Connect with us

International

Tesla stock could triple in price, according to one bull

Tesla stock could triple in price, according to one bull

Published

on

teslas battery day

October 8, 2020 Update: Tesla has a new Street-high price target for its stock. New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu upgraded the shares from Hold to the equivalent of Buy and raised his price target from $400 to $578. According to Barron’s, he downgraded Tesla stock to Hold this year after the shares jumped in price.

Ferragu doesn’t see any strong competition for Tesla coming soon, which he expects to help the company maintain its growth and high profit margins. He noted that other automakers can’t produce electric vehicles at prices comparable to equivalent vehicles with internal combustion engines. However, Tesla’s Model 3 sells for a 15% lower price than premium sedans with internal combustion engines.

He expects Tesla to generate over $100 billion in sales and $16 per share in earnings by 2026. He pointed out that Amazon has traded in the 50 to 100 times earnings range for over 10 years, and he expects Tesla to do the same. At the midpoint of that range and that amount of earnings, Tesla stock could reach $1,200 a share by the end of 2025.

On a side note, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a leaked email to employees (obtained by Electrek) that the automaker will boost production almost 20% quarter over quarter. He aims to produce 500,000 vehicles total this year. To reach 500,000 vehicles, Tesla would need to produce 170,000 vehicles during the fourth quarter. The previous production record was 145,000, which was set during the third quarter.

Tesla stock: Musk says “record deliveries” are possible for Q3

September 21, 2020 Update: Tesla stock was little changed by an employee email that was leaked. CEO Elon Musk told employees that the automaker has “a shot” at a “record quarter for vehicle deliveries.” The automaker is rushing out as many deliveries as possible to improve its financial situation for the third quarter.

In the email obtained by Electrek, Musk said that with “all hands on deck,” they could deliver a record number of vehicles during the third quarter. However, he also said it would require them to deliver the most vehicles per day that the company has ever had.

In past quarters, the company has delivered 30% of a quarter’s total deliveries during the last week of the quarter. Musk also told employees that they should consider deliveries “to be the absolute highest priority.” The consensus estimate for Tesla’s third-quarter deliveries stands at 121,000, and the company delivered 90,000 vehicles during the second quarter.

Tesla’s current record for deliveries is 112,000, which were delivered during the fourth quarter of last year. Although it sounds like delivering a record quarter for the September quarter is a good thing, the company is currently projected to deliver even more vehicles during the fourth quarter. The company is up against a deadline to make its full-year delivery projections.

Tesla stock picks up a couple of price target increases

September 18, 2020 Update: At least two analysts increased their price targets for Tesla stock in notes today. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives boosted his base case target from $380 to $475 but kept his bull target at $700, while Piper Sandler analyst Alex Potter raised his target from $480 to $515.

Potter is now the second biggest bull on Wall Street when it comes to Tesla stock. In his report, he was more upbeat on Tesla Energy and CEO Elon Musk’s stock-based compensation package. He continues to rate the shares at Overweight, just as he has for the last three years. He expects Tesla Energy to eventually grow to more than $200 billion in annual revenue.

In his report, Ives said he believes Tesla’s production and demand in China remain “robust and stronger than expected” for the third quarter. He believes pent-up demand in China’s EV market and recent price cuts are driving increased market share for the company compared to its domestic competitors.

He also believes Tesla’s margins on the Model 3s it sells in China could be higher than the margins on the vehicle sold in the U.S. and Europe. He expects China to eventually make up more than 40% of Tesla’s global car sales and believes the company’s profitability profile will increase in the coming years due to the stronger margins in China.

Tesla stock is “one of the biggest” houses of cards of all time

September 8, 2020 Update: The debate over Tesla stock continues with one researcher now calling it the most dangerous stock on Wall Street. New Constructs CEO David Trainer told CNBC that the company’s fundamentals don’t support the high valuation.

He told Trading Nation that Tesla stock is trading even higher than the most blue-sky scenario, which assumes that “they’re going to produce 30 million cars within the next 10 years and get in the insurance business and have the same high margins as Toyota, the most efficient car company with scale of all time.”

He said the share price still implies that profits will be higher than that scenario. He said the stock price implies a 40% to 110% market share, based on the average selling price. At the current average selling price of $57,000 and 10.9 million sales by 2030, a 42% market share is implied.

Trainer also sees the recent stock price as dangerous because it doesn’t actually change the valuation of the company. He sees the split “as a way to lure more unsuspecting, less sophisticated traders into just trying to chance this stock up.”

Tesla plans to sell $5 billion in new stock

September 1, 2020 Update: It’s happening again. Tesla shareholders are being diluted because the company plans to sell more stock. The automaker is apparently trying to tap into the rally that has driven its shares up nearly 500% since the beginning of the year.

In a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, Tesla said it will sell up to $5 billion worth of new stock. The company said it will sell the shares “from time to time” at “at-the-market” prices.

Tesla plans to use the proceeds from the share sale to strengthen its balance sheet and for “general corporate purposes.” The announcement about the share sale comes one day after the company’s stock split officially went into effect.

Investors prep for Tesla stock split as analysts talk

August 24, 2020 Update: Tesla’s stock split occurs this week, so shareholders of record as of Aug. 21 will receive four more common shares for every share they owned as of that date after trading closes on Aug. 28. Tesla stock is up more than 50% since the automaker announced the stock split earlier this month.

Meanwhile, experts and analysts are issuing reports about the company. Joel Greenblatt of Gotham Asset Management told CNBC’s Squawk Box today that he can’t explain Tesla and that he believes “there’s a lot of speculation in the market” right now.

Tesla perma-bear Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research told Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade that he has a price target of only $87 on Tesla stock. That suggests 95% downside from Friday’s closing high of more than $2,000.

He calls Tesla “a busted growth story.” He pointed out that the shares are trading at more than double Volkswagen’s market capitalization, but Volkswagen sold 11 million cars last year, while Tesla sold less than 370,000.

Tesla soars above $1,900 to a new record high

August 18, 2020 Update: Tesla stock skyrocketed yet again to touch a new record high of $1,923.90 a share following a price target increase from an analyst and the company’s announcement of a five-for-one stock split. As a point of reference, the 52-week low is $211, which illustrates just how much the shares have ripped higher in only a year.

The same day the price target increase was reported, there was also bad news about Tesla from China. Bloomberg reported that data from the state-backed China Automotive Information Net indicates that registrations of China-made Tesla vehicles plummeted in July.

There were 11.456 Tesla vehicles made in China registered in the country last month. That marks a 24% decline from the number of June registrations. Most of the Tesla vehicles that are registered in China are also made there at the company’s Shanghai-area plant.

Bad news not so bad?

It may seem strange that Tesla stock soared even though there was bad news from China, but Barron’s argues that the news wasn’t all that bad. The media outlet reports that registrations are usually the weakest in the first month of a new quarter, so July’s decline might not be out of the ordinary.

Barron’s said China registrations were over 12,000 in March but just 5,000 in April. In May, more than 11,000 Tesla vehicles were registered, while in June, registrations exceeded 14,000.

Tesla announces stock split: is it trying to join the Dow?

August 12, 2020 Update: Tesla has announced a five-for-one stock split. The move will make its shares more affordable for more investors and potentially pave the way for it to join the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Tesla’s stock split goes into effect after trading closes on Aug. 31. Although the split doesn’t trigger any fundamental changes in the company or its stock, the shares jumped in after-hours trading last night and during regular trading hours this morning.

Tesla stock is up more than 200% year to date, including a recent bump after the company reported its fourth consecutive quarter of profits. That made the company eligible to join the S&P 500 Index, although David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital argued in his recent letter that Tesla was just gaming the committee that decides which stocks to add or remove from the index.

If Tesla is added to the S&P, the next step would be to be added to the Dow Jones. With the shares so high in price, it would be impractical for the company to be added to the Dow, The Motley Fool noted. The Dow Jones is a price-weighted average, so having a company with an extremely expensive stock in it would really throw things off.

With the extremely high price of Tesla stock, the company would have made up a 30% weight in the Dow if it joined at the current price. Even after the stock split, the automaker would have a weighting of about 7%.

Here’s what would happen if Tesla stock enters the S&P 500

July 31, 2020 Update: Many investors have already been banking on Tesla stock being added to the S&P 500. S&P Dow Jones Indices require that companies be profitable for the last year and in their most recent quarter, a milestone Tesla just met in its last earnings report.

However, adding the EV maker to the S&P 500 isn’t as simple as it sounds. If that happens, funds that track the index will have to do some shuffling to make room for Tesla stock, which has gotten extremely expensive, carrying its market capitalization to a massive $270 billion.

Bloomberg reports that managers of index funds and exchange-traded funds are already creating strategies to deal with Tesla stock joining the S&P, which could end up being one of the most difficult trading challenges that have faced in years. The automaker would be the biggest company ever added to the index in dollar terms.

Gerry O’Reilly of indexing giant Vanguard told Bloomberg that at the current price of Tesla stock, passive fund managers would have to sell $35 billion to $40 billion worth of stock in other companies in the index to create a gap large enough to buy Tesla shares.

Because of Tesla’s massive size, there isn’t any template for Vanguard’s traders and analysts to follow. The goal will be to keep transaction costs down, but that is a challenge when it comes to a massive, volatile stock like Tesla.

Tesla stock could be added to the S&P at any time. It’s possible that the addition could be made when E*Trade or Tiffany leave the index after being acquired. Another possibility is that Tesla could be added during the routine quarterly rebalancing in September.

Funds may receive only a couple days’ notice that the addition is being made. Thus, they will have to decide whether to start buying shares before it becomes official, on the day the stock will be added, or after the addition.

Investors looking to take advantage of new demand from indexers could inflate the price of Tesla stock. Other investors might treat the event as what O’Reilly calls a “super liquidity event,” meaning that longtime shareholders might trim their position or exit when they know index funds must buy the shares.

Tesla stock jumps after strong Q2 earnings

July 23, 2020 Update: Tesla stock is back on the rise again today after the company beat second-quarter earnings estimates on Wednesday evening. The automaker reported non-GAAP earnings of $2.18 per share, compared to the consensus of a loss of 48 cents per share.

Tesla posted $6.04 billion in sales, also beating the revenue consensus of $5.2 billion. Net income amounted to $104 million. Tesla’s gross margin was 21%, compared to the 20.6% reported in the previous quarter. Wednesday’s earnings report closes the automaker’s first full year of GAAP profits, making it eligible to be added to the S&P 500.

On the earnings call last night, CEO Elon Musk said it will build its new factory close to Austin, Texas. The Fremont factory will be dedicated to the Model S and Model X for all markets and the Model 3 and Model & for western North America. The Texas factory will produce the Cybertruck, Semi, and Model 3 and Model Y for eastern North America.

Tesla’s automotive revenue fell 4% on a year-over-year basis from $5.38 billion to $5.18 billion even though the company added the Model Y to its lineup and opened a new factory in Shanghai. The company reported $428 million in regulatory credit sales during the second quarter, compared to $111.2 million in the year-ago quarter.

Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn expects the automaker’s regulatory credit revenue to double this year and remain high for the near future. To become profitable on a long-term basis, Tesla aims to reduce the cost of producing its vehicles and make more money on software. Deferred revenues for the second quarter amounted to $48 million and include sales of the Full Self-Driving option, which sells for $8,000 in the U.S.

Tesla stock jumped after its second-quarter earnings report and continued to rise during regular trading hours today. The shares are trading at around $1,600 at the time of this writing.

Carson Block advises against shorting Tesla

July 17, 2020 Update: Carson Block of Muddy Waters warned investors against shorting Tesla stock this week. He told Bloomberg that he isn’t shorting Tesla shares and that he used to joke that when the company files for bankruptcy, it will probably have a $30 billion market cap.

“Short it at your own risk,” he said. “I wouldn’t do that.

Tesla stock has skyrocketed by more than 300% since the middle of March. Short interest in the shares has now ballooned to almost $20 billion as they trade at about 182 times estimated 12-month earnings, compared to 10 times for General Motors.

Block said that in the past, he did hold a position in Tesla involving the company’s convertible bonds. He then used the coupon payments to buy long-dated put options, but he ended up selling the debt and letting the puts expire.

“It’s one thing to bet on Elon Musk, but it’s another thing to bet against him,” he said. “The guy specializes in pulling rabbits out of the hat.”

China worth $400 per share for Tesla stock: analyst

July 10, 2020 Update: Industry reports from China indicate a “snapback of demand” for the Model 3 in China during June. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives said in a report this week that demand in China is a “linchpin to the bull thesis” for Tesla stock going forward.

The automaker sold 15,000 Model 3 cars in June, according to initial reports. That builds on the momentum observed in May when Tesla sold about 11,000 Model 3 cars, versus less than 4,000 in April. Ives said this strong ramp indicates that demand in China is climbing after an unprecedented soft macro backdrop and the ongoing pandemic.

Ives added that while China was the “star of the show in June,” the million-mile battery will be the next main focus. He believes demand for electric vehicles is accelerating in China as Tesla competes with several domestic and international automakers for market share. He called the Shanghai Gigafactory 3 the “linchpin of success.”

He also said Model 3 demand in China is a ray of light for the automaker in a dark global macro. He estimates that the company is on track to reach 150,000 deliveries in China in Gigafactory 3’s first year.

The analyst estimates that the China growth story is worth at least $400 per share in a bull case for Tesla stock as EV penetration ramps in the next 12 to 18 months. He also said there are some major battery innovations coming out of Gigafactory 3. While the million-mile battery has been an elusive goal, he believes it is now in the company’s grasp.

He adds that if the trajectory in China continues, it will be a major game changer for Tesla’s penetration story in the coming decade. He maintains his Neutral rating with a $1,250 base case and $2,000 bull case for Tesla stock.

Musk makes a profit off his SEC fine

July 8, 2020 Update: Tesla stock topped $1,400 a share for the first time early this morning, and it shows no signs of stopping its meteoric rise. Bloomberg reported that the EV maker’s market capitalization added the combined value of the Detroit Three, General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler, in only five trading days. In each of the five days through Monday, Tesla’s valuation has increased by an average of $14 billion.

Because of Tesla’s skyrocketing stock price, CEO Elon Musk has managed to make money on the fine he paid to settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC fined Musk and Tesla each $20 million for a tweet he posted in 2018 that stated he was considering taking the EV maker private at $430 and that funding had been secured.

Electrek reports that Musk didn’t want Tesla to have to pay for his mistake, but he didn’t have the cash to pay the $20 million. Instead, he bought $20 million worth of Tesla stock at the time to make up for the fee. For that $20 million, he bought about 71,000 more shares of the EV maker’s stock.

Now two years later, that $20 million worth of shares is now worth more than $97 million, which means Musk made more than $50 million off his settlement with the SEC.

Tesla vehicles dominate on Twitter

July 1, 2020 Update: Tesla dominates tweets about electric vehicles, according to a new map from partcatalog.com. The map is based on geotagged Twitter data, tracking tweets and hashtags from the last 90 days. Although the upcoming Nikola Badger won the most states at 18, three of Tesla’s vehicles dominated in other states.

The Tesla Model 3 was the most talked-about Tesla vehicle in 16 states, including the company’s home state of California, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois. The Model S won 11 states, including Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Kentucky, and Michigan.

tesla stock

The still unreleased Tesla Cybertruck won five states, including Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Alabama. The fact that the Badger received so much more interest than the Cybertruck could be bad news for Tesla, although the company has said that it has received a shocking 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck.

Tesla stock continues to make new highs, soaring past $1,100 a share today. After the increase, Tesla officially passed Toyota to become the most valuable automaker in the world. Tesla’s market cap climbed to about $206 billion, while Toyota’s market cap declined to $203 billion as its stock sank.

Over the last two trading sessions, Tesla stock has climbed by about 12%. The company is set to release its second-quarter delivery numbers in the coming days, so investors are looking forward to that and to the company’s second-quarter earnings report.

Tesla disappoints on vehicle quality

June 24, 2020 Update: Tesla stock pulled back today alongside the rest of the market as investors started to shift away from risk assets. Meanwhile, J.D. Power reports that Tesla vehicles leave something to be desired in terms of quality.

The firm’s 2020 Initial Quality Study found that owners of Tesla vehicles reported more issues with their vehicles in their first 90 days of ownership than owners of vehicles made by the other 31 American auto brands in the study.

The average was 166 problems per 100 vehicles during the first 90 days of ownership. Tesla owners reported 250 problems per 100 vehicles. The highest quality brands were Dodge and Kia, which tied at 136 problems per 100 vehicles.

Tesla is widely seen as a technology stock, and many view its technology as top of the line. However, J.D. Power said the less technology that was in a company’s vehicles, the better they performed in the Initial Quality Survey because there are fewer problems to report.

CNBC added that Tesla wasn’t officially part of the study because it doesn’t give J.D. Power access to data on its customer vehicle registrations. However, J.D. Power decided to include the EV maker anyway using the approximately 1,250 owners it surveyed, most of whom own a Model 3.

Most of the problems reported with Tesla vehicles during the first 90 days were production-related and included issues like paint imperfections, poorly fitting body panels, difficulty opening the trunk and hood, wind noise and rattles and squeaks. Some also reported that the vehicle’s range was lower than expected and that the range gauge was not accurate.

Is Tesla’s market cap really bigger than Toyota’s?

June 15, 2020 Update: Tesla stock topped $1,000 last week, and although it has fallen back below that level today, the company’s market capitalization remains high. Many were reporting that Tesla’s market cap had surpassed that of Toyota, but Bloomberg notes that calculating the market cap can be done in two different ways. The key difference is whether treasury shares are included in the count or not.

Reddit user brandude87 created a Google sheet that’s been shared across the web and shows the 25 biggest automakers according to market value. Tesla was above Toyota for the first time last week when its market cap was listed at $183.67 billion, compared to Toyota’s $178.78 billion market cap.

However, investors who use financial data terminals saw that Tesla was still lagging behind Toyota by about $25 billion in market value. Market cap is calculated by multiplying the number of outstanding shares by the share price, but some disagree on what should be counted as outstanding shares.

Japanese companies like Toyota have been buying back shares to increase their returns to investors, and they tend to board those shares. These company-held shares are referred to as treasury shares, and how they are accounted for varies in different countries.

Japanese-listed companies typically include treasury shares in their market cap numbers. Since Toyota holds about 14% of its own shares, that makes a massive difference of about $30 billion in its market cap. Including that amount, Toyota’s market cap was over $200 billion. U.S.-listed companies don’t usually include treasury shares in their calculations of market cap, and Tesla doesn’t hold any treasury shares.

Tesla stock tops $1,000 amid interest in Nikola Corp.

June 11, 2020 Update: Tesla stock roared past $1,000 on Wednesday and remains above that level today. The automaker’s market capitalization is closing in on that of Toyota, which currently stands at around $209 billion.

Chief Executive Elon Musk told employees in an email on Wednesday that they must “go all out” on producing its electric semi. His urging came after investors expressed interest in Nikola Corp., another company that’s also working on an electric semi. Musk’s email was reported by Electrek.

Musk said in the email that the Tesla Semi has been in “limited production” thus far, which has enabled them to improve the design. So far there have only been two prototypes of the vehicle seen on public roads, so the reference to “limited production” is unclear.

When Tesla revealed its semi in 2017, it said the vehicle would land on the market in 2019. However, it was later delayed to late 2020 in “low-volume production.” Then in the first-quarter earnings report, the automaker said it was pushing the first deliveries of its semi into 2021.

Will Tesla stock surpass $1,000 a share?

June 5, 2020 Update: Tesla stock made a run at $1,000 a share earlier this year, but it came up a bit short of that psychological level. Now it looks like the shares are making another run at $1,000, and some analysts say they could reach as high as $1,200 or even $1,500.

T3 Trading Group analyst Scott Redler told Fox Business that he believes Tesla stock is on the way to being “considered a go-to stock, same as Apple, Microsoft and Amazon.” He cited technical patterns he believes indicate that the shares will approach $1,200.

Tesla stock topped $900 a share in February, and it’s now flirting with that price, approaching $900 before pulling back. The shares are up by more than 100% since late March, according to data from the Dow Jones Market Data Group. Tesla is the only company with a more than $100 billion market cap that has climbed more than 100% during that timeframe.

In a post for Investopedia, Alan Farley suggested an even higher price for Tesla stock. He noted that the shares opened today’s session less than 100 points below the record high of $969 set in February. The stock is up by more than 500 points off the low set in the midst of the pandemic. He believes the stage has been set for a breakout that carries Tesla stock into the quadruple digits.

Despite the challenges, like the fact that the automaker’s Fremont factor was closed during the pandemic, Farley sees reasons to expect the shares to soar even further. He noted that the company’s first-quarter earnings numbers beat estimates despite the pandemic. Its margins and free cash flow also increased during the quarter.

Additionally, he said Tesla’s order book had the largest backlog ever at the end of March since deliveries were lagging due to the shutdowns. He sees “few obstacles to a breakout above $1,000.”

Price cuts on Model 3, Model S and Model X

May 27, 2020 Update: Tesla stock slumped after it was reported that the company cut prices on three of its vehicles. The rest of the stock market is on the rise, so it appears that investors are taking the price cuts as a negative sign of demand. Tesla stock is also falling despite a significant price target increase from analysts at Wedbush.

Electrek reports that the Model 3, Model S and Model X have all received price cuts, while the Model Y is still at the same price. The price reductions came quietly overnight and slashed thousands of dollars off the prices.

The coronavirus pandemic shut down Tesla’s factories, but it may have shut down demand for the company’s vehicles as well. The price cuts do signal that demand has fallen, which would be a new problem for the automaker.

The price of the Model 3 has been slashed by $2,000 for all of the powertrain options. It now starts at $37,990 for the Standard Range Plus, which previously started at $39,990.

The price of the Model S has been cut even more with $5,000 coming off the base price, which is now only $74,990 for the Long Range Plus model and $94,990 for the most expensive model. The Model X has also received a $5,000 price cut, bringing its starting price below $80,000.

The Model Y did not receive a price cut, probably because Tesla is still working through the backlog of orders created before the vehicle became available. The margin on the Model Y is also slimmer than the margin on the other models, so the automaker probably can’t afford to cut prices on it yet.

Tesla stock: Lawsuit filed over reopening Fremont factory

May 11, 2020 Update: Tesla has filed a lawsuit against Alameda County over its refusal to allow the automaker to reopen its factory in Fremont, Calif. On Twitter, CEO Elon Musk announced plans to file the lawsuit against the county “immediately.” The county remains locked down amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and Musk has been extremely critical of the lockdown.

He also said Tesla will move its headquarters and “future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately.”

“If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependent on how Tesla is treated in the future,” he said.

He also pointed out that Tesla is the last automaker left in California.

Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives said in a report over the weekend that Musk’s tweet is aimed at putting heavy pressure on Alameda County to allow Tesla’s factory to reopen. It also doubles down on critical comments he made about the lockdown during the conference call weeks ago.

When the lawsuit is filed, it takes the matter to the courts. For now, the big question is about moving its manufacturing activities to the Gigafactory in Nevada or possibly to Texas, where the Cybertruck may be produced in the coming years.

He noted that plenty of states will be courting Tesla and offering tax incentives if it does end up moving its operations in the coming months. Any move would be a huge windfall for other states, although it could complicate the automaker’s manufacturing and logistics in the meantime.

“In a nutshell, this is a game of high stakes power and Musk just showed his cards,” Ives wrote. “Now all eyes move to the courts and the response from Alameda County and potentially California State officials.”

He maintains his Neutral rating and $600 price target on Tesla stock.

Production said to be halted at Chinese factory

May 7, 2020 Update: Tesla has halted production at its factory in Shanghai. Citing people familiar with the situation, Bloomberg reports that the automaker told many workers who were supposed to go back to work this week after the five-day Labor Day holiday to extend their holiday. The new return date is reportedly May 9. This means Tesla isn’t producing any cars worldwide. The company’s other plant in Fremont, Calif. has been idled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s unclear why the automaker suddenly halted production at its factory in China. However, Chinese tech news site 36kr said it was due to shortages of components. Bloomberg’s sources also said the automaker was dealing with technical problems with an important piece of manufacturing equipment that’s being repaired.

Tesla stock: earnings surprise to the upside

April 30, 2020 Update: Tesla stock slipped during regular trading hours today despite the surprise profit the EV maker posted on its first-quarter earnings report. The automaker reported earnings of 9 cents per share or $16 million compared to the GAAP loss of $4.10 per share it posted in last year’s first quarter. On an adjusted basis, Tesla reported $1.24 per share in earnings, compared to the year-ago adjusted loss of $2.90 per share.

Sales increased from $4.54 billion in the year-ago quarter to $5.99 billion in the first three months of 2020. Tesla stock initially climbed by more than 9% following the earnings release Wednesday afternoon. However, the shares struggled during regular trading hours today as the stock market as a whole slipped into the red.

Tesla stock downgraded amid negative oil prices

April 22, 2020 Update: Bank of America analyst John Murphy downgraded Tesla stock to Underperform just weeks after upgrading it. He does think the company is a leader in electric vehicles, but he also expects it to experience production issues.

He also predicts a spike and burnout pattern for Tesla’s new vehicles and continuing cash burn from low deliveries and production, high costs and construction of new factories. He also expects the automaker to face competition from other companies as they release new EVs.

BofAML has a $485 price target on Tesla stock, which suggests an approximately 30% decline in the shares.

GLJ Research analyst Gordon Johnson has an even more bearish view of Tesla stock in light of the negative oil prices. He expects the shares to plunge to $70 due to low gas prices, competition and slowing growth.

He believes Chinese retail investors have been driving Tesla’s rally since the company opened its factory in Shanghai. He also believes that even though the automaker has been selling a lot of cars in China, it won’t last. He pointed out that the company has launched eight new car variants over the last two years, but during that timeframe, its sales have only increased 5.5%.

Tesla jumps on Buy initiation, China sales

April 15, 2020 Update: Goldman Sachs analysts initiated coverage of Tesla stock with a Buy rating and $864 price target this week. They like the automaker’s long-term secular growth in the electric vehicle market. Analyst Mark Delaney expects Tesla’s “early-mover advantage and technology cadence” to enable it to continue to hold a solid share of the market and maintain strong gross margins.

He believes Tesla has a significant lead in electric vehicles and expects the Model Y to help the company gain more traction in the SUV market. He also believes the automaker is attractively valued based on its growing revenue. He also likes Tesla’s EBITDA margin compared to that of its peers. He expects Tesla to see a more than 20% compound annual growth rate for the next five years.

Tesla stock also climbed due to a jump in vehicle registrations in China, according to Reuters. Registrations of Tesla vehicles in China surged 450% in March on a month-over-month basis, according to data from auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Overall sales of vehicles in China plummeted more than 43% last month amid pressure from the coronavirus pandemic.

After this afternoon’s gains, Tesla stock is now up by more than 25% for the week.

Tesla stock rises amid record-high China sales

April 9, 2020 Update: Tesla stock has been on a bit of a run this week, alongside major indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500.

The company surprised investors with solid delivery numbers for the first quarter. Now it has surprised again with data from a third party. The China Passenger Car Association reported that the automaker sold 10,160 vehicles in China last month. That’s a new record for monthly sales in the biggest auto market in the world.

Tesla’s goal is to produce 150,000 Model 3 cars in its factory near Shanghai. The company sold about 30% of the battery electric vehicles sold in China in March, according to the CPCA. Tesla sold about 3,900 vehicles in China in February, an increase from the 2,620 vehicles it sold there in January.

Earlier this week, Jefferies analysts upgraded Tesla stock from Hold to Buy and cut their price target from $800 to $650. They said the automaker is the only one that is legacy-free and in a positive electric-vehicle-sum gain. The analysts also said Tesla is leading the technological transformation in the auto industry.

Also this week, Blue Line Capital President Bill Baruch told CNBC‘s Trading Nation that Tesla stock has a solid floor at the 200-day moving average, which is at $400. He added that that level also served as a ceiling for the shares previously. He believes Tesla stock could climb toward $600, adding that there are some “strong resistance levels” around that level. As of the time of this writing, the shares are up more than 3% at $569.14.

Tesla stock soars after Q1 delivery numbers

April 3, 2020 Update: Tesla stock surged late Thursday and continues to climb today after the company reported solid deliveries for the first quarter. The automaker delivered 88,400 vehicles during the first three months of the year, representing its best first quarter ever, even as the coronavirus continues to impact markets and economies. Analysts had been expecting Tesla to deliver 89,000 vehicles during the first quarter.

Based on that delivery number, Deutsche Bank analyst Emmanuel Rosner is looking for a profit of 5 cents per share, compared with the $1.25 per share in losses he had previously been expecting. Tesla is slated to release its first-quarter earnings report toward the end of April or in early May.

Despite the record first quarter, it’s important to point out that Tesla’s deliveries were down in the quarter compared to where they were in the three quarters before.

Tesla stock downgraded for risk

March 23, 2020 Update: Elazar Advisors downgraded Tesla stock in a Seeking Alpha post earlier this month, and today the firm offered a further explanation for the downgrade.  The firm needs three criteria before it rating a stock a Strong Buy.

The three criteria include 45% 12-month upside potential based on earnings one year out, multiplied by historic midpoint P/E. Since Tesla hasn’t had much history with earnings, it didn’t have a P/E, so Elazar just used 45 times. The second criteria is quarterly numbers ahead of consensus, while the third criteria is “wow,” referring to the story, the numbers or some other exciting factor.

As far as trading, the firm requires strong fundamentals, stocks that are moving up, and not allowing losses to run too far. Elazar sold Tesla stock because it felt the wow factor was gone, and losses from the highs were building. The firm also saw earnings risk as sales in Europe were plunging and the coronavirus was ramping up in China. Elazar sees continued risk for Tesla stock as the coronavirus impacts business operations.

Tesla stock continues to dive with the Dow

March 16, 2020 Update: Tesla stock plummeted more than 15% during regular trading hours today, falling alongside the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 9% drop. The virtual carnage on the stock market is ever more apparent as the day drags on. RBC analysts slashed their price target on Tesla stock due to the coronavirus pandemic, while Bernstein analysts said despite the 40% plunge, the shares still aren’t cheap.

In a note to investors today, RBC analyst Joseph Spak slashed his price target for Tesla stock from $530 to $380 per share and reiterated his Underperform rating. He expects demand for the automaker’s vehicles to be constrained during the second quarter, possibly forcing production to be scaled back.

He now estimates that Tesla will deliver 364,600 vehicles this year, a significant reduction from the 524,200 vehicles he had been estimating before. He noted that the company’s vehicles are luxury vehicles, and consumers will be struggling under the economic fallout of COVID-19. Thus, he believes investors won’t pay as high of a multiple as they had been willing to pay when delivery estimates were higher.

More hedge funds went long on Tesla stock in Q4

March 13, 2020 Update: Many hedge funds have reported that they’re shorting Tesla stock. However, it sounds like more funds became bullish on the stock during the fourth quarter. That means a significant number of hedge funds could have enjoyed significant gains during the first quarter, especially if they got out before the stock dropped.

Insider Monkey reports that as of the end of the fourth quarter, 51 of the hedge funds it tracks had long positions in Tesla stock. That’s a 59% increase from the end of the third quarter. In the fourth quarter of 2018, 47 hedge funds had long positions in Tesla.

Morgan Stanley cuts price target on Tesla stock

March 12, 2020 Update: Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas trimmed his price target for Tesla stock from $500 to $480 a share. He also cut his delivery estimate for this year to 452,000 vehicles. His previous estimate for 2020 was 500,000 vehicles, which he said is now his bull case. He reiterated his Underweight rating on the stock.

In a report today, Jonas cited the coronavirus pandemic as one reason for the reduction. He said the impact on profitability and working capital results in a lower forecast for cash flow. He now estimates Tesla’s cash flow at -$300,000 for this year on an adjusted basis, which results in his lower price target for Tesla stock.

He said one factor is a slight decrease in his expectations of demand rather than supply. He added that Tesla “is in pole position in EVs,” but he adds that the company’s vehicles are a “high priced and discretionary purchase.”

Jonas still forecasts a 10% increase in North American volumes this year, mostly due to what he believes to be a strong backlog for the Model Y offsetting potentially adverse vehicle sales in the first half of the year. He expects volumes in Europe to fall 10% year over year this year as incentives in important markets soften and amid a potential buyer’s strike before the Gigafactory opens in Europe.

According to the China Passenger Car Association, Tesla delivered 3,958 vehicles in February in China, compared to about 3,500 the month before. Jonas said this implies a production run rate of a little over 1,000 units per week as of the end of February. He assumes the production ramp in China will be delayed by about two months due to the coronavirus. He was previously expecting Tesla to be producing 3,000 vehicles per week at the China factory by April. Pushing the timeline back, he estimates between 100,000 and 120,000 vehicle deliveries in China for this year, depending on how the recovery from the coronavirus shutdown goes.

Tesla stock rises as Musk announces 1 millionth vehicle

March 10, 2020 Update: Tesla stock rallied along with the rest of the stock market today as CEO Elon Musk delivered some big news. Last night, he congratulated the Tesla team on manufacturing its 1 millionth vehicle.

The automaker has been delivering the Model S, Model X and Model 3, and deliveries of the Model Y are set to begin by the end of the first quarter.

Tesla stock plunged more than 13% yesterday amid a broad-based selloff in equities. However, today brought relief as the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq Composite all saw relief.

Tesla stock sells off with the stock market as oil prices plunge

March 9, 2020 Update: Tesla stock plunged amid worries about a price war in oil, which sent crude prices tumbling. Shares of Tesla fell by as much as 14% during regular trading hours, sliding as low as $605 before a broad-based equity selloff triggered a market-wide halt in trading. The last time Tesla stock was trading in this neighborhood was in late January.

Falling oil prices spurred by the breakdown of the OPEC+ alliance are bad for Tesla. Saudi Arabia and Russia are both pouring cheap oil into the market, Bloomberg reported. Cheap oil means lower gas prices, which makes Tesla’s expensive all-electric vehicles a harder sell.

Another problem for Tesla is the sharp downturn in China’s automaker. The nation plays an important role in the company’s growth story.

New Street-high price target for Tesla stock

March 3, 2020 Update: Tesla stock was in the green most of the day today, but by early afternoon, it had flipped into the red, falling as much as 2%. Two analysts weighed in on the EV maker today. One of them offered a Street-high target price, while the other said Tesla stock has more to fall before it will start to rise again.

JMP Securities analyst Joe Osha upgraded Tesla stock from Hold to Market Outperform and set his new price target at $1,060. Excluding price targets that look out years into the future, Osha’s is the highest from major Wall Street firms.

He said although the price target implies an earnings multiple that some may feel seems “excessive,” investors have been buying low-growth automakers at high multiples. Further, Tesla has notched a compound annual growth rate of 23%.

He also said that based on estimates for next year, Tesla stock is trading at around 20 times estimated earnings. That’s not much higher than the S&P 500, which is trading at about 18.2 times estimated earnings for 2021. Osha’s price target is based on 32 times estimated earnings and five times estimated revenue based on 2021 numbers.

He believes the recent pullback caused by the coronavirus presents an opportunity for investors to enter the stock. He also said investors may find more opportunities to buy Tesla stock in the first half of this year as further impacts from the coronavirus become apparent.

Osha also believes Tesla won’t see much competition from other automakers. He believes the electric vehicles from other automakers won’t be able to stand up to Tesla’s EVs.

Wait before buying

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas still sees Tesla stock as an Underweight and kept his price target at $500 per share. On Monday, he said it’s too early for investors to dive into the stock.

The coronavirus has taken a bite out of Tesla stock because of the important role China plays in the company’s growth. Jonas said he would be bearish on the automaker even without the coronavirus outbreak. He believes investors should prepare themselves for “challenging” earnings numbers for the first quarter.

Excluding the impact from the coronavirus, he expects the company’s first-quarter numbers to be weak. He noted that Tesla has been working through its China production and Model Y ramp and that demand in some parts of Europe has been weaker following a strong fourth quarter.

Jonas recommends that investors wait to see if a difficult first quarter and disruptions to supply occur before deciding whether to buy into Tesla stock again. The coronavirus uncertainty only adds to those concerns, he added.

Tesla up as short-seller calls it “biggest single stock bubble”

Mar. 2, 2020 Update: Tesla stock is back on the rise today following its biggest one-week lost since the initial public offering in June 2010. Longtime bear Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital published an update on his sort of the stock, calling February “a refreshing change” because it actually worked in his favor.

In his most recent letter, which was posted in its entirety by ValueWalk, he called CEO Elon Musk a “securities fraud-committing pathological liar” and again said why he believes the company is in danger. He noted that Tesla raised $2.3 billion in a recent stock offering just weeks after Musk said on the company’s earnings call that “it doesn’t make sense to raise money because we expect to generate cash despite this growth level.”

“In other words, if Elon Musk’s lips are moving, there’s an excellent chance he’s lying,” Spiegel wrote.

He also called investors who are long on Tesla “a mass of idiots bidding this stock to the moon because they think it’s a ‘hypergrowth’ company.” He alleged that the company’s earnings are usually inflated by $200 million or more each quarter due to “its massive ongoing warranty fraud.” He argued that Tesla actually lost money during the fourth quarter.

Spiegel believes demand for the Model Y is “disastrous,” arguing that it will cannibalize sales of the Model 3 and be up against “superior competition from… much nicer electric” vehicles. He called the Cybertruck a “joke of a ‘pickup truck.'”

He also called attention to the number of executive departures, saying that they must be leaving “because Musk is either an outright crook or the world’s biggest jerk to work for (or both).” He noted that Consumer Reports found Tesla’s Autopilot system to be unsafe.

You can read Spiegel’s letter on Tesla stock in its entirety here.

Whitney Tilson email on Tesla

Former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson told colleagues in an email seen by ValueWalk the following regarding Tesla stock.

Last week I met with someone who I can’t identify, so you’ll just have to trust me when I say he knows what he’s talking about. He told me that the full-self-driving milestone that Tesla announced it reached (something about being able to handle highway entry and exits I recall), which the company used to justify releasing deferred FSD revenue into its income statement (thereby boosting its reported profitability), is a “complete joke” – it wasn’t an important milestone in any way.

The same person, however, said Tesla has some of the best engineers working for it, its battery packs are TWICE as efficient as any other car maker, and he’s optimistic about the Model Y – he doesn’t think there will be production issues (in part because it’s just a slightly modified Model 3) and said they’ve fixed the cold-weather battery issue.

Ron Baron loves Tesla stock

Feb. 28, 2020 Update: Billionaire Ron Baron believes Tesla could be worth $1.5 trillion by 2030. He offered his latest insight into Tesla stock in an interview with Barron’s this week.

He bought almost all of his 1.62 million shares of Tesla stock between 2014 and 2016 at an average price of $219.14 apiece, amounting to $355 million. Baron noted that the company’s annual revenue was only $2.5 billion in 2013 but grew to $25 billion in 2019. He expects to see it hit $33 billion this year.

By 2024, he predicts Tesla’s revenue will be between $100 billion and $125 billion, and he expects Tesla stock to carrying it to a valuation of $300 billion to $400 billion. By 2030, he looks for Tesla’s revenue to be between $750 billion and $1 trillion with operating profit in the range of $150 billion to $200 billion. By then he expects Tesla to be worth $1.5 trillion.

Tesla stock tanks after news of weak China registrations

Feb. 27, 2020 Update: Tesla stock tanked by more than 10% during regular trading hours today as the rest of the stock market pulled back. The shares’ decline was also worsened by a report of disappointing registration numbers on Tesla vehicles in China before the coronavirus outbreak.

Registration data in China revealed a major month-over-month slowdown in demand there. Data from the government-operated China Automotive Information Net revealed that registrations of new Tesla vehicles tumbled 46% from December to January. There were 3,563 Tesla vehicles registered in China last month. Of those vehicles, 2,605 were models that were actually built in China.

Demand for electric vehicles in China has been waning over the last few months, although Tesla had managed to avoid the problems that struck the rest of the industry. However, January’s steep decline in registration numbers indicates that the U.S.-based automaker isn’t immune to the problems faced by the rest of the Chinese EV industry. The nation’s overall vehicle market looks on track for a third consecutive annual decline amid the economic slowdown, trade tensions and now the coronavirus outbreak.

Tesla stock plunged 7% right after the markets opened. The shares were up 86% year to date through Wednesday’s close. Some of the optimism that’s been driving the stock has been due to the start of production at the factory near Shanghai. The automaker started delivering China-built vehicles last month. Tesla hopes to tap into the tax exemptions and subsidies that are only available on domestically built vehicles.

Concerns about the coronavirus are weighing on both Tesla stock and the broader market. U.S. stock indices also plunged during regular trading hours today.

Tesla stock driven by ESG trends instead of short squeeze?

Feb. 24, 2020 Update: Tesla stock plunged along with the rest of the stock market today, falling more than 7% to $834 per share. The shares have bucked the wider trend of the stock market in recent weeks, continuing to rise even while stock indices were falling, but that’s certainly not the case today.

One firm had some interesting insight into what may have been moving Tesla stock over the last several months. Jefferies analyst Christopher Wood said in a note dated Feb. 20 that the trend in ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) investing may actually be responsible for a significant portion of the stock’s movement.

It has been widely reported that a short squeeze has driven the meteoric rise in Tesla stock, but Wood notes that ESG funds have seen massive flows recently. Tesla may be the quintessential ESG stock.

Wood argues that “big money can be made” in identifying stocks that are likely to capture ESG fund flows. He also suggests that the massive flows to ESG funds may actually be what has been driving the automaker’s shares rather than short covering. He pointed out that Tesla stock had surged 119% so far this year by the time of his report, and its short interest declined only 13% during that same timeframe.

tesla stock

Given the number of hedge fund managers who have said that they are still short Tesla, it is an interesting argument to consider.

Tesla closes stock offering with $2.31 billion gain

Feb. 20, 2020 Update: Tesla informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has successfully closed its latest stock offering. The automaker raked in $2.31 billion, easily unloading all 2.65 million shares. The underwriters also immediately exercised their options to buy shares, although they had 30 days to do so.

The total share sale in the offering was 3.05 million shares, which sold for $767 each. The amount expected to be raised was $2.01 billion to $2.31 billion, and Tesla easily managed the full amount at the high end of the range. The automaker said it would use the proceeds for general corporate purposes and to strengthen its balance sheet.

Even though share offerings dilute current shareholders’ investments, Tesla stock soared since the latest offering. However, on Thursday, the shares tumbled following a report about how McAfee was able to trick a Model S into speeding up by 50 miles per hour — using only a piece of tape.

These major funds bought Tesla stock right before it soared

February 18, 2020 Update: Tesla stock continues to soar, unimpeded by anything else in the market. The shares are up another 6% in early trading today after the long three-day holiday weekend. Now we’re hearing that two major hedge funds bought shares just before the latest meteoric rise.

Hyperion Asset Management’s Global Growth Companies Fund is in the top 1% of hedge funds based on returns. It has managed a 28% return over the last three years, surpassing 99% of its peers.

According to Bloomberg, the fund has been focused on investing in companies that can thrive when growth is low through the efficient use of technology. The strategy emphasizes companies that center on different trends of themes Hyperion management believe will last for at least 10 years. Hyperion usually holds stocks for 10 years, and its top holdings include Amazon, Microsoft and Visa.

Another fund, Renaissance Technologies, also invested in Tesla stock before the latest meteoric rise. According to Business Insider, the fund boosted its holdings in the EV maker in December to 3.9 million shares. At the time, the position was worth approximately $1.6 billion. The shares are now worth nearly $3.2 billion following the 91% increase in their value so far this year.

Charlie Munger: I would never buy or short Tesla stock

Feb. 13, 2020 Update: Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway, longtime business partner of Warren Buffett, spoke about Tesla during his address at Daily Journal Corp’s annual meeting. He said he would never buy or short Tesla stock. He called Tesla CEO Elon Musk “peculiar,” adding that “he may overestimate himself, but he may not be wrong all the time.”

Tesla stock initially declined today after the company said in a statement that it will sell $2.3 billion in shares to raise capital. However, after the premarket decline, the shares recovered quickly and were up nearly 2% by 11 a.m. Eastern.

Model Y is one of the most-anticipated vehicles

Feb. 11, 2020 Update: Tesla stock finally seems to be taking a breather today with a climb of less than 1% at midday. Of course, it takes hardly any news to lift Tesla stock, and what we have to report could serve as a bit more fuel for the fire.

Tesla’s Model Y is one of the most-anticipated vehicles for 2020 so far. PartCatalog put together a list of the most-anticipated vehicles for each state in the U.S., and the Model Y captured California, Washington and Hawaii. It’s no surprise that Tesla took its home state of California, but it is interesting that there’s interest in two other states as well.

The most-anticipated vehicle is the much-hyped Ford Bronco with 19 states. The Chevy Corvette Stingray is in second place with 13 states, and the Land Rover Defender is in third place with six states.

tesla stock model y
Image source: partcatalog.com

Tesla stock climbs as Shanghai factory reopens

Feb. 10, 2020 Update: Tesla stock continued its rapid climb early today as the company reopened production at its factory in Shanghai. The shares briefly topped the $800 level again but dropped back below that level as the early hours of trading continued.

Reuters reported on Friday that Shanghai authorities said they would help companies like Tesla restart product as quickly as possible. The factory there reopened today after an extended Lunar New Year holiday caused by the spread of the coronavirus. Tesla stock continues to be very speculative as today’s gains come days after it was revealed that production in China would restart today.

A short squeeze is also driving Tesla stock as short-sellers are being forced to cover their positions. However, some short-sellers aren’t willing to give up yet, as evidenced by the letters from hedge funds that continue to short the stock.

Concern over Tesla

Feb. 7, 2020 Update: Gene Munster of Loup Ventures, previously known for his analyst reports on Apple, is concerned about Tesla. The venture capitalist noted in a blog post that Tesla stock has soared, doubling the company’s market capitalization over the last month and tripling it since the end of the third quarter. He also said that the excitement that has driven the meteoric rise in Tesla stock presents risk in the short term. He believes bulls may be overlooking a few things.

For example, he expects the first quarter to bring a sequential decline in deliveries. The automaker delivered 112,000 vehicles during the fourth quarter. Munster pointed out that Tesla removed an important statement from its fourth-quarter letter to shareholders. In the second and third quarters of 2019, the company wrote that “deliveries should increase sequentially,” but that statement doesn’t appear in the Q4 letter.

Tesla stock and China

Munster believes it means a significant decline quarter over quarter is in order. He also noted that the company said production will probably outpace deliveries this year. Model 3 production is set to ramp in Shanghai, and Model Y production is beginning in Fremont.

The venture capitalist also noted that the first quarter is usually seasonally weak for automakers due to poor weather, discounts at the end of the year and releases of new models. Tesla also said in its fourth-quarter letter that its finished vehicle inventory level was at 11 days of sales, the lowest in the last four years. Munster said that means the automaker delivered every vehicle it could in the fourth quarter, “leaving many showrooms empty and online inventory searches yielding ‘no results.'”

He also notes that the company has been teasing its upcoming Plaid powertrain, and many Model S and X buyers are likely to wait until it is released. Other factors include the coronavirus impact on Shanghai production.

Tesla stock rumbled 0.46% to $745.52 during regular trading hours.

Hedge funds short Musk

Feb. 6, 2020 Update: Aristides Capital published an update on its short of Tesla stock in its letter to investors dated Feb. 3, 2020, which was reviewed by ValueWalk. Managing Member Christopher Brown had some very harsh words for Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

After doing well shorting Tesla stock most of the year in 2019, Brown said he should have stayed away after covering most of the position in the low $200s. However, he said he dug in a bit too hard in the fourth quarter, explaining that he has written so much on Tesla stock that he has lost his willingness to change to a different view on it.

Aristides covered some of its short of Tesla stock before the company posted its earnings and then covered most of the rest of the position by the end of the month. Brown noted that when companies shift from needing a continual supply of capital to being sustainable on their own, which is how Tesla fans now see the company, the valuation gets expanded.

Another problem for his short of Tesla stock is that the company’s EV competitors didn’t gain as much ground in the market as he thought they would have by now. Additionally, he thought Tesla’s “poor reliability would catch up to it” as the owner base expanded beyond fanboys, but that didn’t happen. Brown sees the automaker as “one of the least reliable brands and also the most loved/highest in loyalty.”

Elon Musk a liar?

Finally, Model 3 orders in the U.S. seems to be going much better than what Brown had expected. But it was his words about Elon Musk that really had an impact.

“Yes, Elon Musk is a narcist and a liar, yes, he has committed multi-billion-dollar securities fraud on more than one occasion, and yes, there is certainly the appearance of some accounting shenanigans at Tesla, but none of that seems to matter,” he wrote. “It’s a ‘cool’ car with a CEO who lied to bailout [sic] Solar City, lied about a takeover, libeled an actual hero, attacks journalists and whistleblowers, and never faces any serious consequences for it whatsoever.”

He also said he won’t promise that he will never short Tesla again, but if he does, it will be because he sees “a huge near-term edge on some sort of catalyst.”

Updates on Tesla stock

Dorsheimer continues to see Tesla as “the leading EV juggernaut and expects the upcoming battery day in April to be a major milestone to help investors understand the automaker’s lead in the EV maker. However, he also believes that patient investors will see a better entry point for Tesla stock if they wait.

Interestingly, advice on Tesla stock is trending so much on Feb. 5 that if you type in “should I” into Google, the top two auto-fill suggestions are “should I buy Tesla stock” and “should I sell Tesla stock.”

Previously: Tesla stock continues its hot streak on Feb. 4, 2020 with another $200 gain in a single day. The shares topped $700 on Monday and then $900 on Tuesday following another 20% gain. The EV maker’s stock has been on a run for months, and it received yet another shot of adrenaline last week from the fourth-quarter earnings release. Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock shows no signs of slowing down, and short-sellers have really been taking a hit on it.

Tesla stock: running of the bulls

Shares popped on Feb. 4 following bullish commentary from billionaire Ron Baron on CNBC‘s Squawk Box. The automaker’s valuation topped $160 billion, dwarfing General Motors’ $49.4 billion market capitalization.

In fact, GM, Ford and Chrysler are worth a combined $110 billion, and their combined revenue in 2019 was $425 billion, compared to Tesla’s $25 billion in revenue. Tesla’s stock rise puts it on track to compete with Toyota, which is the most valuable automaker in the world at a market cap of $232.1 billion.

Baron told CNBC that he sees Tesla hitting “at least” $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade. He also said he sees “a lot of growth opportunities from that point going forward.” His fund Baron Capital owns almost 1.63 million shares of Tesla stock, and he said they won’t be selling any of those shares. He believes the latest bull run in the shares is “just the beginning” and predicts that the automaker “could be one of the largest companies in the whole world.”

Tesla stock ratings

Numerous analysts updated their Tesla stock ratings following the company’s 4Q19 earnings release. The most astonishing price target increase came from ARK Invest analysts, who wrote on Feb. 1, 2020 that they expect the shares to be worth $7,000 by 2024. Interestingly, that’s their base case.

Their bull case puts Tesla stock at $15,000 or higher, while their bear case has it at $1,500, well above the $900 current price. One of the biggest factors in their price target increase is their expectation that the automaker will be able to slash costs and boost margins. They see an 80% probability of Tesla reaching 40% margins.

Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives boosted his price target for Tesla stock from $500 to $710 following the company’s Jan. 29 earnings release. He set his bull case for the shares at $1,000 and said he expects the “bull party” to continue. He has a Neutral rating on the stock.

Other ratings

Feb. 5, 2020 Update: Analysts at Canaccord Genuity downgraded Tesla stock in a note dated Feb. 4, 2020. Analyst Jed Dorsheimer said he now rates the shares at Hold, down from Buy, with a $750 price target. Tesla stock powered past $960 per share in trading on Feb. 4 but then pulled back on Feb. 5 following the firm’s downgrade. The stock plunged more than 12% to fall closer to $775 per share.

In his report, Dorsheimer said he saw a balanced risk/ reward for the shares following this week’s meteoric rise. He said they saw a clear buy signal for the stock entering the year, but he believes the coronavirus in China is a clear headwind for Tesla’s new Shanghai factory, which he said calls for “a more pragmatic position.”

“Given the 3,000 per week China Model 3 production expectations in a country that remains on lockdown, we feel a reset of expectations in Q1 is likely and thus needs to be reflected in the valuation,” he wrote.

Ivey wrote in an update on Feb. 3 that he believes the automaker will see 150,000 units of demand out of China alone in the coming year. He also believes the company’s guidance of achieving 500,000 deliveries in 2020 is achievable. He believes Wall Street is looking for between 530,000 and 550,000 deliveries in 2020. The big factor in the number of deliveries to expect include the automaker’s ability to ramp production and demand in China this year and next.

Analysts can’t keep up with price surge

Canaccord Genuity wrote analyst Jed Dorsheimer wrote in his Jan. 30, 2020 update on Tesla stock that the company is “feeling more like Space X.” The automaker posted $7.4 billion in revenue and earnings of $2.14 per share for 4Q19, compared to consensus estimates of $7 billion and $1.77 per share. Dorsheimer said one thing that’s important to note is that the company ended the fourth quarter with $6.3 billion in cash and generated $1 billion in free cash flow, which he believes should quiet concerns about the automaker’s balance sheet. He had a Buy rating and new $750 price target on Tesla stock as of Jan. 30, but the shares have now surpassed $900, putting that target underwater.

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas remains extremely bearish on Tesla stock with an Underweight rating and $360 price target as of Jan. 31, 2020. He said that in the almost nine years he has been covering the stock, investor commentary has not been as optimistic as it is now following the 4Q19 earnings release. Jonas downgraded the shares to Underweight on Jan. 16.

Hedge fund views of Tesla stock

Multiple hedge funds have covered Tesla stock in their letters to investors. Lakewood Capital wrote about its short of the shares in its fourth-quarter letter to investors dated Jan. 14, 2020. Unsurprisingly, the fund’s short of the automaker was its biggest losing position during the fourth quarter at 85 basis points.

The shares rallied into the end of the year after the company posted a “slight” profit in its third-quarter earnings release, Lakewood’s Anthony Bozza wrote.

“We’ve done this long enough to know that sentiment on stocks like Tesla can be nearly impossible to predict and are [sic] subject to large, sudden price fluctuations, and hence, we size our shorts prudently,” he told investors.

He described the fourth-quarter rally as “frustrating” but added that the position didn’t significantly detract from the fund’s full-year 2019 results.

Although we have seen this story countless times, what’s rather unique in the case of Tesla is the sheer scale of the situation,” he added.

Short-sellers feel the pain

Data from S3 Partners reveals that short-sellers have lost over $8 billion just in the last month alone. On Feb. 3, 2020, short-sellers lost a staggering $2.5 billion just in a single day. Despite the sizable paper losses they have recorded in the last few years, short interest in Tesla remains high with about 24.4 million shares being borrowed and bets against the company valued at more than $15 billion. That amounts to more than 18% of Tesla’s float.

Tesla is the most-shorted stock, and short interest is significantly higher than interest in the next two companies with the second- and third-biggest short interest. Less than 1% of the float is being bet against Apple and Microsoft each.

Short-sellers have been forced to cover some of their position in Tesla. According to S3, they have covered $12.6 billion worth of shares since they were below $200 in June 2019. It’s likely that some of the post-earnings run in late January and early February is the result of short-sellers finally caving and covering their positions.

The post Tesla stock could triple in price, according to one bull appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

When Military Rule Supplants Democracy

When Military Rule Supplants Democracy

Authored by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute,

If you wish to understand how democracy ended…

Published

on

When Military Rule Supplants Democracy

Authored by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute,

If you wish to understand how democracy ended in the United States and the European Union, please watch this interview with Tucker Carlson and Mike Benz. It is full of the most stunning revelations that I have heard in a very long time.

The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States.

“What I’m describing is military rule,” says Mike Benz.

“It’s the inversion of democracy.”

Please watch below...

I have also included a transcript of the above interview. In the interests of time – this is AI generated. So, there still could be little glitches – I will continue to clean up the text over the next day or two.

Note: Tucker (who I consider a friend) has given me permission to directly upload the video above and transcript below – he wrote this morning in response to my request:

Oh gosh, I hope you will. It’s important.

Honestly, it is critical that this video be seen by as many people as possible. So, please share this video interview and transcript.

Five points to consider that you might overlook;

First– the Aspen Institute planning which is described herein reminds me of the Event 201 planning for COVID.

Second– reading the comments to Tucker’s original post on “X” with this interview, I am struck by the parallels between the efforts to delegitimize me and the new efforts to delegitimize Mike Benz. People should be aware that this type of delegitimization tactic is a common response by those behind the propaganda to anyone who reveals their tactics and strategies. The core of this tactic is to cast doubt about whether the person in question is unreliable or a sort of double agent (controlled opposition).

Third– Mike Benz mostly focuses on the censorship aspect of all of this, and does not really dive deeply into the active propaganda promotion (PsyWar) aspect.

Fourth– Mike speaks of the influence mapping and natural language processing tools being deployed, but does not describe the “Behavior Matrix” tool kit involving extraction and mapping of emotion. If you want to dive in a bit further into this, I covered this latter part October 2022 in a substack essay titled “Twitter is a weapon, not a business”.

Fifth– what Mike Benz is describing is functionally a silent coup by the US Military and the Deep State. And yes, Barack Obama’s fingerprints are all over this.

Yet another “conspiracy theory” is now being validated.

Transcript of the video:

Tucker Carlson:

The defining fact of the United States is freedom of speech. To the extent this country is actually exceptional, it’s because we have the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. We have freedom of conscience. We can say what we really think.

There’s no hate speech exception to that just because you hate what somebody else thinks. You cannot force that person to be quiet because we’re citizens, not slaves. But that right, that foundational right that makes this country what it is, that right from which all of the rights flow is going away at high speed in the face of censorship. Now, modern censorship, there’s no resemblance to previous censorship regimes in previous countries and previous eras. Our censorship is affected on the basis of fights against disinformation and malformation. And the key thing to know about this is that they’re everywhere. And of course, this censorship has no reference at all to whether what you’re saying is true or not.

In other words, you can say something that is factually accurate and consistent with your own conscience. And in previous versions of America, you had an absolute right to say those things. but now – because someone doesn’t like them or because they’re inconvenient to whatever plan the people in power have, they can be denounced as disinformation and you could be stripped of your right to express them either in person or online. In fact, expressing these things can become a criminal act and is it’s important to know, by the way, that this is not just the private sector doing this.

These efforts are being directed by the US government, which you pay for and at least theoretically owned. It’s your government, but they’re stripping your rights at very high speed. Most people understand this intuitively, but they don’t know how it happens. How does censorship happen? What are the mechanics of it?

Mike Benz is, we can say with some confidence, the expert in the world on how this happens. Mike Benz had the cyber portfolio at the State Department. He’s now executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, and we’re going to have a conversation with him about a very specific kind of censorship. By the way, we can’t recommend strongly enough, if you want to know how this happens, Mike Benz is the man to read.

But today we just want to talk about a specific kind of censorship and that censorship that emanates from the fabled military industrial complex, from our defense industry and the foreign policy establishment in Washington. That’s significant now because we’re on the cusp of a global war, and so you can expect censorship to increase dramatically. And so with that, here is Mike Benz, executive director of Foundation for Freedom online. Mike, thanks so much for joining us and I just can’t overstate to our audience how exhaustive and comprehensive your knowledge is on this topic. It’s almost unbelievable. And so if you could just walk us through how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors and DOD and just the whole cluster, the constellation of defense related publicly funded institutions, stripped from us,

Mike Benz:      

Our freedom of speech. Sure. One of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of internet freedom and it switched from internet freedom to internet censorship because free speech on the internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the internet in 1991. We quickly discovered through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence services, that people were using the internet to congregate on blogs and forums. And at this point, free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and our sort of CIA cutout NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow authoritarian governments as they were sort of build essentially the internet free speech allowed kind of insta regime change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishments State Department agenda.     

Google is a great example of this. Google began as a DARPA grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs, and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA NSA program to chart how “birds of a feather flock together online” through search engine aggregation. And then one year later they launched Google and then became a military contractor. Quickly thereafter, they got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software essentially, and the ability to use free speech on the internet as a way to circumvent state control over media over in places like Central Asia and all around the world, was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged. And all of the internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state – VPNs, virtual private networks to hide your IP address, tour the dark web, to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, end-to-end encrypted chats.    

All of these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA NSA projects to be able to help intelligence backed groups, to overthrow governments that were causing a problem to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014 when there began to be an about face on internet freedom and its utility.

Now, the high watermark of the sort of internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in 2011, 2012 when you had this one by one – all of the adversary governments of the Obama Administration: Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online during those periods. There was a famous phone call from Google’s Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election.            

So free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all the NGOs, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbas broke away and they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014. And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO – as they saw it. The fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Gerasimov doctrine, which was named after this Russian military, a general who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed.

(Gerasimov doctrine is the idea that) you don’t need to win military skirmishes to take over central and eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem because that’s what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it’s infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy mediaAn industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the British Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit, essentially infrastructure that was created initially stationed in Germany and in Central and eastern Europe to create psychological buffer zones, basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies to censor Russian propaganda and then to censor domestic, right-wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.

So you had the systematic targeting by our state department, by our intelligence community, by the Pentagon of groups like Germany’s AFD, the alternative for Deutsche Land there and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now, when Brexit happened in 2016, that was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t have to worry just about central and eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds. And so Brexit was June, 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets if they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it’s not just Russian propaganda this, these were now Brexit groups or groups like Mateo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox Party.

And now at the time NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It’s losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right-wing populace groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when the US was pressuring this energy diversification policy. And so they made the argument after Brexit, now the entire rules-based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media because Brexit would give rise to Frexit in France with marine Lapin just Brexit in Spain with a Vox party to Italy exit in Italy, to Grexit in Germany, to Grexit in Greece, the EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired. And then not only that, now that NATO’s gone, now there’s no enforcement arm for the International Monetary fund, the IMF or the World Bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War II would collapse. So you can imagine the reaction,

Tucker Carlson:

Wait, ask

Mike Benz:      

Later. Donald Trump won the 2016 election. So

Tucker Carlson:

Well, you just told a remarkable story that I’ve never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the State Department pause for a moment and say, wait a second, we’ve just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries. I think that’s what you’re saying. They feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way, and they went to war against that.

Mike Benz:      

Yes. Now there’s a rich history of this dating back to the Cold War. The Cold War in Europe was essentially a similar struggle for hearts and minds of people, especially in central and Eastern Europe in these sort of Soviet buffer zones. And starting in 1948, the national security state was really established. Then you had the 1947 Act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency. You had this world order that had been created with all these international institutions, and you had the 1948 UN Declaration on human rights, which forbid the territorial acquisition by military force. So you can no longer run a traditional military occupation government in the way that we could in 1898, for example, when we took the Philippines, everything had to be done through a sort of political legitimization process whereby there’s some ratification from the hearts and minds of people within the country.  

Now, often that involves simply puppet politicians who are groomed as emerging leaders by our State Department. But the battle for hearts and minds had been something that we had been giving ourselves a long moral license leash, if you will, since 1948. One of the godfathers of the CIA was George Kennan. So, 12 days after we rigged the Italian election in 1948 by stuffing ballot boxes and working with the mob, we published a memo called the Inauguration of organized political warfare where Kennan said, “listen, it’s a mean old world out there. We at the CIA just rigged the Italian election. We had to do it because if the Communist won, maybe there’d never be another election in Italy again, but it’s really effective, guys. We need a department of dirty tricks to be able to do this around the world. And this is essentially a new social contract we’re constructing with the American people because this is not the way we’ve conducted diplomacy before, but we are now forbidden from using the war department in 1948.”

They also renamed the war department to the Defense Department. So again, as part of this diplomatic onslaught for political control, rather than it looking like it’s overt military control, but essentially what ended up happening there is we created this foreign domestic firewall. We said that we have a department of dirty tricks to be able to rig elections, to be able to control media, to be able to meddle in the internal affairs of every other plot of dirt in the country.

But this sort of sacred dirt in which the American homeland sits, they are not allowed to operate there. The State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA are all expressly forbidden from operating on US soil. Of course, this is so far from the case, it’s not even funny, but that’s because of a number of laundering tricks that they’ve developed over 70 years of doing this.

But essentially there was no moral quandary at first with respect to the creation of the censorship industry. When it started out in Germany and in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and in Sweden and Finland, there began to be a more diplomatic debate about it after Brexit, and then it became full throttle when Trump was elected. And what little resistance there was was washed over by the rise in saturation of Russiagate, which basically allowed them to not have to deal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people.

Because if Trump was a Russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue. It was a national security issue. It was only after Russiagate died in July, 2019 when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for three hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing. After two and a half years of investigation that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place where they took all of this censorship architecture, spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the DOJ, and then the thousands of government funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms were all basically transited from a foreign predicate, a Russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it’s actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself.

And so by that, they were able to launder the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit just in time for the 2020 election.

Tucker Carlson:

I mean, it’s almost beyond belief that this has happened. I mean, my own father worked for the US government in this business in the information war against the Soviet Union and was a big part of that. And the idea that any of those tools would be turned against American citizens by the US government, I think I want to think was absolutely unthinkable in say 1988. And you’re saying that there really hasn’t been anyone who’s raised objections and it’s absolutely turned inward to manipulate and rig our own elections as we would in say Latvia.

Mike Benz:      

Yeah. Well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives that is the same people who argued that we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia, and that’s the predicate for getting rid of Milošević or any other country around the world where we basically overthrow governments in order to preserve democracy. Well, if the democracy threat is homegrown now, then that becomes, then suddenly these people all have new jobs moving on the US side, and I can go through a million examples of that. But one thing on what you just mentioned, which is that from their perspective, they just weren’t ready for the internet. 2016 was really the first time that social media had reached such maturity that it began to eclipse legacy media. I mean, this was a long time coming. I think folks saw this building from 2006 through 2016.

Internet 1.0 didn’t even have social media from 1991 to 2004, there was no social media at all. 2004, Facebook came out 2005, Twitter, 2006, YouTube 2007, the smartphone. And in that initial period of social media, nobody was getting subscriber ships at the level where they actually competed with legacy news media. But over the course of being so initially even these dissonant voices within the us, even though they may have been loud in moments, they never reached 30 million followers. They never reached a billion impressions a year type thing. As a uncensored mature ecosystem allowed citizen journalists and independent voices to be able to outcompete legacy news media. This induced a massive crisis both in our military and in our state department in intelligence services. I’ll give you a great example of this in 2019 at meeting of the German Marshall Fund, which is an institution that goes back to the US basically, I don’t want to say bribe, but essentially the soft power economic soft power projection in Europe as part of the reconstruction of European governments after World War ii, to be able to essentially pay them with Marshall Fund dollars and then in return, they basically were under our thumb in terms of how they reconstructed.

But the German Marshall Fund held a meeting in 2019. They held a million of these, frankly, but this was when a four star general got up on the panel and posed the question, what happens to the US military? What happens to the national security state when the New York Times is reduced to a medium sized Facebook page? And he posed this thought experiment as an example of we’ve had these gatekeepers, we’ve had these bumper cars on democracy in the form a century old relationship with legacy media institutions. I mean, our mainstream media is not in any shape or form even from its outset, independent from the national security state, from the state Department, from the war department, you had the initial, all of the initial broadcast news companies, NBC, ABC and CBS were all created by Office of War Information Veterans from the War department’s effort in World War ii.

You had these Operation Mockingbird relationships from the 1950s through the 1970s. Those continued through the use of the National Endowment for Democracy and the privatization of intelligence capacities in the 1980s under Reagan. There’s all sorts of CIA reading room memos you can read even on cia.gov about those continued media relations throughout the 1990s. And so you always had this backdoor relationship between the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all of the major broadcast media corporations. By the way, Rupert Murdoch and Fox are part of this as well. Rupert Murdoch was actually part of the National Endowment for Democracy Coalition in 1983 when it was as a way to do CIA operations in an aboveboard way after the Democrats were so ticked off at the CIA for manipulating student movements in the 1970s. But essentially there was no CIA intermediary to random citizen journalist accounts. There was no Pentagon backstop.

You couldn’t get a story killed. You couldn’t have this favors for favors relationship. You couldn’t promise access to some random person with 700,000 followers who’s got an opinion on Syrian gas. And so this induced, and this was not a problem for the initial period of social media from 2006 to 2014 because there were never dissident groups that were big enough to be able to have a mature enough ecosystem on their own. And all of the victories on social media had gone in the way of where the money was, which was from the State Department and the Defense Department and the intelligence services. But then as that maturity happened, you now had this situation after the 2016 election where they said, okay, now the entire international order might come undone. 70 years of unified foreign policy from Truman until Trump are now about to be broken.

And we need the same analog control systems. We had to be able to put bumper cars on bad stories or bad political movements through legacy media relationships and contacts we now need to establish and consolidate within the social media companies. And the initial predicate for that was Russiagate. But then after Russiagate died and they used a simple democracy promotion predicate, then it gave rise to this multi-billion dollar censorship industry that joins together the military industrial complex, the government, the private sector, the civil society organizations, and then this vast cobweb of media allies and professional fact checker groups that serve as this sort of sentinel class that surveys every word on the internet.

Tucker Carlson:

Thank you again for this almost unbelievable explanation of why this is happening. Can you give us an example of how it happens and just pick one among, I know countless examples of how the national security state lies to the population, censors the truth in real life.

Mike Benz:      

Yeah, so we have this state department outfit called the Global Engagement Center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel who described himself as Obama’s propaganda in chief. He was the undersecretary for public affairs essentially, which is the liaison office role between the state department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media.

Tucker Carlson:

May I add something to that as someone I know – Rick Stengel. He was at one point a journalist and Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against Free Speech.

Mike Benz:      

Yeah, he wrote a whole book on it and he published an op-Ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it and he made the argument that we just went over here that essentially the Constitution was not prepared for the internet and we need to get rid of the First Amendment accordingly. And he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of Time Magazine. And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement Center, which was the first government censorship operation within the federal government, but it was foreign facing, so it was okay. Now, at the time, they used the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform in the US because at the time there were these ISIS attacks that were, and we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook.

And so the Global Engagement Center was established essentially to be a state department entanglement with the social media companies to basically put bumper cars on their ability to platform accounts. And one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which it’s called Natural Language processing. It is a artificial intelligence machine learning ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the internet and create this vast topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influences are, what they’re talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending, and to be able to create this sort of network graph in order to know who to target and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS folks were talking about on Twitter.

When Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department was expecting these promotions to the White House National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who I should remind viewers was also Secretary of State under Obama, actually ran the State Department. But these folks were all expecting promotions on November 8th, 2016 and were unceremoniously put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to one underdog according to the New York Times the day of the election. And when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills, coercing governments for sanctions. The State Department led the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation. In 2014, these State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to censor the right-wing populous groups in Europe and as a boomerang impact to censor populace groups who were affiliated in the us.

So you had folks who went from the state department directly, for example, to the Atlanta Council, which was this major facilitator between government to government censorship. The Atlanta Council is a group that is one of Biden’s biggest political backers. They bill themselves as NATO’s Think Tank. So they represent the political census of NATO. And in many respects, when NATO has civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to synchronize with military action or region, the Atlantic Council essentially is deployed to consensus build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to nato.

Now, the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. A lot of people don’t even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on the board of a single organization that’s kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry. They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Atlantic Council in January, 2017 moved immediately to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank tank on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for to have us mimic European censorship laws. One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called Nets DG in August, 2017, which was essentially kicked off the era of automated censorship in the us. What Nets DG required was, unless social media platforms wanted to pay a $54 million fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than 48 hours that had been identified as hate speech, they would be fined basically into bankruptcy when you aggregate 54 million over tens of thousands of posts per day. And the safe haven around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence based censorship technologies, which had been again created by DARPA to take on ISIS to be able to scan and ban speech automatically.

And this gave rise to what I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to sensor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code. And the way this is done is by aggregating basically the field of censorship science fuses together two disparate groups of study, if you will. There’s the sort of political and social scientists who are the sort of thought leaders of what should be censored, and then there are the sort of quants, if you will. These are the programmers, the computational data scientists, computational Linguistics University.

There’s over 60 universities now who get federal government grants to do the censorship work and the censorship preparation work where what they do is they create these code books of the language that people use the same way they did for isis. They did this, for example, with COVID. They created these COVID lexicons of what dissident groups were saying about mandates, about masks, about vaccines, about high profile individuals like Tony Fauci or Peter Daszak or any of these protected VIPs and individuals whose reputations had to be protected online.

And they created these code books, they broke things down into narratives. The Atlanta Council, for example, was a part of this government funded consortium, something called the Virality Project, which mapped 66 different narratives that dissidents we’re talking about around covid, everything from COVID origins to vaccine efficacy. And then they broke down these 66 claims into all the different factual sub claims. And then they plugged these into these essentially machine learning models to be able to have a constant world heat map of what everybody was saying about covid. And whenever something started trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts. They did this in the 2020 election with mail-in ballots. It was the same. Wait,

Tucker Carlson:

There’s so much here and it’s so shocking. So you’re saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the US Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle?

Mike Benz:      

Yes, they did this through the, so the two most censored events in human history, I would argue to date are the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, and I’ll explain how I arrived there.

So the 2020 election was determined by mail-in ballots, and I’m not weighing into the substance of whether mail-in ballots were or were not a legitimate or safe and reliable form of voting. That’s a completely independent topic from my perspective.

Then the censorship issue one, but the censorship of mail-in ballots is really one of the most extraordinary stories in our American history. I would argue what happened was is you had this plot within the Department of Homeland Security. Now this gets back to what we were talking about with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. You had this group within the Atlanta Council and the Foreign Policy Establishment, which began arguing in 2017 for the need for a permanent domestic censorship government office to serve as a quarterback for what they called a whole of society counter misinformation, counter disinformation alliance.

That just means censorship. To counter “miss-dis-info”. But their whole society model explicitly proposed that we need every single asset within society to be mobilized in a whole of society effort to stop misinformation online. It was that much of an existential threat to democracy, but they fixated in 2017 that it had to be centered within the government because only the government would have the clout and the coercive threat powers and the perceived authority to be able to tell the social media companies what to do to be able to summon a government funded NGO Swarm to create that media surround sound to be able to arm an AstroTurf army of fact checkers and to be able to liaise and connect all these different censorship industry actors into a cohesive unified hole. And the Atlantic Council initially proposed with this blueprint called Forward defense. “It’s not offense, it’s Forward Defense” guys.

They initially proposed that running this out of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center because they had so many assets there who were so effective at censorship under Rick Stengel, under the Obama administration. But they said, oh, we are not going to be able to get away with that. We don’t really have a national security predicate and it’s supposed to be foreign facing. We can’t really use that hook unless we have a sort of national security one. Then they contemplated parking it, the CIA, and they said, well, actually there’s two reasons we can’t do that. The is a foreign facing organization and we can’t really establish a counterintelligence threat to bring it home domestically. Also, we’re going to need essentially tens of thousands of people involved in this operation spanning this whole society model, and you can’t really run a clandestine operation that way. So they said, okay, well what about the FBI?

They said, well, the FBI would be great, it’s domestic, but the problem is is the FBI is supposed to be the intelligence arm of the Justice Department. And what we’re dealing with here are not acts of law breaking, it’s basically support for Trump. Or if a left winging popularist had risen to power like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbin, I have no doubt they would’ve done in the UK. They would’ve done the same thing to him there. They targeted Jeremy Corbin and other left-wing populist NATO skeptical groups in Europe, but in the US it was all Trump.

And so essentially what they said is, well, the only other domestic intelligence equity we have in the US besides the FBI is the DHS. So we are going to essentially take the CIA’s power to rig and bribe foreign media organizations, which is the power they’ve had since the day they were born in 1947. And we’re going to combine that with the power with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI by putting it at DHS. So DHS was basically deputized. It was empowered through this obscure little cybersecurity agency to have the combined powers that the CIA has abroad with the jurisdiction of the FBI at home. And the way they did this, how did a cyber, an obscure little cybersecurity agency get this power was they did a funny little series of switcheroos. So this little thing called CISA, they didn’t call it the Disinformation Governance Board. They didn’t call it the Censorship Agency. They gave it an obscure little name that no one would notice called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) who his founder said, we care about security so much, it’s in our name twice. Everybody sort of closed their eyes and pretended that’s what it was. CISA was created by Active Congress in 2018 because of the perceived threat that Russia had hacked the 2016 election.

And so we needed the cybersecurity power to be able to deal with that. And essentially on the heels of a CIA memo on January 6th, 2017 and a same day DHS executive order on January 6th, 2017, arguing that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election and a DHS mandate saying that elections are now critical infrastructure, you had this new power within DHS to say that cybersecurity attacks on elections are now our purview. And then they did two cute things. One they said said, miss dis and Malformation online are a form of cybersecurity attack. They are a cyber attack because they are happening online. And they said, well, actually Russian disinformation is we’re actually protecting democracy and elections. We don’t need a Russian predicate after Russiagate died. So just like that, you had this cybersecurity agency be able to legally make the argument that your tweets about mail-in ballots if you undermine public faith and confidence in them as a legitimate form of voting was now you were now conducting a cyber attack on US critical infrastructure articulating misinformation on Twitter and just like that.

Tucker Carlson:

Wait- in other words, complaining about election fraud is the same as taking down our power grid.

Mike Benz:      

Yes, you could literally be on your toilet seat at nine 30 on a Thursday night and tweet, I think that mail-in ballots are illegitimate. And you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security classifying you as conducting a cyber attack on US critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm. And misinformation is a cyber attack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions, they would end up going far beyond that. They would actually define democratic institutions as being another thing that was a cybersecurity attack to undermine and lo and behold, the mainstream media is considered a democratic institution that would come later. What ended up happening was in the advance of the 2020 election, starting in April of 2020, although this goes back before you had this essentially never Trump NeoCon Republican DHS working with essentially NATO on the national security side and essentially the DNC, if you will, to use DHS as the launching point for a government coordinated mass censorship campaign spanning every single social media platform on earth in order to preens the ability to dispute the legitimacy of mail-in ballots.

And here’s how they did this. They aggregated four different institutions. Stanford University, the University of Washington, a company called Graphica and the Atlantic Council. Now all four of these institutions, the centers within them were essentially Pentagon cutouts you had at the Stanford Air Observatory. It was actually run by Michael McFaul, if you know Michael McFaul. He was the US ambassador to Russia under the Obama administration, and he personally authored a seven step playbook for how to successfully orchestrate a color revolution. And part of that involved maintaining total control over media and social media juicing up the civil society outfits, calling elections illegitimate in order to. Now, mind you, all of these people were professional Russia, Gators and professional election delegitimizes in 2016, and then I’ll get that in a sec. So Stanford, the Stanford Observatory under Michael McFaul was run by Alex Stamos, who was formerly a Facebook executive who coordinated with ODNI and with respect to Russiagate taking down Russian propaganda at Facebook.

So this is another liaison essentially to the national security state. And under Alex Stamos at Sanford Observatory was Renee Diresta, who started her career in the CIA and wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian disinformation, and there’s a lot more there that I’ll get to another time. But the next institution was the University of Washington, which is essentially the Bill Gates University in Seattle who is headed by Kate Starboard, who is basically three generations of military brass who got our PhD in crisis informatics, essentially doing social media surveillance for the Pentagon and getting DARPA funding and working essentially with the national security state, then repurposed to take on mail-in ballots. The third firm Graphica got $7 million in Pentagon grants and got their start as part of the Pentagon’s Minerva initiative. The Minerva Initiative is the Psychological Warfare Research Center of the Pentagon. This group was doing social media spying and narrative mapping for the Pentagon until the 2016 election happened, and then were repurposed into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to censor 22 million Trump tweets, pro-Trump tweets about mail-in ballots.

And then the fourth institution, as I mentioned, was the Atlantic Council who’s got seven CIA directors on the board, so one after another. It is exactly what Ben Rhodes described during the Obama era as the blob, the Foreign Policy Establishment, it’s the Defense Department, the State Department or the CIA every single time. And of course this was because they were threatened by Trump’s foreign policy, and so while much of the censorship looks like it’s coming domestically, it’s actually by our foreign facing department of Dirty tricks, color revolution blob, who were professional government toppers who were then basically descended on the 2020 election.

Now they did this, they explicitly said the head of this election integrity partnership on tape and my foundation clipped them, and it’s been played before Congress and it’s a part of the Missouri Biden lawsuit now, but they explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned from doing itself, and then they articulated a multi-step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions.

They said on tape that the tech companies would not have done it but for the pressure, which involved using threats of government force because they were the deputized arm of the government. They had a formal partnership with the DHS. They were able to use DHS’ proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk to top brass at all the tech companies for takedowns, and they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation ban called delegitimization, which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any discord posts, any Twitch video, anything on the internet that undermine public faith and confidence in the use of mail-in ballots or early voting drop boxes or ballot tabulation issues on election day was a prima fascia terms of service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy that they only adopted because of pass through government pressure from the election integrity partnership, which they bragged about on tape, including the grid that they used to do this, and simultaneously invoking threats of government breaking them up or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies unless they did this as well as inducing crisis PR by working with their media allies.

And they said DHS could not do that themselves. And so they set up this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon and IC networks to run this censorship campaign, which by their own math had 22 million tweets on Twitter alone, and mind you, they just on 15 platforms, this is hundreds of millions of posts which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they could not be amplified or they exist in a sort of limited state purgatory or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact-checking labels where you couldn’t actually click through the thing or you had to, it was an inconvenience to be able to share it. Now, they did this seven months before the election because at the time they were worried about the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift event.

They knew the only way that Biden would win mathematically was through the disproportionate Democrat use of mail-in ballots. They knew there would be a crisis because it was going to look extremely weird if Trump looked like he won by seven states and then three days later it comes out actually the election switch, I mean that would put the election crisis of the Bush Gore election on a level of steroids that the National Security state said, well, the public will not be prepared for. So what we need to do is we need to in advance, we need to preens the ability to even question legitimacy.

Tucker Carlson:

Out, wait, wait, may I ask you to pause right there? Key influences by, so what you’re saying is what you’re suggesting is they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held.

Mike Benz:      

It looks very bad.

Tucker Carlson:

Yes, Mike. It does look very bad

Mike Benz:      

And especially when you combine this with the fact that this is right on the heels of the impeachment. The Pentagon led and the CIA led impeachment. It was Eric ? from the CIA, and it was Vindman from the Pentagon who led the impeachment of Trump in late 2019 over an alleged phone call around withholding Ukraine aid. This same network, which came straight out of the Pentagon hybrid warfare military censorship network, created after the first Ukraine crisis in 2014 were the lead architects of the Ukraine impeachment in 2019, and then essentially came back on steroids as part of the 2020 election censorship operation. But from their perspective, I mean it certainly looks like the perfect crime. These were the people. DHS at the time had actually federalized much of the National Election Administration through this January 6th, 2017 executive order from outgoing Obama. DHS had Jed Johnson, which essentially wrapped all 50 states up into a formal DHS partnership. So DHS was simultaneously in charge of the administration of the election in many respects, and the censorship of anyone who challenged the administration of the election. This is like putting essentially the defendant of a trial as the judge and jury of the trial. It was

Tucker Carlson:

Very, but you’re not describing democracy. I mean, you’re describing a country in which democracy is impossible.

Mike Benz:      

What I’m essentially describing is military rule. I mean, what’s happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Democracy sort draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it’s not really being ruled by an overlord because the government is actually just our will expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the 2016 election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the 2016 Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the internet. And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions and who are the democratic institutions?

Oh, it’s the military, it’s NATO, it’s the IMF and the World Bank. It’s the mainstream media, it is the NGOs, and of course these NGOs are largely state department funded or IC funded. It’s essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you’re left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the Democrat institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work. I mean, the amount of work these people do. I mean, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region for the finance and the JP Morgans and the BlackRocks in a region for the NGOs in the region, for the media, in the region, all of these need to reach a consensus, and that process takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation from their perspective.

That’s democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with BlackRock, to agree with the Wall Street Journal, to agree with the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative that is the difficult vote building process from their perspective.

At the end of the day, a bunch of populous groups decide that they like a truck driver who’s popular on TikTok more than the carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass. Well then from their perspective, that is now an attack on democracy, and this is what this whole branding effort was. And of course, democracy again has that magic regime change predicate where democracy is our magic watchword to be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style whole of society effort to topple a democratically elected government from the inside, for example, as we did in Ukraine, Victor Jankovich was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people like him or hate him.

I’m not even issuing an opinion, but the fact is we color revolution him out of office. We January 6th out of office, actually, to be frank, I mean with respect to the, you had a state department funded right sector thugs and 5 billion worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow democratically elected government in the name of democracy, and they took that special set of skills home and now it’s here, perhaps potentially to stay. And this has fundamentally changed the nature of American governance because of the threat of one small voice becoming popular on social media.

Tucker Carlson:

May I ask you a question? So into that group of institutions that you say now define democracy, the NGOs foreign policy establishment, et cetera, you included the mainstream media. Now in 2021, the NSA broke into my private text apps and read them and then leaked them to the New York Times against me. That just happened again to me last week, and I’m wondering how common that is for the Intel agencies to work with so-called mainstream media like the New York Times to hurt their opponents.

Mike Benz:      

Well, that is the function of these interstitial government funded non-governmental organizations and think tanks like for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is NATO’s think tank, but other groups like the Aspen Institute, which draws the lion’s share of its funding from the State department and other government agencies. The Aspen Institute was busted doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. You had this strange situation where the FBI had advanced knowledge of the pending publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and then magically the Aspen Institute, which is run by essentially former CIA, former NSA, former FBI, and then a bunch of civil society organizations all hold a mass stakeholder censorship simulation, a three day conference, this came out and yo Roth was there. This is a big part of the Twitter file leaks, and it’s been mentioned in multiple congressional investigations.

But somehow the Aspen Institute, which is basically an addendum of the National Security state, got the exact same information that the National Security State spied on journalists and political figures to obtain, and not only leaked it, but then basically did a joint coordinated censorship simulator in September, two months before the election in order just like with the censorship of mail-in ballots to be in ready position to screens anyone online amplifying, wait a second, a news story that had not even broken yet.

Tucker Carlson:

The Aspen Institute, which is by the way, I’ve spent my life in Washington. It’s kind a, I mean Walter Isaacson formerly of Time Magazine ran it, former president of CNNI had no idea it was part of the national security state. I had no idea its funding came from the US government. This is the first time I’ve ever heard that. But given, assuming what you’re saying is true, it’s a little weird or starnge that Walter Isaacson left Aspens to write a biography of Elon Musk?

Mike Benz:      

No? Yeah, I don’t know. I haven’t read that book. From what I’ve heard from people, it’s a relatively fair treatment. I just total speculation. But I suspect that Walter Isaacson has struggled with this issue and may not even firmly fall in one particular place in the sense that Walter Isaacson did a series of interviews of Rick Gel actually with the Atlantic Council and in other settings where he interviewed Rick Gel specifically on the issue of the need to get rid of the First Amendment and the threat that free speech on social media poses to democracy. Now, at the time, I was very concerned, this was between 2017 and 2019 when he did these Rick Stangle interviews. I was very concerned because Isaacson expressed what seemed to me to be a highly sympathetic view about the Rick Stengel perspective on killing the First Amendment. Now, he didn’t formally endorse that position, but it left me very skittish about Isaacson.

But what I should say is at the time, I don’t think very many people, in fact, I know virtually nobody in the country had any idea how deep the rabbit hole went when it came to the construction of the censorship industry and how deep the tentacles had grown within the military and the national security state in order to buoy and consolidate it. Much of that frankly did not even come to public light until even last year. Frankly, some of that was galvanized by Elon Musk’s acquisition and the Twitter files and the Republican turnover in the house that allowed these multiple investigations, the lawsuits like Missouri v Biden and the discovery process there and multiple other things like the Disinformation governance board, who, by the way, the interim head of that, the head of that Nina Janowitz got her start in the censorship industry from this exact same clandestine intelligence community censorship network created after the 2014 Crimea situation.

Nina Janowitz, when her name came up in 2022 as part of the disinformation governance board, I almost fell out of my chair because I had been tracking Nina’s network for almost five years at that point when her name came up as part of the UK inner cluster cell of a busted clandestine operation to censor of the internet called the Integrity Initiative, which was created by the UK Foreign Office and was backed by NATO’s Political Affairs Unit in order to carry out this thing that we talked about at the beginning of this dialogue, the NATO sort of psychological inoculation and the ability to kill, so-called Russian propaganda or rising political groups who wanted to maintain energy relations with Russia at a time when the US was trying to kill the Nord Stream and other pipeline relations. Well,

Well, Nina Janowitz was a part of this outfit, and then who was the head of it after Nina Janowitz went down, it was Michael Chertoff and Michael Chertoff was running the Aspen Institute Cyber Group. And then the Aspen Institute then goes on to be the censorship simulator for the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then two years later, Chertoff is then the head of the disinformation governance board after Nina is forced to step down.

Tucker Carlson:

Tucker Carlson: Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman of the largest military contractor in Europe, BAE military. So it’s all connected. You’ve blown my mind so many times in this conversation that I’m going to need a nap directly after it’s done. So I’ve just got two more questions for you, one short one, a little longer short. One is for people who’ve made it this far an hour in and want to know more about this topic. And by the way, I hope you’ll come back whenever you have the time to explore different threads of this story. But for people who want to do research on their own, how can your research on this be found on the internet?

Mike Benz:      

Sure. So our foundation is foundation for freedom online.com. We publish all manner of reports on every aspect of the censorship industry from what we talked about with the role of the military industrial complex and the national security state to what the universities are doing to, I sometimes refer to as digital MK Ultra. There’s just the field of basically the science of censorship and the funding of these psychological manipulation methods in order to nudge people into different belief systems as they did with covid, as they did with energy. And every sensitive policy issue is what they essentially had an ambition for. But so my foundationforfreedomonline.com website is one way. The other way is just on X. My handle is at @MikeBenzCyber. I’m very active there and publish a lot of long form video and written content on all this. I think it’s one of the most important issues in the world today.

Tucker Carlson:

So it certainly is. And so that leads directly and seamlessly to my final question, which is about X. And I’m not just saying this because I post content there, but I think objectively it’s the last big platform that’s free or sort of free or more free. You post there too, but we’re at the very beginning of an election year with a couple of different wars unfolding simultaneously in 2024. So do you expect that that platform can stay free for the duration of this year?

Mike Benz:      

It’s under an extraordinary amount of pressure, and that pressure is going to continue to mount as the election approaches. Elon Musk is a very unique individual, and he has a unique buffer, perhaps when it comes to the national security state because the national security state is actually quite reliant on Elon Musk properties, whether that’s for the electrical, the Green Revolution when it comes to Tesla and the battery technology there. When it comes to SpaceX, the State Department is hugely dependent on SpaceX because of its unbelievable sort of pioneering and saturating presence in the field of low earth orbit satellites that are basically how our telecom system runs to things like starlink. There are dependencies that the National Security state has on Elon Musk. I’m not sure he’d have as much room to negotiate if he had become the world’s richest man selling at a lemonade stand, and if the national security state goes too hard on him by invoking something like CFIUS to sort of nationalize some of these properties.

I think the shock wave that it would send to the international investor community would be irrecoverable at a time when we’re engaged in great power competition. So they’re trying to sort of induce, I think a sort of corporate regime change through a series of things involving a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts. I think there’s seven or eight different Justice Department or SEC or FTC investigations into Elon Musk properties that all started after his acquisition of X. But then what they’re trying to do right now is what I call the Transatlantic Flank Attack 2.0. We talked in this dialogue about how the censorship industry really got its start when a bunch of State Department exiles who were expecting promotions took their special set of skills in coercing European countries to pass sanctions on themselves, to cut off their own leg off to spite themselves in order to pass sanctions on Russia.   

They ran back that same playbook with doing a roadshow for censorship instead for sanctions. We are now witnessing Transatlantic Flank attack 2.0, if you will, which is because they have lost a lot of their federal government powers to do this same censorship operation they had been doing from 2018 to 2022. In part because the house has totally turned on them, in part because of the media, in part because Missouri v Biden, which won a slam dunk case, actually banning government censorship at the trial court and appellate court levels. It is now before the Supreme Court, they’ve now moved into two strategies.

One of them is state level censorship laws. California just passed a new law, which the censorship industry totally drove from start to finish around, they call it platform accountability and transparency, which is basically forcing Elon Musk to give over the kind of narrative mapping data that these CIA conduits and Pentagon cutouts were using to create these weapons of mass deletion, these abilities to just censor everything at scale because they had all the internal platform data. Elon Musk took that away.

They’re using state laws like this new California law to crack that open. But the major threat right now is the threat from Europe with something called the EU Digital Services Act, which was cooked up in tandem with folks like NewsGuard, which has a board of Michael Hayden, head of the CIA NSA and a Fourstar General. Rick Stengel is on that board from the state department’s propaganda office. Tom Ridge is on that board from the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen – he was the general secretary of NATO under the Obama administration. So you have NATO, the CIA, the NSA four star General DHS, and the State Department working with the EU to craft the censorship laws that now are the largest existential threat to X other than potentially advertiser boycotts. Because there is now disinformation is now banned as a matter of law in the EU.  

The EU is a bigger market for X than the us. There’s only 300 million in the USA. But there is 450 million people in Europe. X is now forced to comply with this brand new law that just got ratified this year where they either need to forfeit 6% of their global annual revenue to the EU to maintain operations there, or put in place essentially the kind of CIA bumper cars, if you will, that I’ve been describing over the course of this in order to have a internal mechanism to sensor anything that the eu, which is just a proxy for NATO deems to be disinformation. And you can bet with 65 elections around the globe this year, you can predict every single time what they’re going to define disinformation as. So that’s the main fight right now is dealing with the transatlantic flank attack from Europe.

Tucker Carlson:

This is just one of the most remarkable stories I’ve ever heard, and I’m grateful to you for bringing it to us. Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, and I hope we see you again in

Mike Benz:      

Thanks, Tucker.

Tucker Carlson:

Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. What we’re watching is the total inversion of virtue.

*  *  *

Republished from the author’s Substack

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 23:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union…

Published

on

Angry Shouting Aside, Here's What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union address - in which he insisted that the American economy is doing better than ever, blamed inflation on 'corporate greed,' and warned that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to the republic.

But in between the angry rhetoric, he also laid out his 2024 election platform - for which additional details will be released on March 11, when the White House sends its proposed budget to Congress.

To that end, Goldman Sachs' Alec Phillips and Tim Krupa have summarized the key points:

Taxes

While railing against billionaires (nothing new there), Biden repeated the claim that anyone making under $400,000 per year won't see an increase in their taxes.  He also proposed a 21% corporate minimum tax, up from 15% on book income outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), as well as raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% (which would promptly be passed along to consumers in the form of more inflation). Goldman notes that "Congress is unlikely to consider any of these proposals this year, they would only come into play in a second Biden term, if Democrats also won House and Senate majorities."

Biden also called on Congress to restore the pandemic-era child tax credit.

Immigration

Instead of simply passing a slew of border security Executive Orders like the Trump ones he shredded on day one, Biden repeated the lie that Congress 'needs to act' before he can (translation: send money to Ukraine or the US border will continue to be a sieve).

As immigration comes into even greater focus heading into the election, we continue to expect the Administration to tighten policy (e.g., immigration has surged 20pp the last 7 months to first place with 28% in Gallup’s “most important problem” survey). As such, we estimate the foreign-born contribution to monthly labor force growth will moderate from 110k/month in 2023 to around 70-90k/month in 2024. -GS

Ukraine

Biden, with House Speaker Mike Johnson doing his best impression of a bobble-head, urged Congress to pass additional assistance for Ukraine based entirely on the premise that Russia 'won't stop' there (and would what, trigger article 5 and WW3 no matter what?), despite the fact that Putin explicitly told Tucker Carlson he has no further ambitions, and in fact seeks a settlement.

As Goldman estimates, "While there is still a clear chance that such a deal could come together, for now there is no clear path forward for Ukraine aid in Congress."

China

Biden, forgetting about all the aggressive tariffs, suggested that Trump had been soft on China, and that he will stand up "against China's unfair economic practices" and "for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait."

Healthcare

Lastly, Biden proposed to expand drug price negotiations to 50 additional drugs each year (an increase from 20 outlined in the IRA), which Goldman said would likely require bipartisan support "even if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House," as such policies would likely be ineligible for the budget "reconciliation" process which has been used in previous years to pass the IRA and other major fiscal party when Congressional margins are just too thin.

So there you have it. With no actual accomplishments to speak of, Biden can only attack Trump, lie, and make empty promises.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 18:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

United Airlines adds new flights to faraway destinations

The airline said that it has been working hard to "find hidden gem destinations."

Published

on

Since countries started opening up after the pandemic in 2021 and 2022, airlines have been seeing demand soar not just for major global cities and popular routes but also for farther-away destinations.

Numerous reports, including a recent TripAdvisor survey of trending destinations, showed that there has been a rise in U.S. traveler interest in Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Vietnam as well as growing tourism traction in off-the-beaten-path European countries such as Slovenia, Estonia and Montenegro.

Related: 'No more flying for you': Travel agency sounds alarm over risk of 'carbon passports'

As a result, airlines have been looking at their networks to include more faraway destinations as well as smaller cities that are growing increasingly popular with tourists and may not be served by their competitors.

The Philippines has been popular among tourists in recent years.

Shutterstock

United brings back more routes, says it is committed to 'finding hidden gems'

This week, United Airlines  (UAL)  announced that it will be launching a new route from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) to Morocco's Marrakesh. While it is only the country's fourth-largest city, Marrakesh is a particularly popular place for tourists to seek out the sights and experiences that many associate with the country — colorful souks, gardens with ornate architecture and mosques from the Moorish period.

More Travel:

"We have consistently been ahead of the curve in finding hidden gem destinations for our customers to explore and remain committed to providing the most unique slate of travel options for their adventures abroad," United's SVP of Global Network Planning Patrick Quayle, said in a press statement.

The new route will launch on Oct. 24 and take place three times a week on a Boeing 767-300ER  (BA)  plane that is equipped with 46 Polaris business class and 22 Premium Plus seats. The plane choice was a way to reach a luxury customer customer looking to start their holiday in Marrakesh in the plane.

Along with the new Morocco route, United is also launching a flight between Houston (IAH) and Colombia's Medellín on Oct. 27 as well as a route between Tokyo and Cebu in the Philippines on July 31 — the latter is known as a "fifth freedom" flight in which the airline flies to the larger hub from the mainland U.S. and then goes on to smaller Asian city popular with tourists after some travelers get off (and others get on) in Tokyo.

United's network expansion includes new 'fifth freedom' flight

In the fall of 2023, United became the first U.S. airline to fly to the Philippines with a new Manila-San Francisco flight. It has expanded its service to Asia from different U.S. cities earlier last year. Cebu has been on its radar amid growing tourist interest in the region known for marine parks, rainforests and Spanish-style architecture.

With the summer coming up, United also announced that it plans to run its current flights to Hong Kong, Seoul, and Portugal's Porto more frequently at different points of the week and reach four weekly flights between Los Angeles and Shanghai by August 29.

"This is your normal, exciting network planning team back in action," Quayle told travel website The Points Guy of the airline's plans for the new routes.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending