Tesla price target hiked at Piper Jaffray: ‘It’s hard to find a more impactful disrupter than Tesla’ https://t.co/Ex8IZcFuN1— MarketsTicker (@MarketsTicker) December 3, 2019
Just getting around to this PiperJaffray $TSLA update, where the analyst raises his price target based on a new 20-yr DCF.— Diogenes (@WallStCynic) December 3, 2019
(2) All you need to know is that he has 2020 ending at a $40B annualized run rate of automotive revenues (4Q=$10.0B), and 2021 ending at almost $60B (4Q=$14.8B)…on virtually no increase in PP&E! $TSLA— Diogenes (@WallStCynic) December 3, 2019
And any DCF will look great with very little capex plugged-into the model, despite projected massive growth in a capital-intensive industry. Piper’s Director of Research should know better, however. Sloppy work.— Diogenes (@WallStCynic) December 4, 2019
Does the Piper analyst care at ALL about the origin of the $1B receivable?— Mark B. Spiegel (@markbspiegel) December 3, 2019
It’s remarkable that (as far as I know) NO ONE on the sell-side but Gordon Johnson raises Einhorn’s question. Do they all pretend it’s not there? Don’t they care that they’re covering a potential fraud?
What is the problem here?— Bloodsport Capital: You are next! (@BloodsportCap) December 4, 2019
They aren’t a research group selling their analysis.
Their job is to sell stock.
Selling stock at a higher price is better than selling stock at a lower price, but most of what I learned in school is no longer applicable.
Anyone who needs a 20-year DCF with very little capex to justify an automotive stock price target is selling a fantasy. That $TSLA valuation from Piper Jaffray sits on a throne of fairytales.— Nathan E. Yates (@FVNate) December 5, 2019