[ameister14]

>You're complaining about the disease and then complaining about the cure.

I'm not, I'm saying when someone treats you badly for ten years then suddenly changes their attitude, it's reasonable to wonder what motivated the change.

Tesla stopped being flush with cash and the recovery stopped being young years ago. He's announced ambitious production schedules (and missed them) multiple times. The 'we won't need more capital' thing? He first said that in 2011. Since then he's come back to raise money several times.

The real difference I see this time is a perceived closeness with Trump and general misbehavior on twitter.

Hmm, seem to have struck a chord here. Anyone want to actually say what you disagree with so strongly?

[JumpCrisscross]

> The real difference I see this time is a perceived closeness with Trump and general misbehavior on twitter

Financial markets aren't known to be sensitive to leaders' political proclivities. Yet the bonds are down and stock's volatility up.

Could part of the negative coverage be motivated by Elon's personality and politics? Sure. But the risk profile of the company changed with the SolarCity acquisition and Model 3 announcement in 2016, bond issuance in 2017 and CAPEX and production delays in 2018. One representation of this risk profile is runway, i.e. TTM operating burn + CAPEX / Cash on hand. It is compressed. That concerns existing investors, excites bankers (who might get a stock or bond offering out of it) and entices new investors. Increased attention + narrow envelope leads to concerned/cautious/negative coverage.

(It is also difficult to disentangle the increased `general volatility in the markets post-tariffs from Tesla's inherent volatility, which is also linked to the tariff discussion.)

[ameister14]

It's interesting that there's been a massive delay between risk profile change in 2016 and 2017 and the recent drop - a drop that it appears may be temporary. I know a lot of people that have been shorting Tesla for years and have been continuously surprised by its seemingly irrational rise in stock price.

If you look at their cash burn in Q4 2016 and Q2-Q3 2017, it doesn't fit with the press on the company or its stock performance at the time. Instead, the price hit all-time highs over that period and press was glowing.

I get that as the production numbers didn't increase along with capex there's a crunch in Q1-Q2 2018, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the reason behind tech news' change of heart.

[rootusrootus]

You wandered off into conspiracy theory land.

[ameister14]

I don't believe I did. It's not a conspiracy to point out that if the press is doing their job now by investigating things, they were not doing their job for years previously. If you don't do what you're supposed to for years, then suddenly change, is it a conspiracy to think that something caused that change?

It's not crazy to point out that the press hates Donald Trump, and that Donald Trump loves Elon Musk. It's also not crazy to point out that there's a general cooling of the public's feeling towards tech, and that journalists, particularly hacks, just go where the wind is blowing. It's not due to them suddenly doing their jobs, and it doesn't make them anymore correct now than they were six months ago. Elon Musk is now an easier target, that's all, and he's done them a service by provoking them at the same time.

[rootusrootus]

[flagged]

[ameister14]

[flagged]

[topmonk]

Sure, easy:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-per...

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2017/12/20...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-bet...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-12-21/donald-tr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2018/05/05/if-not-fo...

[ameister14]

You're right, you found them. Two of those were written by PR consultants, all of them are opinion pieces, and one was written by a republican speechwriter. How about something written by a person on staff as a writer representing a journalistic organization? You know, like these:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-z...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/trump-tweet-putin/in...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/pu...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-worst-moment-...

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-worst-week-yet-will-...

[s73v3r_]

Considering there's no evidence whatsoever to back up your second paragraph, yes, it is crazy to point it out.

[ameister14]

No evidence that hacks go where the wind is blowing? That's just the history of journalism.

No evidence for the press hating Trump? Have you been alive for the past year and a half? Multiple journalists have compared him to Hitler and Stalin. I don't remember that happening before. It's understandable and clearly mutual in this case, though - check out how many places talk about his 'war on the press.'

No evidence for people souring on tech? Maybe you haven't been seeing the same things I have, but the narrative went from 'criminals are using facebook to target grandma' to 'facebook is criminal and rigging elections, and your apps might be too.' There's a reason for this and it's pretty justified, but it should really have happened years ago, when every startup was collecting every bit of data it could without any protection or thought to what they would use it for.

When tech started dominating the S&P 500, it went from being the land of outsiders and upstarts to the new robber barons. Check out how many articles talk about a new gilded age now.

No evidence for Musk provoking journalists? Just look at his twitter.