It seems like a dismissive statement, but Tesla is the embodiment of this era’s “hype” investing. So many players have it leveraged like a big casino game, and the end result is (mostly) that non professional or “slow” investors (like you, or your retirement fund) get screwed over.
I don’t agree with this idea that Ys always need to start at zero. If you want to demonstrate volatility there is a good reason to chop the scale. Just be up front about what you’re doing and why you made that choice. It’s only misleading if you chop the scale and misrepresent the result.
Totally agree. This is a legitimate reason to chop the axis. There should be a law requiring schools to put a lot of time in teaching kids to read news and especially graphs.
10% is still a wild fluctuation for a company with the market cap of Tesla. In this case, I think its not “that” deceptive, as zero is not usually a reference in this case.
This ^
It seems like a dismissive statement, but Tesla is the embodiment of this era’s “hype” investing. So many players have it leveraged like a big casino game, and the end result is (mostly) that non professional or “slow” investors (like you, or your retirement fund) get screwed over.
I also should have mentioned that any Y axis that doesn’t start at zero is misleading and makes changes look more drastic.
I’m usually on top of that one.
A law requiring y axis start at zero would unironically do a lot to temper our economy. Just because graphs like OP’s would look less scary.
I don’t agree with this idea that Ys always need to start at zero. If you want to demonstrate volatility there is a good reason to chop the scale. Just be up front about what you’re doing and why you made that choice. It’s only misleading if you chop the scale and misrepresent the result.
Totally agree. This is a legitimate reason to chop the axis. There should be a law requiring schools to put a lot of time in teaching kids to read news and especially graphs.
10% is still a wild fluctuation for a company with the market cap of Tesla. In this case, I think its not “that” deceptive, as zero is not usually a reference in this case.
And if Y started at zero the graph would accurately show 10%, which is huge on that timeline.
And people wouldn’t be used to it and would react appropriately.
Although in this case I’d argue even then a month is deceptively short term when they’ve lost 50% this quarter