Proof that big Tesla bulls shorted Lucid and want Lucid to fail

[no gas]

Gary Black has been spreading FUD on Lucid from the beginning. He just said Lucid doesn’t make a good product. Admitted shorting Lucid. I’m sure there are many massive Tesla investors who don’t want Lucid to succeed.

Tesla Bull Gary Black's Blunt Take On Lucid: 'Advertising Can't Overcome A Bad Product' - Lucid Gr (NASDAQ:LCID)

The quoted post showed a sponsored tweet about Lucid winning "2023 World Luxury Car Of The Year" juxtaposed with its struggling stock.

www.benzinga.com

 

[momo3605]

It's not surprising. Tesla was heavily shorted in the early days too. Lucid just needs to keep existing owner loyalty up so they will be voluntary brand ambassadors, and keep the Saudis happy. Hopefully after the Gravity ships and ramps, the prospects will look better and bulls will outweigh the shorts

 

[EXOTIC2]

I own both stocks. I have a hard time understanding why you want root against two American automotive companies? Just weird.
I also know many Tesla owners who did buy lucid stock and still have it. Might be a bit of paranoia being slung around.

 

[momo3605]

I own both stocks. I have a hard time understanding why you want root against two American automotive companies? Just weird.
I also know many Tesla owners who did buy lucid stock and still have it. Might be a bit of paranoia being slung around.

Shorting allows you to make money when a stock goes down instead of up. I mean I would short Ford and GM stock if I had any interest to do so. They've been making terrible cars, they show no interest in course correcting, and I feel like they will just fall further and further behind. Why would you own stocks like that just because they are american?

 

[par11768]

I would not call Gary Black a "big investor". Looks like he has a new fund but it does not seem very large or doing especially well. He is just doing what many of the short players do, ban mouthing the company hoping to drive the price down so they can profit on the price decrease. The trash talk is what hurts the company, not betting on a price decrease. Tesla was the most shorted stock on the exchange for years, until the shorts got burned. Hopefully, the same will happen with Lucid.

 

[EXOTIC2]

Shorting allows you to make money when a stock goes down instead of up. I mean I would short Ford and GM stock if I had any interest to do so. They've been making terrible cars, they show no interest in course correcting, and I feel like they will just fall further and further behind. Why would you own stocks like that just because they are american?

Yes, I know how the market works. As I posted previously most I know own both stocks in their portfolio. Perhaps I should’ve said ROOTING against two startup EV companies versus Legacy automakers.


Also Shorting GM and F is not gonna move the needle for big $
there is very little volatility in either stock over the past 18 months from current value and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. EV makers exclusively are under attack from media and legacy automakers.

 

[no gas]

Yes, I know how the market works. As I posted previously most I know own both stocks in their portfolio. Perhaps I should’ve said ROOTING against two startup EV companies versus Legacy automakers.


Also Shorting GM and F is not gonna move the needle for big $
there is very little volatility in either stock over the past 18 months from current value and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. EV makers exclusively are under attack from media and legacy automakers.

I don’t mind if someone wants to short, but they shouldn’t spread lies and hate on the company to profit.

 

[scal_air]

Can't shorting hurt a company though? Driving stock prices down decreases the valuation and could lead to difficulty in getting loans, executive turnover due to decreased compensation, and I'm sure a host of other things.

I guess I'm not totally emotionally detached since I've lost a fair amount of money since the Churchill Capital IV days but I want to see the company do well regardless of my investment.

 

[no gas]

Can't shorting hurt a company though? Driving stock prices down decreases the valuation and could lead to difficulty in getting loans, executive turnover due to decreased compensation, and I'm sure a host of other things.

I guess I'm not totally emotionally detached since I've lost a fair amount of money since the Churchill Capital IV days but I want to see the company do well regardless of my investment.

Shorting doesn’t affect stock price, it may create negative sentiment

 

[Pwmac]

Shorting doesn’t affect stock price, it may create negative sentiment

I would disagree. If there are a lot of people selling, either shorting or selling shares, it disrupts the equilibrium between supply and demand and puts downward pressure on a stock.

 

[TFCooper]

If there are a lot of people selling, either shorting or selling shares, it disrupts the equilibrium between supply and demand and puts downward pressure on a stock.

Since every transaction requires a willing buyer and a willing seller, market transactions are always in equilibrium. Sellers don't disrupt an equilibrium any more than buyers do.

The US Treasury, which borrows trillions of dollars, facilitates the actions of short sellers through repo facilities, both directly with the Treasury and indirectly through primary dealers. They do this because encouraging all types of market participants leads to a more efficient market, which in turn leads to lower interest rates on Treasury debt.

 

[Rob Stark]

Since every transaction requires a willing buyer and a willing seller, market transactions are always in equilibrium. Sellers don't disrupt an equilibrium any more than buyers do.

Shorts borrow shares and sell them.

This creates artificial shares. Therefore increasing supply. Disrupting the supply of real shares and the market for them.

The original lender of the share owns a share and the new buyer of the loaned share also owns a share. Shorts therefore increase supply and set a new lower equilibrium price.

This is far different than owners of real shares selling directly to willing buyers.

Buyers don't destroy shares when buying and therefore decrease supply. Only The Company can do that in a buyback share program.

 

[TFCooper]

Shorts borrow shares and sell them.

True. It's also possible to borrow shares and not sell them. A borrower may want to vote them, for example.

This creates artificial shares. Therefore increasing supply. Disrupting the supply of real shares and the market for them.

Mostly false. It's not possible to "disrupt the supply of real shares". Borrowing shares doesn't create more shares, nor does selling short. The number of outstanding shares remains the same. In Lucid's case, they have issued a certain number of shares, and that number is not affected by the actions of investors in the secondary market.
However, allowing securities lending and short selling can increase liquidity, as the tradeable supply of shares can go up.

The original lender of the share owns a share and the new buyer of the loaned share also owns a share.

False. Importantly, the lender no longer owns the shares. The borrower owns the shares, or the person he sold them to. Only one entity owns the shares.

Shorts therefore increase supply and set a new lower equilibrium price.

No. The supply of shares is set by the issuer, not traders or investors.

 

[Sandvinsd]

Fidelity is now paying you 10.875% to loan your LCID shares. Nice return for long holders! It has to be painful for those short sellers if Lucid’s price doesn’t move in the direction they want.

 

[CLTGT]

Gotta love the "squeeze".

 

[Sandvinsd]

Fidelity bumped the borrowing rate up to 11.5% now!

 

[hydbob]

Must be a lot of short interest keeping the stock low.

 

[no gas]

I’m guessing high short interest will continue until the midsize is released.

 

[CLTGT]

It really makes little sense to short a stock at this price, very little room for making a return and a butt-load of risk that a squeeze starts, for whatever reason. Once that squeeze starts, it will get real ugly for those who shorted the position. If I remember correctly, the stock actually has to have an uptick before it can be shorted and there have to be shares available. I do not play in the "short" market any longer, got bitten by it years ago and decided not to play that game any longer.

 

[Sam6062]

Shorts borrow shares and sell them.

This creates artificial shares. Therefore increasing supply. Disrupting the supply of real shares and the market for them.

The original lender of the share owns a share and the new buyer of the loaned share also owns a share. Shorts therefore increase supply and set a new lower equilibrium price.

This is far different than owners of real shares selling directly to willing buyers.

Buyers don't destroy shares when buying and therefore decrease supply. Only The Company can do that in a buyback share program.

And Naked shorting is rampant and not being controlled by the SEC.