https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/elon-musk-vs-short-s...
In the middle ground, you have a company like NFLX where some investors like Bill Nygren are long and advocate the position due to his belief the company has room to raise prices in the future from say $12/month to $15/month, shifting the PE ratio from 150 to 20. My assumption would be that a short thesis would have much less impact on scaring the market to instigate a death spiral for NFLX.
So with Telsa, it is in a vulnerable position due to being in a highly capital-intensive business, negative cash flow, and significant liabilities. But, it also is the only car company ever to presell hundreds of thousands of cars and a CEO who has delivered on big visions and promises before.
I have no personal investment in Tesla, but I hope Elon succeeds as I appreciate his ambition.
Now, the stock is the product, not the company. It's become a game in itself. It adds nothing to the real world outside of finance.
Seems like two sides of the same coin. I can't see where an argument against one doesn't work against the other.
Short-selling is what makes almost zero expense mutual/index funds available to mom n' pop investors. Fidelity are about to offer ZERO TER funds on the basis that short-sellers pay heavily to borrow stock from them.
It seems analogous to expressing hatred for umbrella sellers because you don't like rain.
When I lived in Ireland before the GFC banking collapse, I remember bank executives whipping up public support for a government ban on short-selling bank stocks on the basis of "protecting decent companies from shady speculators and evil gamblers". In terms of cost to society, it was the bank executives who inflicted massive damage and bankrupted the country, not short-sellers of bank stock.
Since then, I've been quite skeptical when people blame speculators and short-sellers for the behavior of markets. There's usually some basis for shorting.