Tesla Bear Versus Tesla Bull In Podcast Showdown


Optimist versus pessimist.

The long-running fight between those who believe in the long-term success of Tesla — bulls — and those who believe the company’s efforts will end in tears and bankruptcy —bears — moved to a new battleground Monday: the Quoth the Raven podcast. The debate was set up to give a representative of each side of the argument the opportunity to state their case, as well as refute points made by the other.

Representing the bulls was Galileo Russell, host of the Hyperchange TV YouTube channel, who many might recall as the person Tesla CEO Elon Musk turned to for questions in a now infamous earnings call with analysts earlier this year. In the bear’s corner was a Twitter personality and contributor to the Seeking Alpha financial website whose nom de plume is Montana Skeptic, rumored to be Lawrence J. Fossi. According to the bio for “Skeptic,” he manages a $1billion+ portfolio and holds a Degree of Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Yale and has practiced law for 30 years as a trial lawyer. Fossi seems to have a very similar, if not identical, background.

Russel kicked things off the hour-long discussion by stating he is a Tesla shareholder and that his confidence in the company is tied to CEO Musk. Said he, “I like to bet on the jockey, not the horse.” He paints an incredibly rosy picture of the California company’s future in electric and autonomous vehicles, as well as the energy side of things. They are both areas, he believes, that are ripe for disruption. He acknowledges there is a lot of cash burn but focuses on revenue and its growth. “They’re going to get to $20 billion in revenue from $100 million faster than Amazon did.

For his part, “Skeptic” summed up his skepticism to incoming competition to the electric vehicle sector. He laid out that Tesla has owned the luxury EV market for the past six years and said that despite having something of a monopoly and taking advantage of billions of dollars in subsidies the automaker has still “lost fabulous amounts of money.” With vehicles coming on the market like the Jaguar I-Pace, and entries from Mercedes, Audi, and Volvo, he reasons the once aspirational Model S will lose its luster. About the Model 3 being the vehicle for revenue and profit, he reminds us that it has been in production for a year and during that time Tesla has lost more money than ever.

While we’re sure the faceoff between the bull and bear will most likely result in the confirmation of biases held by listeners, we think the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle. Russel is probably overconfident, while empty cup view of “Skeptic” ignores some pretty blatant realities. But what do we know? We are not investors, merely scribes. Have a listen for yourselves and let us know who you think comes out on top.

Featured Image – Flickr – Creative Commons License 2.0 – AskMeAboutLoom

Source: Teslarati

Categories: Tesla, Videos


Leave a Reply

70 Comments on "Tesla Bear Versus Tesla Bull In Podcast Showdown"

newest oldest most voted

Sure, the Jag i-Pace is coming on market, but, that just validates the EV concept to Jag owners. Those who want an EV have already purchased a Tesla, and more will when they find out there’s only going to be 20,000 per year built. Jag will find they have underestimated demand.

To imagine that these tiny production numbers are going to disrupt Tesla, well the bears have a screw loose. You’re motivation for being a short has nothing to do with Tesla, it’s personal to the short. It’s the perfect example of betting the market based on your personal bias, and not the facts.

Tesla’s “cash burn” is Incredible ASSET GROWTH, the capacity to build cars, and make a Huge Profit, with the best, most cost effective batteries in the business.

Too, Porsche is coming with their electric offering, and product will nowhere meet demand there either.

Tesla Model 3: 50,000 shipped.

Well, I would consider Porsche Taycan the first credible Tesla competitor if offered for the same sort of money. The Porsche badge/fit&finish and the hypercharging feature might give it the edge in many a consumer’s decision making process. OTOH the 350KW infrastructure doesn’t actually exist yet and soon it will be up against the next gen Model S so it’s not a slam dunk for Porsche.

Porsche Has No Charging Network & will Not For yrs to come..

Electrify America is not bad in my neck of the woods, and in a year when Taycan is on the market, it will only be better…

I disagree. It’s getting better in Washington state, but there will still be major holes after the first round of installs.

It will still be two to three years to plug the holes if and only if more money becomes available before the charging network gets to the point where Tesla is today.

That is the whole problem with EA and all other networks that are not building out a planned comprehensive network designed to cover ALL “necks of the woods”.

Without a nationwide comprehensive network, a Taycan might be fine as long as you never plan on leaving your local neck of the woods. But you don’t actually have a true long-distance travel solution. You have a set of isolated islands.

No other high speed charging network has published plans for a comprehensive high-speed charge anywhere you want to go type of networks. Only Tesla has done that.

“Porsche Has No Charging Network & will Not For yrs to come..”

If only people read the news…

Porsche with 500 fast-charger locations (I assume up to 350kW as advertised, otherwise it makes no sense) by the time the Taycan launches:


and EA, first phase1 done by mid-2019:


That’s 40 states covered by EA.

Then add all other CCS networks out there – and coming over the 18 months.

Tesla has no moat left by 2020.

tftf — You links prove my point. Thanks.

Approx 40% of the Porsche chargers will be at dealerships, leaving just over 300 chargers to cover all of the United States. That’s not a comprehensive network.

EA’s plan is a TEN YEAR plan: “Electrify America is investing $2 billion over the next 10 years”.

LMAO, Nix OWNS admitted Tesla shorter Trollftf by using the trolls’s own info!!!

Hahahaha! No moat. That’s rich. Think of the head start the Supercharging network already has, and Tesla is adding new chargers almost weekly. Porsche hasn’t even STARTED their network yet. And I highly doubt they will have 8, 10, 14, 20, and 40 stall locations, either.

It will be sizewise and performance wise equivalent to the Model 3 Performance.

They will also have made energy density and or battery life trade offs to hit the 350 kW charging target.

Expect base models to have very few important features and prices to skyrocket quickly with options.

Porsche won’t meet damand just like Jaguar and Porsche’s popularity is so high that fans will create new demand that wasn’t there for Tesla.

There is no asset growth; just look at the history of Tesla’s balance sheet. A delusion that will not die.

Your serial FUD is a delusion that will not die.

I’ve posted the data and the links multiple times. You even begrudgingly admitted Tesla’s balance sheet showed Assets growing faster over time than Liabilities, and now Billions larger than Liabilities.

Before you changed the subject, of course.

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

How much cash did our Skeptic burn through getting his law degree from Yale? I mean that was a total waste of money that could have been spent elsewhere while he pursued a more realistic career in an established industry flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Supercharging network. No one else has one. It’s lost in the whole equation, the Bears don’t even understand its importance.

In the U.S., they assume the VW penalty network brings everyone else up to par as far as L3 DCFC. Lots of people are still confused about L2 DCFC, counting those as long distance enabling DCFC. It doesn’t. Furthermore, the details of the VW penalty network show that they’re basically building the Tesla Supercharger network of 2014/2015 by sometime in 2019/2020. That’s not going to be sufficient to compete with Tesla. Not to mention, it won’t take very many slow charging Bolt/i3/Ioniq/Kona/Leaf and other L2 DCFC vehicles to clog that network up.

It’s So Important that I any Many will NOT buy any other EV That doesn’t have a Charging Network…….

I’ve used a supercharger about a dozen times in two years. It’s nice but it’s not critical. Often times when camping I must depend on slow chargers at RV sites, as there is no supercharger anywhere close. Destination charging is much more important.

We don’t care how many imaginary Superchargers you’ve used to charge your pretend Tesla cars.

Well if you don’t particularly care to use the Supercharging network, then by all means, it must suck. You should let Tesla know your findings, that way thousands of others who DO use Superchargers can be shown the light.

Seven fake electrics. I don’t think they have come out with a hot wheels supercharger for your hot wheels Tesla’s to charge at. That is how we know you are lying.

Here’s an interesting unknown: is building a super charger expensive and slow, like a hydrogen refueling station, or is it quick and easy?

If it’s expensive and slow, Tesla has a competitive advantage. If it’s cheap and easy, they do not. I recall from past discussions that the cost of each station is rather low, so I’m inclined to suspect the latter. Building a fast charger can be exceptionally quick, if the property is available.

I expect once EVs reach a tipping point, every gas station in America will offer at least one fast charger, and they’ll go up like mushrooms. But again, not strictly necessary: Nissan has sold roughly 350,000 LEAFs with no supercharger network.

How many fake Fuel Cell vehicles do you also fake own?

Yeah, I’m sure the entire Supercharging network was super cheap to build. And doesn’t take very long to pull power, run through the permit(s) process, construction, etc for sites like this:


You could probably throw this thing up on a long weekend with a few buddies and a couple cases of beer. According to Tesla’s website, currently there are 1308 Supercharging stations, with 10,622 stalls. I know math isn’t really you’re deal so I’ll tell you how many that translates to: A LOT.

Your bias confirmation is getting a little bit much, even for you there, Seven.

And by the way, there’s many folks like me who finally ditched their Leaf for a Tesla once the used Tesla market became attainable. Leafs were sold in such high numbers because originally way back in 2011-2012 there were NO other EV options at the time. And you know that. Look at Leaf sales now. There’s a reason why the sharp decline. And you know that, too.

Seven fake electrics. Why don’t you ask your best friend Elon Musk since you seem to be able to make up cars that you own you mine as well make up imaginary friends too.

The Bears Totally Understand The Importance of the Super Charging Network ..That’s The reason They’re Purposely “DOWN PLAYING IT” ….

That’s a myth. Come back in 18 months:


Also see the separate Porsche DC network I mentioned above.

“Electrify America is investing $2 billion over the next 10 years” Ten Years.

Only a subset of their planned chargers will be installed in 18 months, focusing heavily on California, and their network includes 50 kW (not so) fast chargers.

Complete BS, the highway chargers will offer 150kW+.

Same for Europe (projects such as IONITY etc.)

As for EA: All the locations on the map are for Phase 1 already (mid-2019, final installations until end of 2019):


I love it when you twist facts.

Besides, EA is just one CCS network. Thousands of other chargers coming (for example the 500 from Porsche I mentioned).

That’s the power of standards – entire Western car industry ex-Tesla has decided on CCS plugs for fast-charging.

No Russel is overconfident. The energy sector is money pit and pipe dream. Solar city money pit and other companies do it better. Solar roofs only will work in the SE region. It will suck in the Midwest and South with protest it as a government run mandate or what ever they believe down there. Just stick cars. That’s where the money is. Great profit margins with cars. Model Y( without falcon doors) is coming soon or in three years. Tesla’s network will suck and ai program is behind

Browser’s already open. How much longer will people throw money into the oil pit, when its hegemony is exposed by its uncompetitiveness?

Why even debate some anonymous Seeking Alpha liar and manipulator? It’s not as if anybody takes these clowns seriously anyway or TSLA would long since have been penny stock.

As an addendum, here are the TipRanks ratings for each of these guys. One of them is better at this than the other.

Looks like Galileo unlike Montana slightly outperforms the monkey throwing darts at a board. Good for him.

One always says buy and one always says sell. Stopped clocks, both of them, and they’ll both be right eventually.

No, it is impossible for them to both be right eventually over the long term. Only one of them can be right over the long term. Because the stock will either trend up over the years (accounting for volatility already) or it will trend down overall using the industry standard measure of 10 year returns.

Because the only way “skeptic” can be right is if the share price keeps going down over the long term as he continues to advise to sell, until it is of zero value.

Where Galileo will be only be right to always advise to buy, if TSLA share prices keep trending up over the long term.

So far Galileo is +20% return rate on his buys, and Skeptic is -7.2% return on his sells.

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

A score of 50% means you can flip a coin and get the same results of the Short. Galileo is 10% better than a coin flip, but if you invested his way, you would be up 20%. Don’t see how this is the same.

Domenick, Thanks. The links definitely will improve your #Pravduh score, and that’s a good thing when the advice of so many bears is sustained only by customers who haven’t lost enough, yet.

Haha, thanks. I had wanted to put this in the post and spent a bunch of time looking for this info, before stumbling on this site after we published.

In case you didn’t notice, you can also click on individual ranks to see how Russel did on just his Tesla buys. This shows both his accuracy and his rate of return on Tesla trades is higher than his average.

In all fairness Musk should have never Lowered Himself to that so called rescue worker by name calling …But the guy did greatly offend Musk , when instead of thanking Musk ,He told musk to Shove His Submarine where it Hurts …….They never mention this part…

Another Euro point of view

am very curious if that letter from that Munster guy did have effect on him and if Elon will take a sabbatical year away from Twitter as advised. At least I would not be surprised to see Elon’s presence on Twitter greatly reduced (much to the desperation of the shorts for whom this twitter account recently became their best ally).

I think he will, but not for long. Elon likes distraction and is incredibly thin skinned. And if he did, it may not help: I count at least twice times when Elon has blatantly libeled someone in the pre-Twitter age.

Another Euro point of view

Actually I think the detrimental effect of Elon’s tweets is worse than one may think as from a US perspective, for example:

1/ effect on Tesla’s UK market of recent tweet issue with a British “diver” right when Jaguar is coming in the market with their premium EV.
2/ effect on people from Thailand (according to Elon, a country where children are “for sale” to white males).
3/ effect on Tesla’s Norwegian market when Elon tweets that the problematic service centers situation in Norway is due to Norway’s authorities not yet issuing the permit for the Tesla’s service rangers and Norwegian authorities subsequent reply that this permit application wasn’t even filed. What are Norwegian customers supposed to think of this ?

Stubborn, maybe, but not thin skinned or what I’d take to mean impulsive. Unpaid advertising, through controversy and good deed, are a strategy he believes must work. Part of the controversy approach is saying things that rile twitter. It’s more intentional, than I think many believe.

Some of it is impulsive, too. How Musk convinces himself people won’t see conflict between the benefit of publicity, and those gaining his charity, I don’t understand. FWIW, I have no sympathy for the clown who rejected his aid, with an insult. That others think Musk “owes” him reparation for slander, is nuts. I bet many didn’t see the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TmjpIkVDrU

The Shorts will “Short Themselves Out” in due time.

They initiated the whole thing by contacting Musk for his Help , Musk responded in Good Faith & Mr ZER0 Hero told To MusK , Quote, “To Stick his Sub Where it Hurts” ! No Wonder Musk Over Reacted to this IDIOT ZER0 ..HER0…That is a very sexually Suggestive & Ignorant insult to someone that dropped his Busy schedule to Help this B0Z0..That Speaks with a Speech impediment …

So confused you’re commenting on the wrong article.

Maybe get that looked at?

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

Yes, he offended Musk. But telling Musk to shove his sub is a far lesser sin than calling someone a child molester. One is an uncouth dismissal of Musk’s efforts, the other is an actionable libel. People’s reputation/careers have been destroyed by such false accusations.

Oh, and every story I have read mentions the Diver’s comment. Again, the insults are NOT comparable.

WOW! Talk about off-topic!

By next month, nobody will remember Elon’s rude and foolish tweet… or care. If it actually did have even a short-term effect on Tesla’s stock price, that merely shows how very volatile it is.

Nobody is gonna cancel their Model 3 reservation because Elon stuck his foot in his mouth on Twitter.

Sadly, this is exactly the problem with this faux “debate”. “Skeptic” went off the rails and went on and on about this. It is not much of a debate when one of the debaters goes far, far off topic.

Another Euro point of view

At least with this level of production Tesla has now (3k to 5k Model 3/month) it won’t last too long to see whether short “absence of sufficient demand” thesis is right or wrong. As for another part of the short thesis (competition) that will take much longer to be proved right or wrong as it is rather obvious that new EVs (except for the Leaf) are produced in limited numbers. A recent sign of that is the Hyundai Kona EV production numbers. As for competing charging networks it would be short sighted to dismiss those. I would say that being long Tesla is often a position held by US citizens under 40. Why US citizens ? Because reality of the EV market and competing charging networks situation/progress outside of the US is much different and that to be a strong believer in future profits it helps if you did not go through 2 stock market crashes.

Is Tesla’s online order cancellation page still down, e.g. https://twitter.com/NasimSedaghat/status/1019058406760464384?

This was the disingenuous dog-and-pony “Crossfire Show” of the financial discussion of Tesla. They might as well have had Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson running this. My feelings on this is the same as Jon Stewart’s infamous takedown of the “Crossfire” show where he talked about how giving hacks a stage is hurting us, and how an actual debate show would be much better:


Pretending that it is somehow balanced just because you give them the same amount of time, is a false “balance” when one side dumps a new falsehood into the conversation every 15 seconds, and it would take 5 minutes to debunk each falsehood. You can’t have an honest debate when there is a dishonest debater disingenuously pedaling known falsehoods in rapid fire.

“…one side dumps a new falsehood into the conversation every 15 seconds, and it would take 5 minutes to debunk each falsehood.”

Right. That’s the “Gish Gallop” dishonest debate method, beloved by FUDsters. I think that’s one of the reasons why the Internet is, sadly, better at spreading bad memes (like fake news and anti-Tesla FUD) than good memes. 🙁


Exactly. The biggest problem with this faux “Debate” is that it went full Gish right from the start, and then went horribly off-topic.

I haven’t listened to the podcast, but I’ll comment based on what’s in the Teslarati article. Quoting the Tesla “bear” or short-seller: “I think Tesla is just extraordinarily weak. It lives from capital raise to capital raise. But for a capital raise, it is always on the brink of insolvency.” It’s hard to believe this guy knows anything about Tesla’s finances. Every time Tesla makes any sort of institutional offering, such as bonds or privately offered stocks, it always oversells very quickly. Also, as Nix has pointed out, Tesla’s assets are increasing faster than its debt. So it should be financially strong, not weak as this FUDster claims. “I think that other automakers have a huge advantage. They have a portfolio of products, and those products are largely profitable…” It also seems he is shockingly ignorant of what happens during every disruptive tech revolution. He ought to read The Innovator’s Dilemma to find out why market leaders are very reluctant to embrace new technology, and why in every such revolution, some of the market leaders at the end are new companies like Tesla. “They would be able to outpace Tesla.” They have had 8 years to do so. Jaguar is… Read more »

A Bear (Ruskie impersonator) can, for only a brief moment, climb atop the Wall Street Bull for a photo op.

Of course when the sun rises, and the markets open, the perseverance of the WS Bull, will most always come away unscathed, albeit briefly humiliated by its past riders.

“The Innovator’s Dilemma”

Have you read it, PP?

What does it say about pricing of the disruptor’s product?

Hint: If you decide to listen to the full podcast, choose the 1.5X or 2.0X listening options. Much faster, but you have to be able to understand Chimpmunk.

Yes, that’s for sure!

The “bear” who calls himself “skeptic” also completely ignores future sales that are generated from money spent ramping up Model 3 production. He repeatedly talks about Tesla not yet seeing all the profits in Q1 2018 of all the investment Tesla put into early ramp-up. As if Tesla should see the sales revenue for ramping up to 5K/units a week months BEFORE actually achieving that rampup number.

Underwear Gnomes know better about the steps to profit than this guy.

FYI — “skeptic” isn’t really an analyst. He has only blogged on TSLA and no other stock. More of just a random crank on the internet. They might as well have gotten eleventeen fake EV’s to do this faux debate. https://www.tipranks.com/bloggers/montana-skeptic.

Montana skeptic is an infamous FUDster gambler that regularly tries to post his garbage FUD to support short positions under multiple usernames all over the EV sites. I wouldn’t doubt if he is hooked up with the soon to be broke Chanos super shorter.

The Wall Street Bull has recently been Mounted by the Russian Bear.

Is this the same Lawrence Fossi whose wife, Margaret, was killed by someone named Watts while he was at Yale?
Is this why he hates EVs?! Watts?

Looks like Elon Musk pressured Montana Skeptic’s employer to force him to delete his Twitter account.

And thus, one by one, the brightly burning candles of the free press are extinguished.

An investor manager who is invested in the oil industry and has financial interest in the ruin of others is considered “press”? Maybe he should quit his investment job and become a full time journalist. With they way he spun fud, he’d fit right in.

Not a rumor anymore Larry Fossi! aka “big oil investor”