General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[anticitizen13.7]

ignore list. It clears up the thread tremendously and I would recommend others to do the same.

My opinion is likely to be unpopular here, but I believe that "ignore list" feature is not beneficial at a general level.

False narratives that go uncontested, tend to stick. This has traditionally happened in the political realm: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" published numerous lies about presidential Candidate John Kerry during the '04 US campaign. The Kerry campaign was slow to react, and many voters ended up believing the lies. A more tech-oriented example is Apple's repeated claim during the "Get a Mac" ad campaign in the mid-late 2000's, that "Macs don't get PC viruses". While technically true (A virus compiled as an MS Windows program won't run in OS X, and if one considers PCs to be completely distinct from Macs -- I note that many people in the general public consider "Personal Computer" to encompass both Windows and macOS machines), this lead to many consumers believing that Macs are immune to malware generally, which is a highly dangerous belief that has proven difficult to root out. Pun intended.

FUD that goes uncontested here, could very well be believed by any number of newer members or non-member readership of the forum.

 

[sundaymorning]

My opinion is likely to be unpopular here, but I believe that "ignore list" feature is not beneficial at a general level.

False narratives that go uncontested, tend to stick. This has traditionally happened in the political realm: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" published numerous lies about presidential Candidate John Kerry during the '04 US campaign. The Kerry campaign was slow to react, and many voters ended up believing the lies. A more tech-oriented example is Apple's repeated claim during the "Get a Mac" ad campaign in the mid-late 2000's, that "Macs don't get PC viruses". While technically true (A virus compiled as an MS Windows program won't run in OS X, and if one considers PCs to be completely distinct from Macs -- I note that many people in the general public consider "Personal Computer" to encompass both Windows and macOS machines), this lead to many consumers believing that Macs are immune to malware generally, which is a highly dangerous belief that has proven difficult to root out. Pun intended.

FUD that goes uncontested here, could very well be believed by any number of newer members or non-member readership of the forum.

If you feel this way then I would encourage you to continue to fight the good fight. I believe this is in the moderator’s job to either clean up or ban members who are obviously spreading FUD. @ggr has done a phenomenal job so far.. but still, A LOT of FUD gets passed around and veteran members like myself are tired of it. If this trend continues and many veteran members, who act as pillars of this forum signs off and leaves (or stops fighting FUD), then TMC will become just like SeekingApha, where FUD becomes the norm and gets passed around uncontested. There’s are reasons why many of us come here, and quite frankly, I’m a bit disappointed in the non-action of banning certain members, the action has to be swift on both FUD/euphoria . So in he end, I just ignore people and not respond. Im sure many veteran TMC members has done the same, so the quality of thread will essentially decrease over time if no action is taken either by notable/ knowledgeable members or moderators.

 

[AudubonB]

OK weekend OT
What SpaceX tech is Model Y gonna use?

Discuss a lot so that the mods move it to another thread

Those things all around the car that you just THINK are camera lenses?
Ha: they are mini rockets used to orient with micro-precision the car at SpC stalls: no more of this sloppy multi-stall parking for Model 3s!

 

[Crowded Mind]

My opinion is likely to be unpopular here, but I believe that "ignore list" feature is not beneficial at a general level.

False narratives that go uncontested, tend to stick. This has traditionally happened in the political realm: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" published numerous lies about presidential Candidate John Kerry during the '04 US campaign. The Kerry campaign was slow to react, and many voters ended up believing the lies. A more tech-oriented example is Apple's repeated claim during the "Get a Mac" ad campaign in the mid-late 2000's, that "Macs don't get PC viruses". While technically true (A virus compiled as an MS Windows program won't run in OS X, and if one considers PCs to be completely distinct from Macs -- I note that many people in the general public consider "Personal Computer" to encompass both Windows and macOS machines), this lead to many consumers believing that Macs are immune to malware generally, which is a highly dangerous belief that has proven difficult to root out. Pun intended.

FUD that goes uncontested here, could very well be believed by any number of newer members or non-member readership of the forum.

I only agree with this if the forum is properly moderated. We went through a long period of time where nothing was done with trolls and it made these threads almost unreadable. That’s how they win. This has since improved significantly, but it needs to stay top of mind. I don’t want to go back to the way it was. Many posters left because of it.

Edit: I now see @sundaymorning already made this point, and I fully agree.

 

[SlicedBr3ad]

I would highly suggest going and sitting in a Model 3 before making any large investment decisions.

Of course if you haven’t driven an S or X then you probably shouldn’t be investing either.

Personally I think they will have zero issues selling hundreds of thousands on a WW basis. The interior materials are high quality and everything about it basically says “why stay in the 20th century with Audi, BMW or Mercedes?”

If Tesla can successfully ramp production and delivery of the 3 then execution risk of the Y drops substantially and the valuation heads north.

Just to jump on the band wagon. Driving tesla is like using iPhone/Android (choose your OS), driving BMW, Mercedes, Audi is like using blackberry.

 

[Waiting4M3]

Last Sunday:



And now:



So close, but so far. No shots on me.

How in the world is the stock at $260?!

You missed on the "no new VIN registration this week" also. Bad week huh

 

[RobStark]

Nissan casts doubt on solid-state batteries

 

[justvisiting]

Let’s not try to manipulate things around. The negative capital will go straight into building the GF (50 % of it to be exact), much of the other 50% will be put towards growth reckless growth (to be exact) of building out superchargers, new storefronts, new service center, etc. Yes the cash burn is high, but it’s justifiable because it’s going towards areas that will support further growth/expansion. So get your facts straight and good luck trying to manipulate around here.

no manipulating.
You said cash burn was 100 million. I showed you that this wis totally wrong. Now you say that cash burn is high, but goes towards good investments
I never said anything about what the cash is used for, and i dont care at that moment
All i did was pointing out that you are blatantly wrong about how high teslas cash burn really is

 

[UrsS]

While I understand your meaning, I think Elon's ambition is so large that Tesla will be borrowing money - i.e. essentially forever.

I bet at least 1 share of TSLA that there are people with enough money (billions) to keep Tesla and Elon Musk going "until we break our carbon habit".
I'm even willing to predict that somewhere in the (hopefully not too distant) future there will be government backing/support for Elon's enterprises; if he ever needs it.
After all, on this continent Elon is the only game in town on the right track to ensure the survival of humanity.
The Trump/fossil-fuel-industry solution (profit now -> cook & burn the planet -> let them all die -> let life restore itself from surviving bacteria and such -> re-develop mammals & homo sapiens within a few million years) is not to my liking, it just takes too long.

 

[Yggdrasill]

no manipulating.
You said cash burn was 100 million. I showed you that this wis totally wrong. Now you say that cash burn is high, but goes towards good investments
I never said anything about what the cash is used for, and i dont care at that moment
All i did was pointing out that you are blatantly wrong about how high teslas cash burn really is

You're really talking about different things. It is factually correct that Tesla's cash reserves went from 3.53B in Q3 to 3.37B in Q4, or a reduction of 160M. If Tesla could maintain that rate of reduction, Tesla's current cash reserves would last for an additional 21 quarters.

However, it's quite likely that in Q1, the cash reserves dropped substantially more. My thinking is that the figure will be in the 2.5-3.0B range at the end of Q1.

 

[sundaymorning]

no manipulating.
You said cash burn was 100 million. I showed you that this wis totally wrong. Now you say that cash burn is high, but goes towards good investments
I never said anything about what the cash is used for, and i dont care at that moment
All i did was pointing out that you are blatantly wrong about how high teslas cash burn really is

I think you’re missing my point. The cash burn is high but you’re are discounting the revenue and the multiple levers Tesla has to control their spending in an event that would call for fiscal conservativeness. Deepak was able to bring in certain revenues that aren’t repeatable during 4th Q 2017, but he has also mentioned that with the increase in M3 ramp, it will also be a good source of revenue for Tesla. So in the end, it becomes a balancing act that the CFO is very capable of doing. But do they need to be ultra conservative? No, bc the capital market will give them what they need. Production from M3 is worth $21 billion in revenues. I don’t see banks turning them down should Tesla decides to tap into it. So far, they have proven to be able to ramp, albeit not as vertical as predicted.

 

[justvisiting]

I think you’re missing my point. The cash burn is high but you’re are discounting the revenue and the multiple levers Tesla has to control their spending in an event that would call for fiscal conservativeness. Deepak was able to bring in certain revenues that aren’t repeatable during 4th Q 2017, but he has also mentioned that with the increase in M3 ramp, it will also be a good source of revenue for Tesla. So in the end, it becomes a balancing act that the CFO is very capable of doing. But do they need to be ultra conservative? No, bc the capital market will give them what they need. Production from M3 is worth $21 billion in revenues. I don’t see banks turning them down should Tesla decides to tap into it. So far, they have proven to be able to ramp, albeit not as vertical as predicted.

Again, and for the last time, i am not interested in capex, revenue or anything else

Your statement was that cash burn is only a 100 million per quarter. You arrived at that conclusion by simply comparing the cash balance
I answered that post and showed you that the statement was completely wrong, and that you were spreading false information, or as you like to call it FUD

nothing more, nothing less

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

Again, and for the last time, i am not interested in capex, revenue or anything else

Your statement was that cash burn is only a 100 million per quarter. You arrived at that conclusion by simply comparing the cash balance
I answered that post and showed you that the statement was completely wrong, and that you were spreading false information, or as you like to call it FUD

nothing more, nothing less

It wasn’t false information— cash burn was only 160 million in Q4. That was based, in part, on non-repeating events, so we should anticipate a higher rate going forward. It reminds me of bears pointing out the cash burn of Q2 and Q3 (based, in part, on non-repeating CapEx) as though that rate would continue. It hasn’t, and it won’t.

 

[Reciprocity]

Context alone should allow you to infer it's meaning. Plus, Google...

Did you just try to use logic in a helpful way? That might be ban worthy as well.

 

[justvisiting]

It wasn’t false information— cash burn was only 160 million in Q4. That was based, in part, on non-repeating events, so we should anticipate a higher rate going forward. It reminds me of bears pointing out the cash burn of Q2 and Q3 (based, in part, on non-repeating CapEx) as though that rate would continue. It hasn’t, and it won’t.

So you say admit that there were a lot of non reccuring events, but still say that his "only 100 million so cash would last 35 quarters" statement was right?

 

[Todd Burch]

Justvisiting:

Simple question for you:

If, as you believe, Tesla were really in a dire cash position, do you think they would be resuming construction to expand the Gigafactory as they’re doing now in Sparks?

If Tesla were teetering on the edge of financial collapse, of course they’d delay new construction until further along in the ramp.

How do you explain that?

 

[K_Dizzle]

Justvisiting:

Simple question for you:

If, as you believe, Tesla were really in a dire cash position, do you think they would be resuming construction to expand the Gigafactory as they’re doing now in Sparks?

If Tesla were teetering on the edge of financial collapse, of course they’d delay new construction until further along in the ramp.

How do you explain that?

Ditto for the supercharger expansion and china retail store RE purchases

 

[Reciprocity]

Nissan casts doubt on solid-state batteries

This is the money quote:

Nissan sees more immediate payback from improving existing lithium ion technology.

"There's still big room for the improvement of the current technology of lithium ion batteries. We have not reached the ultimate lithium ion battery generation yet," Asami said.

"We have a goal for two more generations or so."

Solid state will be awesome in 2 decades when it catches to on cost and density. Safety and recharging seem to be their strength, but lion had gotten safer and charges fast enough for about 90% of what people need with some incremental room for improvement to get to 99%. This moving Target is solid state will have a lot of problems catching up. For example, they might have something in the labs that's comparable to what Tesla had at $165/KWh, but years is moved will beyond that at this point and two more iterations with several gigafactories pumping out billions of cells would need to be completely offset to displace today's tech. It's like batteries displacing oil today. It will be on that level of difficulty in 10+ years. Sub $90/KWh in densities that might be good enough for commercial aircraft. And enough production capacity for 10 million / year cars and a million commercial vehicles like busses and semis. Heck China alone might be 10 million by then. Solid state is chasing a rapidly moving Target where it's advantages are shrinking.

 

[JRP3]

My opinion is likely to be unpopular here, but I believe that "ignore list" feature is not beneficial at a general level.

False narratives that go uncontested, tend to stick.

Except that all your examples were contested but enough people didn't care about the truth to matter anyway, they believed what they wanted to in spite of the facts. I'll engage with the fudsters for a time until it becomes obvious they don't care about having rational debate. After that they are just a waste of time and further discussion just clogs the board. If no one responds they will most likely just go away since all they seem to want is an endless argument. My block list is small, of the six people on it three have been banned and one disappeared on their own.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I only agree with this if the forum is properly moderated. We went through a long period of time where nothing was done with trolls and it made these threads almost unreadable. That’s how they win.

I think it is important to distinguish between "troll" and "FUDster", because the motivations behind trolling and spreading FUD are different. It is possible for someone to simultaneously be a troll and FUDster, but this is rare.

A "troll" has the goal of getting "Lulz", which is happiness from making someone upset. Trolls generally do this by taunting their targets and provoking them into angry outbursts. There is no motive other than to make someone emotionally unhinged for the fun of it.

A FUDster on the other hand, typically has financial motive. They could be a short seller who wants to depress the price of a particular stock by spreading false or misleading information about a company. They could be a long-term investor of company X, who is attacking company Y, a competitor of X, in the hopes of propping up company X's stock price. I recall that this often occurred during the chip wars of the late 90's and early 2000's, when proponents of Intel and AMD waged battles against each other on various message boards. A similar conflict erupted around the same time by people siding with either nVidia or AMD in the GPU markets. Combatants would spin benchmark results and spread FUD about everything from software/driver reliability to thermal problems.

A small set of people troll and spread FUD. In the AMD/nVidia conflict, it was common for people to taunt each other as "nVidiots" and "AMDroids".

Except that all your examples were contested but enough people didn't care about the truth to matter anyway, they believed what they wanted to in spite of the facts. I'll engage with the fudsters for a time until it becomes obvious they don't care about having rational debate. After that they are just a waste of time and further discussion just clogs the board. If no one responds they will most likely just go away since all they seem to want is an endless argument. My block list is small, of the six people on it three have been banned and one disappeared on their own.

The goal is not to convince the FUDsters, but to provide counterpoint for 3rd parties to read.

In 2004, nobody was going to convince "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that John Kerry wasn't the charlatan they claimed he was. However, the voters watching the ads on TV were the ones that needed convincing, and the lack of any meaningful response (at least initially) from the Kerry side proved fairly detrimental to Senator Kerry's presidential bid.

FUDsters don't want "endless argument". They want to plant unsubstantiated fear and doubt into the minds of a broad audience.