3 Banks Funding Fossil Fuels The Most Are Tesla [TSLA] Bears
Thanks to some work by Rainforest Action Network and The Guardian, as well as a post from a member of a Tesla forum, I recently wrote an article highlighting that the #1 fossil fuel development financier happens to also be an extreme Tesla [TSLA] bear.
A certain tweeter looked a little deeper than that and noted in a tweet tagging me that it’s not just the #1 fossil fuel financier that has analysts who are very critical of Tesla and pessimistic about its future — it’s the top 3. Each of the 3 financial firms that lay out the most money for fossil fuel developers have a relatively low Tesla [TSLA] price target.
Directly behind JPMorgan Chase, which I previously noted provided the most money (by far) for fossil fuel development, there are Citi and Bank of America.
Analysts at the top 3 banks funding fossil fuel development all have sell ratings on $TSLA
1. JP Morgan Chase
2. Citi
3. B of A/Merrill LynchCoincidence?#followthemoney#Tesla @mayemusk @zshahan3 @ResidentSponge https://t.co/KWdjmI4RpK pic.twitter.com/MJ1RpmNGpf
— Not_an_Analyst🇺🇦 (@facts_tesla) October 17, 2019
As Twitter user “Not_an_Analyst” points out, these financial companies’ Tesla analysts are extremely pessimistic about TSLA and recommend selling the stock. Here’s another look at their current buy/sell graphs for Tesla.
Those graphs give a sense of what these analysts think about the company, but how about a look at their Tesla price targets? From that big graph of analyst price targets for TSLA that Chanan created, here’s Bank of America’s price target over time (thick red line):
Citi’s price target for TSLA is $191, even lower than JPMorgan’s $200. Bank of America’s price target is $225. Here’s a chart of the various TSLA price targets at the moment:
The three banking giants are not at the very bottom of the analyst price targets, but they are each in the lower half of the chart.
I’m not a big fan of wild conspiracy theories, and I don’t think these three banks have bearish analysts simply because they also finance fossil fuel development. Theoretically, those arms of the financial firm are completely separate and never interact — I’d assume that’s the case. I don’t think the analysts are getting cash on the side or a wink & a nod from management in order to put out a pessimistic forecast. (In other words, without some clear proof of corruption, I’m going to assume people are doing their jobs honestly.)
However, I am very curious how it is that these banks are on the polluting end on both Tesla forecasts and fossil energy financing. A PhD thesis could be done on understanding Elon Musk’s critics and the culture/subculture they live in. Is there a subculture in the financial world that is pro-pollution and anti-Tesla? Is there an overarching “business as usual” bias? Or — gasp — is there actual soft corruption on this topic on Wall Street? Do certain talking points just get pushed out thousands of times a day and those closer to the source are more commonly influenced by them? Is it all pure coincidence?
Any more thoughts or questions about these banking firms and their role in pushing anti-Tesla talking points forward?
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Latest CleanTechnica.TV Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
