And Lusty Lad and WTF are arguing over whether GDP growth of 3% per annum is high

No, I want you to tell me why you think Tesla is a growth stock. Without using ''forlornly'' in a sentence. I told you why it's not. No, you didn't! You rely on links to answer for you? No, I rely on knowledge and reason! Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Otherwise I might try to explain this issue to you, but am concerned that I would be acting forlornly!

For starters you could try reading Lustylad's brief explanation in post #60. If you disagree, why not explain in a cogent, reasoned manner?

(No one's going to be waiting for that with bated breath!)

.

Otherwise I might try to explain this issue to you, but am concerned that I would be acting forlornly!

For starters you could try reading Lustylad's brief explanation in post #60. If you disagree, why not explain in a cogent, reasoned manner?

(No one's going to be waiting for that with bated breath!)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I already pricked his ''value'' stock definition, but regarding the Tesla growth stock thesis, he didn't defend it. He simply said just because a stock has been falling, doesn't mean it exited the Growth Stock categorization. Which is true. So if you want to say Tesla's 45% drop in the past 6 months is a ''pause'', say so. I contend that Tesla is finished as a growth stock. Competition is heating up. Tesla is a mature stock that will grow like many others, but not at a fast rate. 20% price improvement annually, is a growth stock. Those days are behind Tesla. If you want to define ''growth'' stock as exceeding the Market average (however minimal), say so. I believe Tesla will grow slightly higher than the average basket of stocks. Slightly. Like 2% more. If that is a growth stock to you, say so. You only link other comments, it appears like you don't want to defend anything, personally. Maybe you type poorly, and it's easier to say ''look what he said''? But you seem periphally engaged, at best.

I already pricked his ''value'' stock definition, but regarding the Tesla growth stock thesis, he didn't defend it. He simply said just because a stock has been falling, doesn't mean it exited the Growth Stock categorization. Which is true. So if you want to say Tesla's 45% drop in the past 6 months is a ''pause'', say so. I contend that Tesla is finished as a growth stock. Competition is heating up. Tesla is a mature stock that will grow like many others, but not at a fast rate. 20% price improvement annually, is a growth stock. Those days are behind Tesla. If you want to define ''growth'' stock as exceeding the Market average (however minimal), say so. I believe Tesla will grow slightly higher than the average basket of stocks. Slightly. Like 2% more. If that is a growth stock to you, say so. You only link other comments, it appears like you don't want to defend anything, personally. Maybe you type poorly, and it's easier to say ''look what he said''? But you seem periphally engaged, at best. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Based on your perception, that Tesla's growth will be slightly higher than the average basket of stocks, what you're saying makes sense. The reason we're disagreeing with you is because the street's perception is very different. The analyst consensus is for 6.6% growth in S&P 500 revenues in 2022 and 4.7% in 2023. The analyst consensus for Tesla though is much higher, 60% for 2022 and 34% for 2023. The analysts on average expect Tesla's revenues to grow from 53 billion dollars in 2021 to 188 billion in 2026.

And based on valuations, the company will have to grow a lot to be worth anywhere close to what it's selling for. Trailing 12 month P/E is 100. EV/EBITDA, P/Sales and P/Book are 61, 12 and 23 respectively.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You didn't state a time horizon, but if you're thinking Tesla's sales or earnings won't grow a lot faster than the S&P 500's over, say, the next 10 or 15 years, you may very well be right. I can't even provide an educated guess though as I've never looked at the company.

Spot on Tiny. The Street estimates are insane. Analyst's forecasts are often wretchedly wrong.

https://fundstrat.com/firm/team/

This Tom Lee has embarrassed himself over and over with his ''predictions'', for example. Bitcoin was going to 100,000. We were going to rally 20% in May.

Then there's this Nitwit..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRrURf9mVg

He said this shit literally while I was posting in my ''Markets'' thread that we would top out in early January. I said ''get off margin''.

5,330? We need a 40% gain in the final 7 months to get there.

...regarding the Tesla growth stock thesis, he didn't defend it. He simply said just because a stock has been falling, doesn't mean it exited the Growth Stock categorization. Which is true. So if you want to say Tesla's 45% drop in the past 6 months is a ''pause'', say so. I contend that Tesla is finished as a growth stock. Competition is heating up. Tesla is a mature stock that will grow like many others, but not at a fast rate. 20% price improvement annually, is a growth stock. Those days are behind Tesla. If you want to define ''growth'' stock as exceeding the Market average (however minimal), say so. I believe Tesla will grow slightly higher than the average basket of stocks. Slightly. Like 2% more. If that is a growth stock to you, say so... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I'll overlook your arrogant tone and try to keep this as simple as possible.

You contradict yourself. First you agreed that movements in the price of a company's stock don't change its categorization. Then you argued that the reason Tesla is no longer a growth stock is because in your estimation, the share price is unlikely to outperform the rest of the market going forward. Do you see the contradiction?

Forget about the ups and downs of the share price. "Growth" pertains to how fast the underlying business is growing, as measured by sales value & volume. As noted in my link, Tesla's are currently doubling each year. Any company expanding at that pace falls squarely into the "growth" category, regardless of whether its stock price is going up or down.

It's silly to say things like "Tesla is a mature stock" when what you mean to say is the EV business in which Tesla competes will mature in the years ahead. Don't conflate Wall Street's buy/sell/hold recommendations with a company's growth outlook. If you want to tell everyone to avoid the stock, go right ahead. Just don't tell us it's not a growth stock when it's plain for all to see that Tesla's quarterly/annual sales continue to grow at a blistering pace.

One more thing you ignore - how much of Tesla's recent share price tumble has to do with the fact that Elon Musk is trying to pledge his stock as collateral to raise the financing he needs to buy Twitter? That's totally unrelated to Tesla's own business outlook.

Dozens of Wall Street analysts follow TSLA. Why don't you check how they currently categorize the stock (again, I don't mean their latest buy/sell/hold recommendations or target prices) before you decide to belabor the "not-a-growth-stock" point again? If you're lazy, just ask Tiny to do it. He obviously knows how to follow the "analyst consensus" better than you do.

https://hypebeast.com/2022/4/tesla-d...s-announcement

Even worse was the nonsense propounded at about that time by an infamous duo of Berkeley professors. Their brilliant model indicated that the optimal and revenue-maximizing marginal income tax rate was about 84%.

Following their example, as well as the urgings of Professor Piketty, France raised the top-bracket income tax rate to 75% ten years ago. That backfired in spectacularly embarrassing fashion and the French soon reduced the rate to 45%. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

...we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue. Originally Posted by WTF

Are you coyly suggesting Professor Poofter actually developed some kind of "brilliant model"?

Episodes such as this led me to conclude that the following is an apropos response to anyone who proposes such ridiculousness and purports to undergird his argument with an arcane-looking "model," but unaccompanied by narrative that seems to comport with logic and reason...

Please meet Mr. Real World. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh wait... you couldn't have meant Professor Poofter!

That phony flatulator flunked math, can't find his way around his own "model" home, and (when he was asked) couldn't even begin to explain how one might find the revenue-maximizing marginal tax rate, let alone offer up a "narrative" that "seems to comport with logic and reason"!

Would that be me?

I don't know what is ''forlornly'' about my posts.

Tesla is not a growth stock anymore. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Maybe a dictionary definition will help...

for·lorn
/fərˈlôrn/

adjective

1. pitifully sad and abandoned or lonely.
"forlorn figures at bus stops"

Similar:

unhappy
sad
miserable
sorrowful
dejected
despondent
disconsolate
wretched
abject
morose
regretful
broken-hearted
heartbroken
down
downcast
dispirited
downhearted
heavy-hearted
crestfallen
depressed
melancholy
blue
gloomy
glum
mournful
despairing
doleful
woebegone
woeful
tearful
long-faced
joyless
cheerless
out of sorts
pitiful
pitiable
heart-rending
piteous
pathetic
uncared-for
down in the mouth
down in the dumps
fed up
lachrymose
desolate
deserted
abandoned
forsaken
forgotten
neglected

Opposite:
happy

2. (of an aim or endeavor) unlikely to succeed or be fulfilled; hopeless.
"a forlorn attempt to escape"

Are you coyly suggesting Professor Poofter actually developed some kind of "brilliant model"?




Oh wait... you couldn't have meant Professor Poofter!

That phony flatulator flunked math, can't find his way around his own "model" home, and (when he was asked) couldn't even begin to explain how one might find the revenue-maximizing marginal tax rate, let alone offer up a "narrative" that "seems to comport with logic and reason"! Originally Posted by lustylad

WTF does often sound like he believes the chief end of man is to maximize tax revenues. That makes me believe he’s not paying anywhere near the 40.8% maximum federal income tax rate. I believe that WTF should have the right to pay 84% of his income to the government if he wants to. Just don’t make other people do it too.

I believe that WTF should have the right to pay 84% of his income to the government if he wants to. Just don’t make other people do it too. Originally Posted by Tiny

I have no objections to that. In fact I think 84% just may be his personal "sweet spot"!

I have no objections to that. In fact I think 84% just may be his personal "sweet spot"! Originally Posted by lustylad

But but but, he would have to divest his large energy holdings!!!!!!

But but but, he would have to divest his large energy holdings!!!!!! Originally Posted by bambino

Oh shit! Those fat fossil-fuel dividends don't look so attractive when you only get to keep 16 cents out of every dollar!

But but but... I'm sure AOC can spend Poofter's money more wisely than he can!

WTF is probably a thrifty man. He probably doesn’t need those dividends to survive. Maybe he could also volunteer to pay 8% of his net worth to the government each year, like what Bernie Sanders and his able advisors Saez and Zucman proposed for some Americans back in 2019.

WTF is probably a thrifty man. He probably doesn’t need those dividends to survive. Maybe he could also volunteer to pay 8% of his net worth to the government each year, like what Bernie Sanders and his able advisors Saez and Zucman proposed for some Americans back in 2019. Originally Posted by Tiny

8%? Why not 80%?

Should we let him keep the barrel?

8%? Why not 80%?

Should we let him keep the barrel?


Originally Posted by lustylad

We damn well better. I can see how that thought might occur to you, up there in Pennsylvania. But the last thing we Texans want is WTF running around naked amongst us.

But the last thing we Texans want is WTF running around naked amongst us. Originally Posted by Tiny

Good point. Maybe we ought to let him keep his tranny outfits too...