Betting The Bank: Take Out A Loan To Buy TSLA Stock For Future Profit?


A guy walks into a bank

While this may sound like a joke to a lot of people, the idea behind this is quite simple: raise capital at a price point that allows you to reap the profits later on. It’s what brokers and investors have been doing for decades. It’s what all who seek a big buck without too much hassle look for. However, this time, it’s not based on a hunch. It’s not based on some statistical data or insider information. It’s based on a Tweet. And that ladies and gentlemen, is kind of worrying.

The talk of the town for the past two weeks is that Elon Musk wants to take the company private. This was revealed in a tweet by the Tesla CEO, stating that funding has been obtained and that he intends to buy the stock at $420. This was later further backed up by several e-mails, releases, and reports from the company itself. Some are calling this the short burn of the century. Others are taking out the torches and pitchforks, calling for a class action lawsuit against Musk if this doesn’t happen and calling on the FTC to intervene. However, some are actually trying to capitalize on this information.

About a week ago, a Redditor named u/wakka54 revealed how he is going to play Musk’s stock information. The small investor went into his (presumably) local bank and took out a loan for $232,000 with $600/month interest, all in order to buy 623 shares of Tesla. The idea was simple: buy the stock at $372/share and sell it when the price hits the Musk proclaimed taking it private value of $420 later on. To add even more fuel to the fire, the Redditor posted proof of his investment.

The jury is still out on whether this guy is a genius, or this is the dumbest trading move ever. The potential earnings of $29,000 shrink every month. If the deal takes six months, that’s $3,600 in interest lost. For a whole year, he’s looking at $7,200. Include the taxes the buyer will have to account for during his payout, and the negatives take over the positives. Many have argued this plan brings on too much risk and a wealth of problems. However, with this much credit capacity and this much brash, the only logical conclusion is that this investor’s got more than enough to cover his losses.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

144 Comments on "Betting The Bank: Take Out A Loan To Buy TSLA Stock For Future Profit?"

newest oldest most voted

What if the stock goes down?

hahaha, why worry about the “what if” scenarios.

“Options” are something to be very afraid of, but really, you could spend about 10 thousand to get 600 shares worth of price exposure, and limit your loss to the ~10 thousand (6 call contracts). If the price breaks to 400-420, their value would double, or triple. If it doesn’t, you could salvage maybe 50% of your investment, before they expire.

Expecting 100% loss after buying option as your risk would be much more likely scenario. Options are about calculation of probabilities, if you can’t do it well, trading on emotions is sure way to loose money.

Then I have a special Bulgarian friend who is happy to take over the loan from the bank at a higher interest. By the way does your job involve using your knee caps in a significant way?

Well at the current price of $338 he’s down $20k at the moment, but don’t worry about those subpoenas from the SEC.

If Tesla goes private it’s not an issue.

Stock market is like a box of chocolates…

Box of government subsidized chocolates LOL

Yes, an Oil Subsidized box of government welfare for Exxon.

And the Saudis, or are they the good guys now? It’s so hard to distinguish between bad big oil and good massive oil…

Or aren’t we talking about getting payed by a fund created through destroying the environment and destabilizing a whole region, with the help of foreign military.

I don’t care how dirty the Saudis’ oil money is, even if they buy a sizable percentage of Tesla Inc., so long as they own less than a controlling share.

The world isn’t populated by cartoon villains which are evil merely because they enjoy being evil. Even Big Oil money can be turned to some good purpose. And oil-rich Arab sheiks diversifying their wealth into “green” tech and renewable energy, as a hedge against when cheap oil finally runs out, is a good thing for everyone.

5 down-votes for that comment, seriously?

No snarkiness here, I’d love for someone to explain why they either down-voted that comment, or were tempted to do so. I honestly have no idea what in that comment would be found objectionable by anyone other than supporters of Big Oil companies.

Saudis are not to be trusted

Nope more to fund terrorist actions and proxy war with Iran now that we have gotten rid of saddam for them

Good rule of thumb: never, ever, borrow money to invest in the stock market. It’s probably the number two rule, right after don’t put your entire investment in a single stock.

The guy must have read that Tesla is the least volatile stock on the market. What could go wrong?

It’ll suck if the EV market collapses because nobody has money to buy cars anymore after losing their shirts in the market.

Yeah. I’m shocked that InsideEVs would run an article about this. 😯 Even more shocked that they ran it without a very strong disclaimer that nobody should ever, ever borrow money to use for any form of gambling, including playing the stock market.

I’m pretty sure many TSLA fanbois on here have done exactly what you just posted not to do. Lol

I’m pretty sure a lot of people borrowed money to short TSLA. Either way, it’s great business for the NYSE.

Eh, I’m sure those guys will have no problem getting Washington to cover their losses with taxpayer money.

This is untrue. If one borrows let’s say 20% (~$70k) to increase shares from 1000 to 1200, they are very likely to increase their returns by very close to 20% with a very small chance of a margin call.

The odds are very high TSLA is going to return >25% on average over the next 10 years.

When TSLA is $3k/share the person would have made an extra 200 * $2650 or ~$500k minus a small amount of interest.

Never going to be 1000k a share. What if, Tesla just designs, market, sell the cars and have someone makes the cars, how much they would save ? I’m thinking Apple and Amazon model

We’ve seen with Amazon what happens When a high tech Silicon Valley firm attacks an old industry like retail. With Tesla, we are starting to see what happens when a high tech Silicon Valley company attacks heavy manufacturing.

One can currently borrow at roughly 3%. In order for this bet to pay off, TSLA only has to grow more than 3%/year on average.

Your editor should have blocked this article

The article doesn’t give advice. It remains skeptical and explains the situation.

“And that ladies and gentlemen, is kind of worrying.”

“The jury is still out on whether this guy is a genius, or this is the dumbest trading move ever.”

“the negatives take over the positives.”

People are free to invest how they choose and IEV is not an investing website. It was a crazy story and interesting to some people, so we shared it. We didn’t advise it or tell people to do it.

Wasn’t this one of the reason for great depression? I guess this is one way to get around Glass-Steagall.

Great depression is having all your money in TSLA but no car to drive.

LOL Good one, +35K

Sort of. Glass-Steagall wasn’t about leverage. It removed a conflict of interest. A bank CEO simultaneously serving his shareholders and depositors, by investing in companies (investment banking), was stopped. Where shareholders come first, you risk people’s deposits to serve them. By extension, you risk taxpayer dollars (moral hazard).

The Act was more about the activity, than the borrowing. That said, a bank “borrowing” depositor money, to buy TSLA, would take us back to the 1920’s.

Saving and loans bank that were investing in real estate

Like this Countries Largest Savings and Loan Association, which was WaMu, until 9/26/08.

Almost a Decade since it’s ultimate Demise.

I liked WaMu.

Besides, over the last 4 years Congress has been slowly eroding or not bothering to set up formalized rules of G-S… next up is the final elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

No that’s staying

Another Euro point of view

Investors do that all the time (that is borrowing to buy shares). With all due respect it is IMO the stupidest and most dangerous thing to do along with shorting stocks in general and Tsla specifically.
A guy in the Tesla Motors Club – investors forum seems to have been doing exactly what you describe a couple of days ago. Result: he got a margin call from his bank and needed to sell all his shares he bought above $370, at a loss of course since stock is now below $350.

Here is comment (all fresh): This “all in” long is going to sell a few thousand shares due to a margin call. That’s how it works when the price is held down $20 below where you bought as much as possible.

Now I agree with many here, probably Insideevs should refrain from writing articles about financial aspects of Tesla. Specifically this type of article with super dangerous ideas.

So you are saying one should buy stock when the share price is low? That’s smart.

Another Euro point of view

….and never trade stocks according to a tweet from Elon Musk. Believers of Elon Musk tweets are a bit like blue whales. Some say that out of the few remaining a fair proportion are occasionally commenting on Insideevs. Go figure if that is true…

Are you calling Elon Musk’s supporters fat?

Another Euro point of view

:-). Well replied.

Just the ones living in their parent’s basement stuffing their faces with Cheetos while battling TSLA deathcult FUD spreaders all day.

Says the guy who bought a BEV, then camps out on EV forums to carpet bomb them with EV hater FUD. Are your fingers orange, dude?

I would take an EV owner’s opinion over a wannabe’s any day of the week.

buuurrrrrrrrn. LOL

As opposed to a troll who falsely claims to have bought multiple Tesla vehicles all the while repeatedly bashing them and the company and CEO here online?

Get Real,

How do you know he “falsely claims”? Did the voices in your head tell you?

No voices troll, but something tells me that as a new username posting here for the first time that you are nothing more then a re-registered existing username troll.

Did the voices in your head tell you to say that? 😛

On the one hand, “Seven Electrics” repeatedly attacks Tesla and posts from the viewpoint that anyone who buys one of their cars is a fool.

On the other hand, he claims to have bought not one, but two Tesla cars!

One does not have to be Einstein to figure out that at least one set of these claims must be a deliberate lie on his part.

“I would take an EV owner’s opinion over a wannabe’s any day of the week.”

When it comes to the actual experience of driving an EV, so would I. Especially a wannabe who pretends to own “seven electric” cars, including two imaginary Tesla cars, as part of his Tesla smear campaign comments.

There’s a wannabe… and then there’s a poseur like you, Eleventy Pretend Electrics!

You mean that blatant shill for GM and only GM and as you correctly pointed out does not care one whit about EVs other then the GM ones?

It is hard to wipe away the Orange residue, of the permeating snack powder, and then get back in a timely manner, to the FUD keyboard.

It must be quite a long walk up the stairs, from moms basement, to get to the kitchen sink, and back.

That’s not how it works. They yell to mom upstairs to bring them down some more Cheetos. Mom then runs downstairs with a plate of Cheetos and places it where her troll son can easily reach them. 😛

Yes it is, but if you are trading on margin you end up selling low frequently. An investment drops that you are leveraging and you are forced to liquidate.

Good to know, thanks for your investment advice.

Buy low, sell high….what a concept!

No, not investing money you cannot afford to lose is not smart. The only sure thing is there isn’t.

Yes, what an incredibly irresponsible article.

Why is it irresponsible? It just describes what some guy did.
Are you in favor of not reporting any news because it might inspire people to do irresponsible things?

I’m certainly in favor of not reporting news that would inspire people to do suicidal things, or commit mass murder. If terrorist attacks got only minimal news coverage and they never showed the face or gave the name of mass murderers, then most of the motive for committing those acts would disappear, and the rate of incidence would drop like a stone.

In theory, there’s nothing wrong with InsideEVs running a story like this, altho it’s getting very tiresome seeing so much coverage of Tesla’s finances. I’m interested in Tesla’s cars, not its finances!

However, if IEVs does run an article like this, it should at least run a very strong disclaimer that nobody should ever, ever borrow money for any form of gambling, including playing the stock market!

Well, the problem with this argument is who decides what the responsible news publishing is.

I’m a strong believer in the 1st amendment and prefer to live with its consequences rather than weaken it to ensure everyone is safe.

I’m sure you are familiar with Ben Franklin’s views on deserving “neither safety nor liberty”.

You had an informed elite populous, now we just breed idiots

Ha, so how do you solve this problem? Introduce legislation that only people with certain IQ can reproduce?

How about more money and taxes for schools and sex Ed, and reproduction rights

“…who decides what the responsible news publishing is.”

As Spider-Man comics put it: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

I find it both astounding and shocking that the news media has been given so much power, yet they assume so very, very little responsibility for how it’s used.

There needs to be some form of control imposed. I’m not necessarily in favor of censorship, but we do have some limits to freedom of speech; the “You can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre” rule is one everybody knows.

I suggest there needs to be stronger controls. I’d prefer that be self-imposed by the news media; something like the way the AMA regulates doctors. But if the newsies continue to behave so irresponsibly, then governments need to impose and enforce some rules.

Thank goodness FaceBook and other social media platforms are finally being pressured to put some limits on fake news. That, at least, is a small step in the right direction!

How about restrictions on the comment section?

Yeah, I’d love to see FUDsters banned much, much faster. Just because we have legally protected freedom of speech in this country doesn’t mean anybody who runs a website has to let it be used as a megaphone for those who deliberately spread smear campaigns.

I agree ☝️ with you in that? It’s like mass shootings and terrorist actions

Sounds like you’ve just made the case for ending media consolidation and breaking up the media empires. I personally think the approach to the media having so much power is not “hoping and wishing” for greater responsibility, but to break that power so that it is more equitably distributed.

As for social media “policing” their platforms, I find that thought terrifying, particularly when they continually refuse to share the algorithms they use to filter that content in the first place. So many independent media outlets have been censored and blocked simply because their journalism doesn’t fit in the “national narrative,” their reporting challenges the status quo, or they criticize or challenge the power of the tech/telecom/media corporations. Google censors independent media articles from its searches, WaPo publishes a “blacklist” of sites that have posted Pulitzer winning content, Facebook blocks pieces from independent outlets on its feed. It all sounds very Orwellian to me.

You aren’t even remotely addressing the points I made. Breaking up media conglomerates won’t in any way lessen the tendency of so many media outlets to give terrorists and mass murderers the very attention they’re trying to get by committing acts of terrorism and mass murder. In effect, the news media colludes with terrorists and mass murderers to promote their attacks and give mass murderers celebrity status, which encourages others to copy their acts of terrorism and mass murder.

Likewise, “breaking up conglomerates” won’t in any way restrict how websites such as (the thankfully now defunct) Gawker practice a modern form of yellow journalism. It’s shocking how mainstream news sources rushed to the defense of Gawker when it was sued, and thankfully shut down. Real news sources should institute a higher standard of ethics, as they did in an earlier to end the reign of yellow journalism. Real news sources should speak out strongly against fake news sources and slanderous gossip websites such as Gawker, not rush to their defense!

Ok, first, I recognize that it’s been over a week and you’ll likely not see this. Second, to address your first point head on, I’ll counter your proverb “with great power comes great responsibility” with my own, much older proverb: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” My point was that media consolidation has also led to a consolidation of power among media moguls that lead toward slanted journalism in favor of maintaining that power. Hoping and wishing for “responsibility” is a waste of time. I’m also a bit leery of that link you sent since it includes an ego stroking shout out to the NYT. I wouldn’t be so bold as to refer to them as “fake news” but they are most certainly slanted and their overseas reporting is the worst. Remember, this is the same newspaper that was one of the Cheerleaders of the Iraq invasion before dumping all over the Iraq invasion became “cool.” Her references to profit models is interesting, because that’s what is causing our current spate of yellow journalism including the variety found by both NYT and WaPo (seriously, you cannot convince me that the newspaper of Jeff Bezos is “fair and balanced” whatever… Read more »

“With great power comes great responsibility” – yes, that’s a great principle but it can only work in Spiderman’s universe.

In my opinion, limits on the freedom of speech are never acceptable. I would even argue that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater should not be codified as a crime. It’s impossible to legislate against crazy, suicidal or homicidal behavior.

It’s much better to attempt to solve the societal issues using economic means. Monetary incentives and an opportunity to amass material goods or gain power through wealth worked very well over the centuries. Most of the progress, especially within the last 100 years, can be attributed to people’s individual effort not to benefit humanity but to satisfy some selfish goals.

The flip side of the economic solutions is that self-imposed regulation is not possible when money is involved. Greed trumps any and all responsible behavior at all times.

Of course, if I were smart enough and knew how to deal with all these problems, I’d be your benevolent dictator by now.

Since InsideEVs is not a government-run site, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. No one is saying that the author should be arrested and imprisoned for posting this article, but rather that it was socially irresponsible to post it.

Same question remains, who is to decide what’s socially irresponsible? And what are the decision criteria?

What if the government defines the rules of what the socially irresponsible news is and whether it can be published or not? Will you still consider the 1st Amendment not having anything to do with a privately-run website?

Who is to decide what’s socially irresponsible?

What if the government defines the rules of what the socially irresponsible news is and whether it can be published or not?
Well, if the government starts arresting people for it, then yes, that would be a valid time to cite the 1st Amendment. But since no one is even remotely advocating that now, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Your answer to my first question is too generic to be meaningful. You didn’t address the issue of what the decision criteria are.

I’ll concede to you on the 1st Amendment, you make a good point.

“Society” is us.
“Society” is what we are doing right now: the court of public opinion.

Shame and criticism are the tools society uses to curtail negative behavior that does not meet the threshold for legal action.

Exactly. And how sad that this had to be pointed out!

The AMA decides what is ethical behavior, or not, among doctors. The Bar Association decides what is ethical behavior, or not, among lawyers. Judicial conduct boards make the same decisions about judges.

Journalists and news outlets should be held to the same type of review. There should be a journalist’s license to dispense news; a license which could be revoked in a similar manner. Those whose licenses are revoked should not be allowed to dispense news on any public platform, including the internet.

Of course, there’s no bright line between, say, an online blog and a news website. It could be up to the same journalism review boards to determine where that line should be drawn.

Elon Musk’s idea for a website which would rate the credibility of journalists would be an excellent and important first step towards such self-policing by real journalists.

I’m with push with no Tesla finance, yes Tesla cars articles

I prefer “Pushy” as a diminutive, if you don’t mind… altho I don’t want to be pushy about it. 🙂

Musk we borrow and then invest in the highly speculative Wall Street equities market?

This is one of the larger risk-reward “super dangerous ideas” that IEVs has put out there.

We Musk!

You are on a roll today! +9K

Yelp. Now it’s becoming Tesla Tribune plus they never mention the SEC investigation and possible outcomes of that mess

The only one who needs to worry about an SEC investigation is Jim Chanos.

Why bother? You Tesla Death Cultists will spread far too much FUD about that without any help from InsideEVs staff!

I’m deciding to get the Model 3 base with steel roof black with aero wheels when gets release. I need to replace my Volt soon it’s at 100k don’t want to pay for the massive repairs that I’m liable for. It’s that, Clarity Phev, new i3 40Kw Rex,. I had to take the BOlt and Leaf out from my potential buy list because there’s no chargers on I 80 in PA and have family there on the eastern part of PA and the drive from NE Ohio required multiple charging sessions . But they have Superchargers on i80

It is classic pump and dump game, as shown in The Wolf of Wall Street.
You can always find victims who do idiotic things like invest 100% of their assets into single stock, assume the stock will go up just because “it is next great thing”, even do it on margin (debt) assuming stocks never fluctuate and management is truthful and unbiased.

The fact that Insideevs thinks it is acceptable to take part in such games to strip gullible from their life savings doesn’t make them look good.

There’s a vast world of price-makers, on the other side of Tesla. Yesterday’s WSJ, on Ford and Hackett, shows what happens to that stock strategy (“F” just dipped below $10). Ford can’t be told to innovate, so it picks up its light-truck marbles and heads to its lobbyists, and Donald Trump.

That’s the “classic pump” game.

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster*, I actually find myself agreeing with zzzzzzzzz. 😯 Circle this day on your calendar!

*Bless His noodly appendages!

A smart, safe investment would be in GM stock. 4% annual dividends, and you don’t have to worry about the company going bankrupt/the CEO sending some crazy tweet that causes all kinds of chaos with the stock price.

The added bonus is that the federal government will bail out GM if anything goes wrong.

Secured guaranteed stability

And, more importantly, not make them do anything at all in return for said bailout.

They paid thier bailouts already. Plus if the government has stocks they can sell there stocks and be out of the auto game

It’s unlikely that you’ll see this since it’s been over a week, but I wasn’t referring to “paying back” their bailouts. I was referring to requiring certain products from them in exchange for those bailouts. I have my own ideas of what the government could have required GM to produce in exchange for being bailed out, but I’ll leave that to your imagination.

Last time they didn’t bailed shareholders (what else can be expected really?). Old GM is called “Motors Liquidation Company”, new GM is different company legally.

Shareholders are the last in line after secured and unsecured creditors, unions and bondholders in case of Chapter 11 reorganization.

“…you don’t have to worry about the company [GM] going bankrupt…”

But only if you manage to ignore both reality and history.

You’ve really drunk the GM Kool-Aid, haven’t you MadBro?

Stop clinging to the past, parent’s basement dweller that owns zero EVs.

Indeed. Pushmi-Pullyu should change his screen name to No Electrics.

Look another new username, is that you MadBro?

But Pushmi-Pullyu is more amusing. 🙂

I’ve never pretended to own an electric car… unlike some people. That doesn’t in any way alter the fact that I’ve had a deep interest in them ever since I was in my early teens.

Thankfully, few if any EV forums restrict participation to those still able to drive. And it amazes me that you Tesla Death Cultists keep pointing out that I’m no longer able to drive, as if you think you’re scoring points, or that anyone who’s not a troll would care.

By the gallon!

So says the employee and shill for GM!

There idiots on that forum

Why don’t people learn about risk adjusted returns before they invest? Such as looking at the Sharpe ratio with the understanding that the risk free return in a one year CD is at 2% or better.

For some insight: a Sharpe ratio of 1 or better is considered good; 2 or better is very good; and 3 or better is considered excellent.

TSLA has a negative Sharpe ratio of -0.33 now. AAPL is at 2.2 and AMZN is at 5.7. Why would anyone put their money in a relatively risky stock when they have clearly better alternatives? Sharpe ratio is not a guarantee of futures earnings, but it is a good measure of risk adjusted return based on historical performance.

If it’s that easy, everyone would be a billionaire.

“Why would anyone put their money in a relatively risky stock when they have clearly better alternatives?”

Because most stock buying and selling decisions made by individuals are made for emotional reasons, not logical ones. It’s somewhat less common for institutional investments, but it still happens.

When you go to the casino and put $2000 on black, it’s not because of the risk adjusted return based on historical performance of black.

That’s illegal

Do tell, what is illegal?

Borrowing money to invest in stocks isn’t illegal, it’s just extremely stupid.

Yup. Trading with margin is essentially trading with borrowed money. And it is with short selling that you require margin account since the loss could be infinite.

Please tell the IRS you were borrowing to invest. They will be auditing

You mean like shorters often do?

Should be illegal for stupidity

Waiting for the Secured Funding and Secured profit to happen

and waiting, and waiting…


“The small investor went into his (presumably) local bank and took out a loan for $232,000 with $600/month interest, all in order to buy 623 shares of Tesla.”

Well, I’m hoping that’s just a story somebody made up. What kind of idiot loan officer would approve a loan to buy stock, which is a form of gambling? Altho I suppose if he had collateral, the bank might not care how foolishly the money would be spent.

“To add even more fuel to the fire, the Redditor posted proof of his investment.”

Really? Perhaps someone is setting the bar too low for what constitutes “proof”.

I’d like to know just what this “proof” is. My guess is that it wasn’t proof, but rather evidence. And what kind of evidence? Wanna bet that anybody with a moderate amount of PhotoShop skill — like me — could create such “evidence” in a few minutes, given a couple of screen shots of examples of the real thing?

I think this more likely to be a hoax than something real. If he really did that, then why post about it to Reddit? Seems to me most likely it was a TSLA “long” pumping the stock!

There is an old saying “A fool and his money are soon parted”.

Right now, TSLA is down to ~$333, on SEC subpoena rumor. In the soup of “going private”, we have Saudi Arabia with a ~5% position. Will they:
-Acquire more, so the number of shares needed to be taken out at $420 goes down?
-Contribute to the selling, and indirectly sustain their oil economy by kneecapping the company’s access to captial?
Tesla’s fate is increasingly in the hands of its largest stock holders. Any group half-serious at $420 would have to be plotting, at $370…$350..$330. “Bulls” and “bears” are little league, compared to what’s swimming around.

So what you are saying is that it’s great opportunity to buy TSLA at $333. Am I right?
Please respond quickly so that I can build my long position before the stock goes up again.

The shorts are still waiting for the “burn of the century”. Those that beefed up their short positions right after Elon tweeted “funding secured” are likely very happy right now.

It’s only fair that they invest their profits into the Performance LR Model 3 with autopilot.

Well, if you wanna be stupid why stop half way? Sell your shares and buy OTM options.
If i had to put this trade (if someone was holding a gun to my head) I would he done it with deep ITM (in the money) calls. January 2020 Call at 200 is about $155 so only about $20 premium and offers a loss buffer below 200 and give you the same leverage with about half the money invested.

Why stop at even that? Mortgage your house and bet it all on speculative mineral exploration company stock! Make sure you put it all on just one stock; you wouldn’t want to spread the risk around!

Everybody knows that putting all your eggs in one basket is the best course.

(Hopefully the /sarcasm tag isn’t needed?)

I hear coal is back, we should all look for a close to bk coal company and invest.

Elon frequently borrows against his own shares to buy more shares: either to show confidence or to attempt to push up the stock price. It’s a bit of a pied piper situation.

Is it fair to say that you aspire to be like Elon one day?

He is just countering the “short” hater club… LOL.

Will he be “long burned”? =)

Ring… Hello? Ah, it’s the 1920’s, they want their stock investing idea back. No, wait, they decidedly don’t.

You don’t have to go back that far….early 2000’s is enough.

In ten years the TSLA will be worth more then Ten times, if Elon does not split the company, the two hour deley of the Duck curve at 5 percent of market penetration justifies over 5000 a share in selling Power wall storege alone that not including the market share if Tesla eventually via the Boring company has in it’s pocket Chicago and BW tunnel’s , not to name several other future projects that are not priced into the stock. Let alone what’s comming beyond SEXY.

If this is not TSLA buy signal, I don’t know what is.
Gotta find myself a small bank and an unsuspecting loan officer…

We keep making fun of crazy Tesla “investors” but i have to say…i had this same discussion with some crazy investors back in 2000’s regarding AMZN…it’s an understatement to say that they proved me wrong.

He should buy bitcoin!

Analyst said Tesla M3 on it’s way to building 8,000 TM3 a week raises price target.

Is it me or they creating controversy with this article