I'm mostly summarizing from the article. Of course, information could be wrong. But I recall the "Elon banging head" incident from years past being reported in the news, and being further elaborated in this article.
>> As he sputtered about the lack of danger from a slow-speed line, he began head-butting the front end of a car on the assembly line. “I don’t see how this could hurt me,” he said. “I want the cars to just keep moving.” A senior engineering manager tried to interject that it was designed as a safety measure. Musk screamed at him: “Get out!”
This is not the first time I've seen this reported.
---------
In any case, Elon's skill at pumping the stock price higher cannot be denied. I'd be a fool to short the stock against someone like that (A small investor such as myself would only get margin-called). I prefer an older, simpler investment style. I find companies I like, then I buy them. I see no reason to short stocks at all, plenty of opportunity in just buying what's good out there.
I'm sure these long-term issues will come home to roost somehow. But I don't know the timing of it. So no point shorting unless I knew exactly when it all collapses. A short thesis is not only "I think the company is in trouble", but also is about having confidence in the __timing__ of those troubles.
Ex: A great example is a hypothetical time-traveler who tells someone "Worldcom is cooking the books" in the early 1990s. Any trader who acted on that knowledge would have had their shorts blown out of the water by the 90s runup and tech bubble, and won't be "correct" until well over a decade later (long after many margin calls would have wiped out their position entirely). Its not enough to be correct about a stock when you're short. You have to be both correct about the timing AND direction.