Connect with us

Spread & Containment

Tesla stock picks up a couple of price target increases

Tesla stock picks up a couple of price target increases

Published

on

tesla stock excluded s&p 500

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 picks up a couple of price target increases appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

For-profit nursing homes are cutting corners on safety and draining resources with financial shenanigans − especially at midsize chains that dodge public scrutiny

Owners of midsize nursing home chains drain billions from facilities, hiding behind opaque accounting practices and harming the elderly as government,…

Published

on

The care at Landmark of Louisville Rehabilitation and Nursing was abysmal when state inspectors filed their survey report of the Kentucky facility on July 3, 2021.

Residents wandered the halls in a facility that can house up to 250 people, yelling at each other and stealing blankets. One resident beat a roommate with a stick, causing bruising and skin tears. Another was found in bed with a broken finger and a bloody forehead gash. That person was allowed to roam and enter the beds of other residents. In another case, there was sexual touching in the dayroom between residents, according to the report.

Meals were served from filthy meal carts on plastic foam trays, and residents struggled to cut their food with dull plastic cutlery. Broken tiles lined showers, and a mysterious black gunk marred the floors. The director of housekeeping reported that the dining room was unsanitary. Overall, there was a critical lack of training, staff and supervision.

The inspectors tagged Landmark as deficient in 29 areas, including six that put residents in immediate jeopardy of serious harm and three where actual harm was found. The issues were so severe that the government slapped Landmark with a fine of over $319,000more than 29 times the average for a nursing home in 2021 − and suspended payments to the home from federal Medicaid and Medicare funds.

This excerpt from the July 3, 2021, state inspection report of Landmark of Louisville Rehabilitation and Nursing includes an interview with a nurse who found an injured resident. New York State attorney general's office

Persistent problems

But problems persisted. Five months later, inspectors levied six additional deficiencies of immediate jeopardy − the highest level − including more sexual abuse among residents and a certified nursing assistant pushing someone down, bruising the person’s back and hip.

Landmark is just one of the 58 facilities run by parent company Infinity Healthcare Management across five states. The government issued penalties to the company almost 4½ times the national average, according to bimonthly data that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services first started to make available in late 2022. All told, Infinity paid nearly $10 million in fines since 2021, the highest among nursing home chains with fewer than 100 facilities.

Infinity Healthcare Management and its executives did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Such sanctions are nothing new for Infinity or other for-profit nursing home chains that have dominated an industry long known for cutting corners in pursuit of profits for private owners. But this race to the bottom to extract profits is accelerating despite demands by government officials, health care experts and advocacy groups to protect the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

To uncover the reasons why, The Conversation’s investigative unit Inquiry delved into the nursing home industry, where for-profit facilities make up more than 72% of the nation’s nearly 14,900 facilities. The probe, which paired an academic expert with an investigative reporter, used the most recent government data on ownership, facility information and penalties, combined with CMS data on affiliated entities for nursing homes.

The investigation revealed an industry that places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, with low staffing and poor quality, often to the detriment of patient well-being. Operating under weak and poorly enforced regulations with financially insignificant penalties, the for-profit sector fosters an environment where corners are frequently cut, compromising the quality of care and endangering patient health. Meanwhile, owners make the facilities look less profitable by siphoning money from the homes through byzantine networks of interconnected corporations. Federal regulators have neglected the problem as each year likely billions of dollars are funneled out of nursing homes through related parties and into owners’ pockets.

More trouble at midsize

Analyzing newly released government data, our investigation found that these problems are most pronounced in nursing homes like Infinity − midsize chains that operate between 11 and 100 facilities. This subsection of the industry has higher average fines per home, lower overall quality ratings, and are more likely to be tagged with resident abuse compared with both the larger and smaller networks. Indeed, while such chains account for about 39% of all facilities, they operate 11 of the 15 most-fined facilities.

With few impediments, private investors who own the midsize chains have quietly swooped in to purchase underperforming homes, expanding their holdings even further as larger chains divest and close facilities. As a result of the industry’s churn of facility ownership, over one fifth of the country’s nursing facilities changed ownership between 2016 and 2021, four times more changes than hospitals.

A 2023 report by Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog, noted that a dozen of these chains in the midsize range have doubled or tripled in size while racking up fines averaging over $100,000 per facility since 2018. But unlike the large, multistate chains with easily recognizable names, the midsize networks slip through without the same level of public scrutiny, The Conversation’s investigations unit found.

“They are really bad, but the names − we don’t know these names,” said Toby Edelman, senior policy attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit law organization.

“When we used to have those multistate chains, the facilities all had the same name, so you know what the quality is you’re getting,” she said. “It’s not that good − but at least you know what you’re getting.”

In response to The Conversation’s findings on nursing homes and request for an interview, a CMS spokesperson emailed a statement that said the CMS is “unwavering in its commitment to improve safety and quality of care for the more than 1.2 million residents receiving care in Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes.”

The statement pointed to data released by the oversight body on mergers, acquisitions, consolidations and changes of ownership in April 2023 along with additional ownership data released the following September. CMS also proposed a rule change that aims to increase transparency in nursing home ownership by collecting more information on facility owners and their affiliations.

“Our focus is on advancing implementable solutions that promote safe, high-quality care for residents and consider the challenging circumstances some long-term care facilities face,” the statement reads. “We believe the proposed requirements are achievable and necessary.”

CMS is slated to implement the disclosure rules in the fall and release the new data to the public later this year.

“We support transparency and accountability,” the American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living, a trade organization representing the nursing home industry, wrote in response to The Conversation‘s request for comment. “But neither ownership nor line items on a budget sheet prove whether a nursing home is committed to its residents. Over the decades, we’ve found that strong organizations tend to have supportive and trusted leadership as well as a staff culture that empowers frontline caregivers to think critically and solve problems. These characteristics are not unique to a specific type or size of provider.”

It often takes years to improve a poor nursing home − or run one into the ground. The analysis of midsize chains shows that most owners have been associated with their current facilities for less than eight years, making it difficult to separate operators who have taken long-term investments in resident care from those who are looking to quickly extract money and resources before closing them down or moving on. These chains control roughly 41% of nursing home beds in the U.S., according to CMS’s provider data, making the lack of transparency especially ripe for abuse.

A churn of nursing home purchases even during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that investors view the sector as highly profitable, especially when staffing costs are kept low and fines for poor care can easily be covered by the money extracted from residents, their families and taxpayers.

“This is the model of their care: They come in, they understaff and they make their money,” said Sam Brooks, director of public policy at the Consumer Voice, a national resident advocacy organization. “Then they multiply it over a series of different facilities.”

Side-by-side pictures of different nursing home residents asleep with their heads near dishes of food
These pictures showing residents asleep in their food appeared in the 2022 New York attorney general’s lawsuit against The Villages of Orleans Health and Rehabilitation Center in Albion, N.Y. New York State attorney general's office

Investor race

The explosion of a billion-dollar private marketplace found its beginnings in government spending.

The adoption of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 set loose a race among investors to load up on nursing homes, with a surge in for-profit homes gaining momentum because of a reliable stream of government payouts. By 1972, a mere seven years after the inception of the programs, a whopping 106 companies had rushed to Wall Street to sell shares in nursing home companies. And little wonder: They pulled in profits through their ownership of 18% of the industry’s beds, securing about a third of the hefty $3.2 billion of government cash.

The 1990s saw substantial expansion in for-profit nursing home chains, marked by a wave of acquisitions and mergers. At the same time, increasing difficulties emerged in the model for publicly traded chains. Shareholders increasingly demanded rapid growth, and researchers have found that the publicly traded chains tried to appease that hunger by reducing nursing staff and cutting corners on other measures meant to improve quality and safety.

“I began to suspect a possibly inherent contradiction between publicly traded and other large investor-operated nursing home companies and the prerequisites for quality care,” Paul R. Willging, former chief lobbyist for the industry, wrote in a 2007 letter to the editor of The New York Times. “For many investors … earnings growth, quarter after quarter, is often paramount. Long-term investments in quality can work at cross purposes with a mandate for an unending progression of favorable earnings reports.”

One example of that clash can be found at the Ensign Group, founded in 1999 as a private chain of five facilities. Using a strategy of acquiring struggling nursing homes, the company went public in 2007 with more than 60 facilities. What followed was a year-after-year acquisition binge and a track record of growing profits almost every year. Yet the company kept staffing levels below the national average and levels recommended by experts. Its facilities had higher than average inspection deficiencies and higher COVID infection rates. Since 2021, it has racked up more than $6.5 million in penalties.

Ensign did not respond to requests for comment.

Even with that kind of expense cutting, not all publicly traded nursing homes survived as the costs of providing poor care added up. Residents sued over mistreatment. Legal fees and settlements ate into profits, shareholders grumbled, and executives searched for a way out of this Catch-22.

Recognizing the long-term potential for profit growth, private investors snapped up publicly traded for-profit chains, reducing the previous levels of public transparency and oversight. Between 2000 and 2017, 1,674 nursing homes were acquired by private-equity firms in 128 unique deals out of 18,485 facilities. But the same poor-quality problems persisted. Research shows that after snagging a big chain, private investors tended to follow the same playbook: They rebrand the company, increase corporate control and dump unprofitable homes to other investment groups willing to take shortcuts for profit.

Multiple academic studies show the results, highlighting the lower staffing and quality in for-profit homes compared with nonprofits and government-run facilities. Elderly residents staying long term in nursing homes owned by private investment groups experienced a significant uptick in trips to the emergency department and hospitalizations between 2013 and 2017, translating into higher costs for Medicare.

Overall, private-equity investors wreak havoc on nursing homes, slashing registered nurse hours per resident day by 12%, outpacing other for-profit facilities. The aftermath is grim, with a daunting 14% surge in the deficiency score index, a standardized metric for determining issues with facilities, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report.

The human toll comes in death and suffering. A study updated in 2023 by the National Bureau of Economic Research calculated that 22,500 additional deaths over a 12-year span were attributable to private-equity ownership, equating to about 172,400 lost life years. The calculations also showed that private-equity ownership was responsible for a 6.2% reduction in mobility, an 8.5% increase in ulcer development and a 10.5% uptick in pain intensity.

Hiding in complexity

Exposing the identities of who should be held responsible for such anguish poses a formidable task. Private investors in nursing home chains often employ a convoluted system of limited liability corporations, related companies and family relationships to obscure who controls the nursing homes.

These adjustments are crafted to minimize liability, capitalize on favorable tax policies, diminish regulatory scrutiny and disguise nursing home profitability. In this investigation, entities at every level of involvement with a nursing home denied ownership, even though the same people controlled each organization.

A rule put in place in 2023 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires the identification of all private-equity and real estate investment trust investors in a facility and the release of all related party names. But this hasn’t been enough to surface the players and relationships. More than half of ownership data provided to CMS is incomplete across all facilities, according to a March 2024 analysis of the newly released data.

Complicated graphic with 21 intertwined items
Nursing home investors drained more than $18 million out of a single facility through a complex web of related party transactions. New York State attorney general's office

Even the land under the nursing home is often owned by someone else. In 2021, publicly traded or private real estate investment trusts held a sizable chunk of the approximately $120 billion of nursing home real estate. As with homes owned by private-equity investors, quality measures collapse after REITs get involved, with facilities witnessing a 7% decline in registered nurses’ hours per resident day and an alarming 14% ascent in the deficiency score index. It’s a blatant pattern of disruption, leaving facilities and care standards in a dire state.

Part of that quality collapse comes from the way these investment entities make their money. REITs and their owners can drain cash out of the nursing homes in a number of different ways. The standard tactic for grabbing the money is known as a triple-net lease, where the REIT buys the property then leases it back to the nursing home, often at exorbitant rates. Although the nursing home then lacks possession of the property, it still gets slammed with costs typically shouldered by an owner − real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and more. Topping it off, the facilities then must typically pay annual rent hikes.

A second tactic that REITs use involves a contracting façade that serves no purpose other than enriching the owners of the trusts. Since triple-net lease agreements prohibit REITs from taking profits from operating the facilities, the investors create a subsidiary to get past that hurdle. The subsidiary then contracts with a nursing home operator − often owned or controlled by another related party − and then demands a fee for providing operational guidance. The use of REITs for near-risk-free profits from nursing homes has proven to be an ever-growing technique, and the midsize chains, which our investigation found generally provided the worst care, grew in their reliance on REITs during the pandemic.

“When these REITs start coming in … nursing homes are saddled with these enormous rents, and then they wind up going out of business,” said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit organization that advocates for better care at nursing homes. “It’s no longer a viable facility.”

The churn of nursing home purchases by midsize chains underscores investors’ perception of the sector’s profitability, particularly when staffing expenses are minimized and penalties for subpar care can be offset by money extracted through related transactions and payments from residents, their families and taxpayers. Lawsuits can drag out over years, and in the worst case, if a facility is forced to close, its land and other assets can be sold to minimize the financial loss.

Take Brius Healthcare, a name that resonates with a disturbing cadence in the world of nursing home ownership. A search of the federal database for nursing home ownership and penalties shows that Brius was responsible for 32 facilities as of the start of 2024, but the true number is closer to 80, according to BriusWatch.org, which tracks violations. At the helm of this still midsize network stands Shlomo Rechnitz, who became a billionaire in part by siphoning from government payments to his facilities scattered across California, according to a federal and state lawsuit.

In lawsuits and regulators’ criticisms, Rechnitz’s homes have been associated with tales of abuse, as well as several lawsuits alleging terrible care. The track record was so bad that, in the summer of 2014, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an emergency motion to block Rechnitz from acquiring 19 facilities, writing that he was “a serial violator of rules within the skilled nursing industry” and was “not qualified to assume such an important role.”

Yet, Rechnitz’s empire in California surged forward, scooping up more facilities that drained hundreds of millions of federal and state funds as they racked up pain and profit. The narrative played out at Windsor Redding Care Center in Redding, California. Rechnitz bought it from a competing nursing home chain and attempted to obtain a license to operate the facility. But in 2016, the California Department of Public Health refused the application, citing a staggering 265 federal regulatory violations across his other nursing homes over just three years.

According to court filings, Rechnitz formed a joint venture with other investors who in turn held the license. Rechnitz, through the Brius joint venture, became the unlicensed owner and operator of Windsor Redding.

Brius carved away at expenses, slashing staff and other care necessities, according to a 2022 California lawsuit. One resident was left to sit in her urine and feces for hours at a time. Overwhelmed staff often did not respond to her call light, so once she instead climbed out of bed unassisted, fell and fractured her hip. Other negligence led to pressure ulcers, and when she was finally transferred to a hospital, she was suffering from sepsis. She was not alone in her suffering. Numerous other residents experienced an unrelenting litany of injuries and illnesses, including pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections from poor hygiene, falls, and skin damage from excess moisture, according to the lawsuit.

In 2023, California moved forward with licensing two dozen of Rechnitz’s facilities with an agreement that included a two-year monitoring period, right before statewide reforms were set to take effect. The reforms don’t prevent existing owners like Rechnitz from continuing to run a nursing home without a license, but they do prevent new operators from doing so.

“We’re seeing more of that, I think, where you have a proliferation of really bad operators that keep being provided homes,” said Brooks, the director of public policy at the Consumer Voice. “There’s just so much money to be made here for unscrupulous people, and it just happens all the time.”

Rechnitz did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Bruis also did not respond.

Perhaps no other chain showcases the havoc that can be caused by one individual’s acquisition of multiple nursing homes than Skyline Health Care. The company’s owner, Joseph Schwartz, parlayed the sale of his insurance business into ownership of 90 facilities between mid-2016 and December 2017, according to a federal indictment. He ran the company out of an office above a New Jersey pizzeria and at its peak managed facilities in 11 states.

Schwartz went all-in on cost cutting, and by early 2018, residents were suffering from the shortage of staff. The company wasn’t paying its bills or its workers. More than a dozen lawsuits piled up. Last year, Schwartz was arrested and faced charges in federal district court in New Jersey for his role in a $38 million payroll tax scheme. In 2024, Schwartz pleaded guilty to his role in the fraud scheme. He is awaiting sentencing, where he faces a year in prison along with paying at least $5 million in restitution.

Skyline collapsed and disrupted thousands of lives. Some states took over facilities; others closed, forcing residents to relocate and throwing families into chaos. The case also highlights the ease with which some bad operators can snap up nursing homes with little difficulty, with federal and state governments allowing ownership changes with little or no review.

Schwartz’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Not that nursing homes have much to fear in the public perception of their reputation for quality. CMS uses what is known as the Five-Star Quality Rating System, designed to help consumers compare nursing homes to find one that provides good care. Theoretically, nursing homes with five-star ratings are supposed to be exceptional, while those with one-star ratings are deemed the worst. But research shows that nursing homes can game the system, with the result that a top star rating might reflect little more than a facility’s willingness to cheat.

A star rating is composed of three parts: The score from a government inspection and the facility’s self-reports of staffing and quality. This means that what the nursing homes say about themselves can boost the star rating of facilities even if they have poor inspection results.

Multiple studies have highlighted a concerning trend: Some nursing homes, especially for-profit ones, inflate their self-reported measures, resulting in a disconnect from actual inspection findings. Notably, research suggests that for-profit nursing homes, driven by significant financial motives, are more likely to engage in this practice of inflating their self-reported assessments.

At bottom, the elderly and their families seeking quality care unknowingly find themselves in an impossible situation with for-profit nursing homes: Those facilities tend to provide the worst quality, and the only measure available for consumers to determine where they will be treated well can be rigged. The result is the transformation of an industry meant to care for the most vulnerable into a profit-driven circus.

Close-up of an elderly woman's head leaning on her hand
The for-profit nursing home sector is growing, and it places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, which has led to low staffing and patient neglect and mistreatment. picture alliance via Getty Images

The pandemic

Nothing more clearly exposed the problems rampant in nursing homes than the pandemic. Throughout that time, nursing homes reported that almost 2 million residents had infections and 170,000 died.

No one should have been surprised by the mass death in nursing homes − the warning signs of what was to come had been visible for years. Between 2013 and 2017, infection control was the most frequently cited deficiency in nursing homes, with 40% of facilities cited each year and 82% cited at least once in the five-year period. Almost half were cited over multiple consecutive years for these deficiencies − if fixed, one of the big causes of the widespread transmission of COVID in these facilities would have been eliminated.

But shortly after coming into office in 2017, the Trump administration weakened what was already a deteriorating system to regulate nursing homes. The administration directed regulators to issue one-time fines against nursing homes for violations of federal rules rather than for the full time they were out of compliance. This shift meant that even nursing homes with severe infractions lasting weeks were exempted from fines surpassing the maximum per-instance penalty of $20,965.

Even that near-worthless level of regulation was not feeble enough for the industry, so lobbyists pressed for less. In response, just a few months before COVID emerged in China, the Trump administration implemented new regulations that effectively abolished a mandate for each to hire a full-time infection control expert, instead recommending outside consultants for the job.

The perfect storm had been reached, with no experts required to be on site, prepared to combat any infection outbreaks. On Jan. 20, 2020 − just 186 days after the change in rules on infection control − the CDC reported that the first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID had been found at a nursing home in Washington state.

The least prepared in this explosion of disease were the for-profit nursing homes, compared with nonprofit and government facilities. Research from the University of California at San Francisco found those facilities were linked to higher numbers of COVID cases. For-profits not only had fewer nurses on staff but also high numbers of infection-control deficiencies and lower compliance with health regulations.

Even as the United States went through the crisis, some owners of midsize chains continued snapping up nursing homes. For example, two Brooklyn businessmen named Simcha Hyman and Naftali Zanziper were going on a nursing home buying spree through their private-equity company, the Portopiccolo Group. Despite poor ratings in their previously owned facilities, nothing blocked the acquisitions.

One such facility was a struggling nursing home in North Carolina now known as The Citadel Salisbury. Following the traditional pattern forged by private investors in the industry, the new owners set up a convoluted network of business entities and then used them to charge the nursing home for services and property. A 2021 federal lawsuit of many plaintiffs claimed that they deliberately kept the facility understaffed and undersupplied to maximize profit.

Within months of the first case of COVID reported in America, The Citadel Salisbury experienced the largest nursing home outbreak in the state. The situation was so dire that on April 20, 2020, the local medical director of the emergency room took to the local newspaper to express his distress, revealing that he had pressed the facility’s leadership and the local health department to address the known shortcomings.

The situation was “a blueprint for exactly what not to do in a crisis,” medical director John Bream wrote. “Patients died at the Citadel without family members being notified. Families were denied the ability to have one last meaningful interaction with their family. Employees were wrongly denied personal protective equipment. There has been no transparency.”

After a series of scathing inspection reports, the facility finally closed in the spring of 2022. As for the federal lawsuit, court documents show that a tentative agreement was reached in 2023. But the case dragged out for nearly three years, and one of the plaintiffs, Sybil Rummage, died while seeking accountability through the court.

Still, the pandemic had been a time of great success for Hyman and Zanziper. At the end of 2020, they owned more than 70 facilities. By 2021, their portfolio had exploded to more than 120. Now, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hyman and Zanziper are associated with at least 131 facilities and have the highest amount of total fines recorded by the agency for affiliated entities, totaling nearly $12 million since 2021. And their average fine per facility, as calculated by CMS, is more than twice the national average at almost $90,000.

In a written statement, Portopiccolo Group spokesperson John Collins disputed that the facilities had skimped on care and argued that they were not managed by the firm. “We hire experienced, local health care teams who are in charge of making all on-the-ground decisions and are committed to putting residents first.” He added that the number of facilities given by CMS was inaccurate but declined to say how many are connected to its network of affiliates or owned by Hyman and Zanziper.

With the nearly 170,000 resident deaths from COVID and many related fatalities from isolation and neglect in nursing homes, in February 2022 President Biden announced an initiative aimed at improving the industry. In addition to promising to set a minimum staffing standard, the initiative is focused on improving ownership and financial transparency.

“As Wall Street firms take over more nursing homes, quality in those homes has gone down and costs have gone up. That ends on my watch,” Biden said during his 2022 State of the Union address. “Medicare is going to set higher standards for nursing homes and make sure your loved ones get the care they deserve and expect.”

President Biden sitting at a desk signing with a crowd gathered around him
President Joe Biden signed an executive order on April 18, 2023, that directed the secretary of health and human services to consider actions that would build on nursing home minimum staffing standards and improve staff retention. Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Still, the current trajectory of actions appears to fall short of what’s needed. While penalties against facilities have sharply increased under Biden, some of the Trump administration’s weak regulations have not been replaced.

A rule proposed by CMS in September 2023 and released for review in March 2024 would require states to report what percentage of Medicaid funding is used to pay direct care workers and support staff and would require an RN on duty 24/7. It would also require a minimum of three hours of skilled staffing care per patient per day. But the three-hour minimum is substantially lower than the 4.1 hours of skilled staffing for nursing home residents suggested by CMS over two decades ago.

The requirements are also lower than the 3.8 average nursing staff hours already employed by U.S. facilities.

The current administration has also let stand the Trump administration reversal of an Obama rule that banned binding arbitration agreements in nursing homes.

It breaks a village

The Villages of Orleans Health and Rehabilitation Center in Albion, New York, was, by any reasonable measure, broken. Court records show that on some days there was no nurse and no medication for the more than 100 elderly residents. Underpaid staff spent their own cash for soap to keep residents clean. At times, the home didn’t feed its frail occupants.

Meanwhile, according to a 2022 lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general, riches were siphoned out of the nursing home and into the pockets of the official owner, Bernard Fuchs, as well as assorted friends, business associates and family. The lawsuit says $18.7 million flowed from the facility to entities owned by a group of men who controlled the Village’s operations.

Although these men own various nursing homes, Medicare records show few connections between them, despite them all being investors in Comprehensive Healthcare Management, which provided administrative services to the Villages. Either they or their families were also owners of Telegraph Realty, which leased what was once the Villages’ own property back to the facility at rates the New York attorney general deemed exorbitant, predatory and a sham.

So it goes in the world of nursing home ownership, where overlapping entities and investors obscure the interrelationships between them to such a degree that Medicare itself is never quite sure who owns what.

Glenn Jones, a lawyer representing Comprehensive Healthcare Management, declined to comment on the pending litigation, but he forwarded a court document his law firm filed that labels the allegations brought by the New York attorney general “unfounded” and reliant on “a mere fraction” of its residents.

Side-by-side pictures of a man in a wheelchair with glasses in November, 2019 and the same man looking less alert, unshaven and with an eye wound in December, 2019
These pictures of the same resident one month apart at the Holliswood Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare in Queens appeared in a 2023 New York attorney general lawsuit against 13 LLCs and 14 individuals. The group owns multiple nursing homes and allegedly neglected residents, while owners siphoned Medicare and Medicaid money into their own pockets. New York attorney general's office

The shadowy structure of ownership and related party transactions plays an enormous role in how investors enrich themselves, even as the nursing homes they control struggle financially. Compounding the issue, the figures reported by nursing homes regarding payments to related parties frequently diverge from the disclosures made by the related parties themselves.

As an illustration of the problems, consider Pruitt Health, a midsize chain with 87 nursing homes spread across Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida that had low overall federal quality ratings and about $2 million in penalties. A report by The National Consumer Voice For Quality Long-Term Care, a consumer advocacy group, shows that Pruitt disclosed general related party costs nearing $482 million from 2018 to 2020. Yet in that same time frame, Pruitt reported payments to specific related parties amounting to about $570 million, indicating a $90 million excess. Its federal disclosures offer no explanation for the discrepancy. Meanwhile, the company reported $77 million in overall losses on its homes.

The same pattern holds in the major chains such as the Cleveland, Tennessee-based Life Care Centers of America, which operates roughly 200 nursing homes across 27 states, according to the report. Life Care’s financial disbursements are fed into a diverse spectrum of related entities, including management, staffing, insurance and therapy companies, all firmly under the umbrella of the organization’s ownership. In fiscal year 2018, the financial commitment to these affiliated entities reached $386,449,502; over the three-year period from 2018 to 2020, Life Care’s documented payments to such parties hit an eye-popping $1.25 billion.

Pruitt Health and Life Care Centers did not respond to requests for comment.

Overall, 77% of US nursing homes reported $11 billion in related-party transactions in 2019 − nearly 10% of total net revenues − but the data is unaudited and unverified. The facilities are not required to provide any details of what specific services were provided by the related parties, or what were the specific profits and administrative costs, creating a lack of transparency regarding expenses that are ambiguously categorized under generic labels such as “maintenance.” Significantly, there is no mandate to disclose whether any of these costs exceed fair market value.

What that means is that nursing home owners can profit handsomely through related parties even if their facilities are being hit with repeated fines for providing substandard care.

“What we would consider to be a big penalty really doesn’t matter because there’s so much money coming in,” said Mollot of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition. “If the facility fails, so what? It doesn’t matter. They pulled out the resources.’’

Hiding profit

Ultimately, experts say, this ability to drain cash out of nursing homes makes it almost impossible for anyone to assess the profitability of these facilities based on their public financial filings, known as cost reports.

"The profit margins (for nursing homes) also should be taken with a grain of salt in the cost reports,” said Dr. R. Tamara Konetzka, a University of Chicago professor of public health sciences, at a recent meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. “If you sell the real estate to a REIT or to some other entity, and you pay sort of inflated rent back to make your profit margins look lower, and then you recoup that profit because it’s a related party, we’re not going to find that in the cost reports.”

That ability to hide profits is key to nursing homes’ ability to block regulations to improve quality of care and to demand greater government payments. For decades, the industry’s refrain has been that cuts in reimbursements or requirements to increase staffing will drive facilities into bankruptcy; already, they claim, half of all nursing homes are teetering on the edge of collapse, the result, they say, of inadequate Medicaid rates. All in all, the industry reports that less than 3% of their revenue goes to earnings.

But that does not include any of the revenue pulled out of the homes to boost profits of related parties controlled by the same owners pleading poverty. And this tactic is only one of several ways that the nursing home industry disguises its true profits, giving it the power to plead poverty to an unknowing government.

Under the regulations, only certain nursing home expenses are reimbursable, such as money spent for care. Many others − unreasonable payments to the headquarters of chains, luxury items, and fees for lobbyists and lawyers − are disallowed after Medicare reviews the cost reports. But by that time, the government has already reimbursed the nursing homes for those expenses − and none of those revenues have to be returned.

Data indicates that owners also profit by overcharging nursing homes for services and leases provided by related entities. A March 2024 study from Lehigh University and the University of California, Los Angeles shows that costs were inflated when nursing home owners changed from independent contractors to businesses owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same people. Overall, spending on real estate increased 20.4%, and spending on management increased 24.6% when the businesses were affiliated, the research showed.

Nursing homes also claim that noncash depreciation cuts into their profits. Those expenses, which show up only in accounting ledgers, assume that assets such as equipment and facilities are gradually decreasing in value and ultimately will need to be replaced.

That might be reasonable if the chains purchased new items once their value depreciated to zero, but that is not always true. A 2004 report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the depreciation claimed by health care companies, including nursing homes, may not reflect actual capital expenditures or the actual market value.

If disallowed expenses and noncash depreciation were not included, profit margins for the nursing home industry would jump to 8.8%, far more than the 3% it claims. And given that these numbers all come from nursing home cost reports submitted to the government, they may underestimate the profits even more. Audited cost reports are not required, and the Government Accountability Office has found that CMS does little to ensure the numbers are correct and complete.

This lack of basic oversight essentially gives dishonest nursing home owners the power to grab more money from Medicare and Medicaid while being empowered to claim that their financials prove they need more.

“They face no repercussions,” Brooks of Consumer Voice said, commenting on the current state of nursing home operations and their unscrupulous owners. “That’s why these people are here. It’s a bonanza to them.”

Ultimately, experts say, finding ways to force nursing homes to provide quality care has remained elusive. Michael Gelder, former senior health policy adviser to then-Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, learned that brutal lesson in 2010 as head of a task force formed by Quinn to investigate nursing home quality. That group successfully pushed a new law, but Gelder now says his success failed to protect this country’s most vulnerable citizens.

“I was perhaps naively convinced that someone like myself being in the right place at the right time with enough resources could really fix this problem,” he said. “I think we did the absolute best we could, and the best that had ever been done in modern history up to that point. But it wasn’t enough. It’s a battle every generation has to fight.”

Click here to learn more about how some existing tools can address problems with for-profit nursing homes.

Sean Campbell is an adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University and a contributing writer at the Garrison Project, an independent news organization that focuses on mass incarceration and criminal justice.

Harrington is an advisory board member of the nonprofit Veteran's Health Policy Institute and a board member of the nonprofit Center for Health Information and Policy. Harrington served as an expert witness on nursing home litigation cases by residents against facilities owned or operated by Brius and Shlomo Rechnitz in the past and in 2022. She also served as an expert witness in a case against The Citadel Salisbury in North Carolina in 2021.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

COVID-19 vaccines: CDC says people ages 65 and up should get a shot this spring – a geriatrician explains why it’s vitally important

As you get older, you’re at higher risk of severe infection and your immunity declines faster after vaccination.

Published

on

By

Even if you got a COVID-19 shot last fall, the spring shot is still essential for the 65 and up age group. whyframestudio/iStock via Getty Images Plus

In my mind, the spring season will always be associated with COVID-19.

In spring 2020, the federal government declared a nationwide emergency, and life drastically changed. Schools and businesses closed, and masks and social distancing were mandated across much of the nation.

In spring 2021, after the vaccine rollout, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said those who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 could safely gather with others who were vaccinated without masks or social distancing.

In spring 2022, with the increased rates of vaccination across the U.S., the universal indoor mask mandate came to an end.

In spring 2023, the federal declaration of COVID-19 as a public health emergency ended.

Now, as spring 2024 fast approaches, the CDC reminds Americans that even though the public health emergency is over, the risks associated with COVID-19 are not. But those risks are higher in some groups than others. Therefore, the agency recommends that adults age 65 and older receive an additional COVID-19 vaccine, which is updated to protect against a recently dominant variant and is effective against the current dominant strain.

You have a 54% less chance of being hospitalized with severe COVID-19 if you’ve had the vaccine.

Increased age means increased risk

The shot is covered by Medicare. But do you really need yet another COVID-19 shot?

As a geriatrician who exclusively cares for people over 65 years of age, this is a question I’ve been asked many times over the past few years.

In early 2024, the short answer is yes.

Compared with other age groups, older adults have the worst outcomes with a COVID-19 infection. Increased age is, simply put, a major risk factor.

In January 2024, the average death rate from COVID-19 for all ages was just under 3 in 100,000 people. But for those ages 65 to 74, it was higher – about 5 for every 100,000. And for people 75 and older, the rate jumped to nearly 30 in 100,000.

Even now, four years after the start of the pandemic, people 65 years old and up are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than the rest of the population. People 75 years old and up are 10 times more likely to die from COVID-19.

Vaccination is still essential

These numbers are scary. But the No. 1 action people can take to decrease their risk is to get vaccinated and keep up to date on vaccinations to ensure top immune response. Being appropriately vaccinated is as critical in 2024 as it was in 2021 to help prevent infection, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The updated COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective, with the benefits of vaccination continuing to outweigh the potential risks of infection.

The CDC has been observing side effects on the more than 230 million Americans who are considered fully vaccinated with what it calls the “most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.” Common side effects soon after receiving the vaccine include discomfort at the injection site, transient muscle or joint aches, and fever.

These symptoms can be alleviated with over-the-counter pain medicines or a cold compress to the site after receiving the vaccine. Side effects are less likely if you are well hydrated when you get your vaccine.

Getting vaccinated is at the top of the list of the new recommendations from the CDC.

Long COVID and your immune system

Repeat infections carry increased risk, not just from the infection itself, but also for developing long COVID as well as other illnesses. Recent evidence shows that even mild to moderate COVID-19 infection can negatively affect cognition, with changes similar to seven years of brain aging. But being up to date with COVID-19 immunization has a fourfold decrease in risk of developing long COVID symptoms if you do get infected.


Read more: Mounting research shows that COVID-19 leaves its mark on the brain, including with significant drops in IQ scores


Known as immunosenescence, this puts people at higher risk of infection, including severe infection, and decreased ability to maintain immune response to vaccination as they get older. The older one gets – over 75, or over 65 with other medical conditions – the more immunosenescence takes effect.

All this is why, if you’re in this age group, even if you received your last COVID-19 vaccine in fall 2023, the spring 2024 shot is still essential to boost your immune system so it can act quickly if you are exposed to the virus.

The bottom line: If you’re 65 or older, it’s time for another COVID-19 shot.

Laurie Archbald-Pannone receives funding from PRIME, Accredited provider of medical and professional education; supported by an independent educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline, LLC as Course Director "Advancing Patient Engagement to Protect Aging Adults from Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: An Implementation Science Initiative to Activate and Sustain Participation in Recommended Vaccinations”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending