot of merit to your point.
I've been thinking about it, and this is where I've landed.
Most companies develop technology as a competitive advantage these days, certainly any large company. Walmart has innovated a lot in the supply chain management space, but most people don't consider Walmart a tech company. It's a company that uses technology to deliver goods and services cheaper, more reliably, etc. This is essentially true for Ford also. People generally don't buy a Ford because of any technological innovation. So even though it is Ford's technology that lets them deliver an affordable, reliable car, people don't think of Ford as a tech company.
Whereas Tesla's primary focus is on developing new technology. Their product is not really cars; their real product is inventing and applying new scientific knowledge. The car is a way to fund that research, i.e., it's the opposite of a traditional car company where research is a way to sell cars. Elon Musk has said that Tesla is a battery company, not a car company. His stated goal of Tesla is to "is to change the way the world uses energy at an extreme scale."
So, that feels like a legitimate difference to me. But I think you're actually right that it's a tech company mostly just because the founder is Elon Musk, insomuch as he is the one driving the focus and vision of the company. That is, he is the one saying Tesla is a battery company instead of a car company.
A more interesting comparison to me would be Volvo. I don't know if it's still true, but for decades Volvo was a leader in passenger safety. They had the first 3-point seat belt, first side impact airbags, first blindspot detection system, among others IIRC. I'm still not sure they'd be considered a tech company, in that they were using the safety innovation primarily to drive sales of cars. But I think it's a bit more nebulous. If they'd had a marketing-savvy CEO who proclaimed, "Volvo is a safety innovation company, not a car company," I don't know. :)
Shorts can get very cranky and righteous about each little bit of slippage. But as long as new enthusiasts keep showing up, and old ones feel lenient, it's hopeless to insist on strict accountability. Even a short-lived burst of optimism is sufficient to arrange more funding, so manana always seems within reach.
Worst case: you're shorting Amazon. The bulls were right, and you go broke.
Best case: you're shorting something like Energy Conversion Devices, which eventually did run out of money and file for Chapter 11 in 2012. Shorts had been predicting its demise since the 1970s. That is a long time to wait.