Live data from Hacker News

Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

cnbc.com

111–120 of 301 posts

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone ELI5 how this works to those of us who only buy and sell things? I've looked up the definitions, but I'm curious about the purposes and practical risk/reward scenarios of this particular sort of bet.

I gives you $1K today. In exchange, we agree now, that in two month, I can buy your car for $10K if I want to. I just bought a 2-month expiry put option at a strike of $10k on your car. Two month later, I check the resell value for your car. If it's more than $10k, let's say 13, I buy yours at 10 and resell it at 13K. I won 3-1=$2k If it's less that $10k, I just pass, I lost $1k.

You actually described a call option.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have an actual short position, your potential losses are unlimited. Isn’t this a bit like saying that the potential upside of holding any stock is unlimited?

Yes. Is that not true?

It is, that's the wager.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#113

Teslas price is just too high. I think they will be very successful and become a big, dominant car maker. But their price only makes sense if they end up being the only car maker left. That's not realistic. Building an electric car is not that hard, especially if Tesla already did all the hard lifting for you. For a while I was thinking that the battery play - becoming the number 1 battery supplier - will justify the…

I'm not one to typically paraphrase billionaires, or think they're too connected to reality... but something I heard Mark Cuban say the other day was kind of "oh, shit that's true" moment for me. It was something to the affect of (I can't find the clip at the moment), "Back in 2010 we never thought we'd see a company hit $1 trillion. We never thought Apple or Amazon (et. al) would be able to continue their growth yea…

The question imo is if time benefits the incumbents (due to monopoly / network consolidation) or if time benefits the disruptors (due to the commoditization of growth/scale, the shrinking of the distance between 0-$1B, and tech monopolies being based on 90s web tech which is stretched to breaking point). How will climate disruption fit into this, who benefits as the world starts to break faster and faster.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#114

Teslas price is just too high. I think they will be very successful and become a big, dominant car maker. But their price only makes sense if they end up being the only car maker left. That's not realistic. Building an electric car is not that hard, especially if Tesla already did all the hard lifting for you. For a while I was thinking that the battery play - becoming the number 1 battery supplier - will justify the…

While I won't dispute that Tesla's share price is high given where the company is at right now when valued as an auto business, there are a few things I think are worth mentioning and commenting on in your post.

> Building an electric car is not that hard, especially if Tesla already did all the hard lifting for you.

This couldn't be further from the truth. While making a prototype EV is relatively easy, yes. EV industry followers will note that the real challenge is scaling EV production, and specifically the batteries' production. You don't need to look further then to answer: 'Why don't all of these automakers have tonnes of EVs on their lots available today as we speak? Why are they all '2022 release' or even 'dozens of models in 2025'. Because all of the tier 1 and tier 2 li-ion battery supplies have already been allocated from now to several years out, and if you want 'EV model volume' scale batteries, you better be ready to fork over the capital or purchase commitment for a batttery cell production line that might not have had a shovel hitting the ground yet. And waiting a few years for assembled product.

> But their price only makes sense if they end up being the only car maker left.

Assuming both the gross margin profile and auto ownership model stay the same - sure. Tesla has proven to generate more gross margin per vehicle than other automakers as is, they have 'practically' infinite demand (stimulated by expanding geographies and targeted price reductions when demand sags). And this isn't accounting for GM expansion for vehicles that could be a part of a ride hailing network (autonomous or not).

I do believe, like other 'Tesla fans', that when factoring in their lead in scale and tech, unit cost advantage as well as how things look on a decade or two time horizon, I think it is quite likely that there will not be a better time to become a shareholder in the next 1-2 decades.

One way I look at it is by comparing it to Apple, a ~$2T market cap company in 2020 dollars. ARPU of an Apple customer compared to a Tesla customer is probably between 1/4-1/10 (how much iphone/mac/apple services does one buy versus transportation spend on an annual basis). If you project Tesla margins to look more like Apple's 10 years from now (yes, a big bet), even with similar market share breakdowns of iOS/Android today - it isn't a huge stretch to imagine with ~50-100M EVs on the roads by then - that you could have Tesla with a market cap between 10T and 20T in 2020 dollars. Particularly when factoring in their business segments beyond personal transport/light vehicles.

They are so far the only company making EVs to have crossed the 'valley of death'[See: crossing the chasm]. Startups and established automakers will need to spend billions in order to get EVs sold at scale that generate FCF per unit. It is a tall order.

(Not financial advice do your own research etc etc)

EDIT: Also note that Tesla has stated in an earnings call that they are looking at 50% CAGRs moving forward, and I do think that they could be undershooting this number a bit.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't short them tough, in the end I'm just a dog on the internet and have no clue how stonks work. To be clear, Michael Burry didn't short Tesla, he bought put options, which gives him the right but not the obligation to sell Tesla stock for a certain price, on a certain date. If the bet works against him, his options expire worthless. This puts an upper limit on his losses. If you have an actual short position,…

> If you have an actual short position, your potential losses are unlimited. Isn’t this a bit like saying that the potential upside of holding any stock is unlimited?

No, and this distinction is critical to understanding the risk that short sellers take.

To use a slightly anomalous stock which hasn't split as an easy example, if you had shorted $BRK in 1980 when the price was $300, the potential upside was just 100%: In your best outcome, they go bankrupt and the most you earn is $300. Unfortunately for you, Berkshire Hathaway shares are now worth $430,000, so your $300 or 100% upside turned out to be a rounding error against the approximately -150000% loss.

Edit: The reverse is technically symmetrical, but the consequences make it work out differently for the markets and society. Yes, if you'd bought BRK in 1980 you'd have had a liability of $300 (your cash input could be worthless if they went bankrupt) and a potential upside of hundreds of thousands if it went to the moon.

The difference is that if you held the stock and it goes bankrupt, you're only liable for the amount that you put in. Worst case, you bet the farm and you're going to be washing dishes to put food on the table, but it's your loss to lose and your gain to win. If instead you bet the farm in a short position, you never had and will never have thousands of farms to bet in the first place; you're going to declare bankruptcy and someone else is going to have to pay for the bad bet you made. That effectively pushes the losses back on society but privatizes the gains.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#116

Eventually somebody on Wall Street is going to figure out that Tesla’s business is batteries, that Tesla’s batteries are getting good enough to compete with natural gas peaker plants, and that there is a massive effort underway to convert our electric grid away from burning fossil fuels.

How does that theory explain Tesla having 20x the market cap of Panasonic?

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#117

Teslas price is just too high. I think they will be very successful and become a big, dominant car maker. But their price only makes sense if they end up being the only car maker left. That's not realistic. Building an electric car is not that hard, especially if Tesla already did all the hard lifting for you. For a while I was thinking that the battery play - becoming the number 1 battery supplier - will justify the…

I'm not one to typically paraphrase billionaires, or think they're too connected to reality... but something I heard Mark Cuban say the other day was kind of "oh, shit that's true" moment for me. It was something to the affect of (I can't find the clip at the moment), "Back in 2010 we never thought we'd see a company hit $1 trillion. We never thought Apple or Amazon (et. al) would be able to continue their growth yea…

"Tech" companies here encompasses quite a broad list of markets. Just because Apple and Amazon managed to upend expectations doesn't mean that Tesla will. Most of these gigantic technology companies are software companies that have incredible profit margins and really hard to disrupt market positions. Apple is unique in that it manages to sell a premium product with premium pricing without it affecting overall demand with the best-in-class product differentiation that the Apple brand is known for.

Yes, Tesla's managed to do something somewhat similar, but will that continue to hold? Even as automobile competitors finally wake up and start competing on electric cars? Will they become the largest automaker in the world? Tough questions to answer.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#118

Teslas price is just too high. I think they will be very successful and become a big, dominant car maker. But their price only makes sense if they end up being the only car maker left. That's not realistic. Building an electric car is not that hard, especially if Tesla already did all the hard lifting for you. For a while I was thinking that the battery play - becoming the number 1 battery supplier - will justify the…

The statement "Tesla market value is the same as everybody else put together" means either Tesla is expensive or everybody else is cheap or the statement is inaccurate. It's a little bit of all three.

All other car companies are primarily debt financed rather than equity financed. Ford's market cap is $45B, but because it has $120B in debt which means it is worth $120B to it's bondholders and $45B to stockholders for a total enterprise value of $160B.

So Tesla isn't worth as much as all of the companies put together, it's worth about as much as 2 or 3 of the big ones. Which is still a lot.

But all the other car companies are facing an existential threat. Climate change and the EV transition are going to be tough. That has to be depressing their valuations some.

Tesla also has a really good profit margin. If they can keep that up, it goes a long way to justifying their prices. Pretty big if, that one -- the general assumption is that it will go down as they go downmarket to chase volume. Vertical integration might let them keep it up, though. Think of it like Apple -- 20% market share but >80% of the profit.

What I'm saying is that if Toyota or Volkswagen had no debt, a Tesla level profit margin and no overhanging challenge like the transition to EV, they'd have a market cap similar to Tesla's.

That still doesn't justify Tesla's market cap, but it makes it seem less insane.

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#119
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't short them tough, in the end I'm just a dog on the internet and have no clue how stonks work. To be clear, Michael Burry didn't short Tesla, he bought put options, which gives him the right but not the obligation to sell Tesla stock for a certain price, on a certain date. If the bet works against him, his options expire worthless. This puts an upper limit on his losses. If you have an actual short position,…

I'm not sure that's necessarily meaningful. Sure, you pay for optionality in a put as opposed to a short, but it may be easier and cheaper to buy a put than finance a short if you believe the stock will go down. The downside isn't unlimited if you short, since I don't think you'd be on the hook if you hit a margin call, your collateral would simply be seized and your position would be exited. I'm sure there's other i…

It's a very meaningful distinction. If you have a put option, the stock can go to the moon and back multiple times, and you can still end up in the money on the strike date. If you have a short position, you're going to get margin called on the way to the moon and it's "game over".

Re: Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530M bet against Tesla

#120

> $530 million bet > long puts against 800,100 shares I find the title misleading. Unless I misunderstand, Michael Burry has not actually put $530M of his money at risk. He's made a much smaller, leveraged bet. $530M is just the notional value.

Can someone ELI5 how this works to those of us who only buy and sell things? I've looked up the definitions, but I'm curious about the purposes and practical risk/reward scenarios of this particular sort of bet.

Options are time-limited and expire so you're betting that it goes up or down BEFORE a certain date.

You can buy very cheap out of the money options at small fractions of the cost of the shares by making bets that TSLA will drop hard in the next year while the market thinks that in that timeframe it will not.

Most of the time you lose money doing this.

Time it right, though and you can make 10x returns, but you have to be right and the rest of the market needs to be wrong, which is often unlikely.

But even if you're right in the long-term you need to also get it right in the short-term.

I don't think I'd be betting against this market right now, there's no guessing how irrational we'll wind up getting. Post-pandemic I would guess we'll have even more of an irrational bubble around back-to-normal, and a rising tide lifts all the boats.

Post reply on HN