[ggm]

Longs tend to own things. Shorts tend to destroy value to acquire it cheap. they don't currently hold it, they're seeking profit by securing it under value. Longs seek to profit from its existence and success.

I don't see these as fully symmetric. I see them as oppositional, and indeed a long will do the things which improve their position. But since thats constructive not destructive, there appears to me to be a useful distinction.

What did I get wrong here?

[votepaunchy]

> What did I get wrong here?

Your assumption that corporate PR is “emerging reality”. Shorts are also capable of revealing reality.

[ggm]

Yes they are and information is useful, but do you think all shorts are informative? and do you think these shorts are? I think these shorts are opportunistic and seek an advantage not an informed position. The longs by and large in Tesla believe about an industrial transformation.

I think musk is a very flawed capitalist, but I think Tesla is interesting as a company. Panasonic is huge. Their decision to invest in the battery plant speaks to me more than the shorts do. Likewise the Chinese decision to invest in the gigafactory. These are not short positions, they are major long-term capital investment which is continuing.

[nradov]

Shorts don't tend to destroy value. That's just a paranoid fantasy invented by incompetent managers to justify their own failures.

[ggm]

Do you include shorts who go out there trashing the name and then wind up wrong? A bunch of tesla shorts have made an industry of being very very vocal. Musk 420'ing on-air has nothing to do with the underlying value of his company or stock in "real" terms, it has a lot to do with temporary risk value, but the shorts played it into ".. see .. evidence tesla is tanking what kind of CEO smokes pot it must be valueless we were right.. " talking.

I don't think all shorts do this. I do think a lot of Musk shorts (relatively speaking) do this.

[nradov]

You haven't provided any evidence that those shorts destroy value.