So, then, what would have happened, under this model, if the judge rejected the agreement? It seems like it would make sense to account for costs when an agreement is *finalized*, not when it’s just proposed.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
So, then, what would have happened, under this model, if the judge rejected the agreement? It seems like it would make sense to account for costs when an agreement is *finalized*, not when it’s just proposed.
The same thing that would happen if the agreement were subsequently revoked, after the judge's signature. A reversal would be made in the subsequent accounting period, if appropriate.
What 'seems like it would make sense' is quite frequently different from what GAAP requires.
Absolutely nothing to do with market action. Please take to the thread it belongs in.The same thing that would happen if the agreement were subsequently revoked, after the judge's signature. A reversal would be made in the subsequent accounting period, if appropriate.
What 'seems like it would make sense' is quite frequently different from what GAAP requires.
Thanks
Well, you could have looked that up before responding
Ampil: "... caused significant flooding, inundating 31,600 hectares of crops and affecting 260,000 people. One person was killed in China and total economic losses reached ¥1.19 billion (US$175.2 million)"
13W: No significant impact
Rumbia: "Rumbia killed a total of 22 people in East China and total economic losses were counted to be CN￥9.2 billion (US$1.34 billion).[114][115] Shouguang where 174.7 mm (6.88 in) of rain fell, was particularly hard-hit, with 10,000 homes destroyed and 13 people killed. The city is regarded as the nation's greatest producer of vegetables and agriculture suffered tremendous losses; 200,000 greenhouses sustained damage. Upstream on the Mi River rainfall reached 241.6 mm (9.51 in) and caused significant flooding. Water levels at three reservoirs rose dangerously high, prompting officials to release excess water to avoid collapse. The resulting increase downstream exacerbated the flooding in Shouguang.
Remember, we're just ones that hit this year. In 2015, Chan-hom hit near Shanghai, but not the city proper.. 1,1 million people were evacuated from the coast (coast = GF3). Nearly 30k ships were called back to port and 600 flights cancelled. "The storm produced high waves from Fujian to Jiangsu provinces, reaching five storeys high in Wenling, washing fish ashore and flooding the coast." In total, "Overall, Chan-hom affected 3.9 million people in eastern China, causing about ¥9.8 billion (US$1.5 billion) in damage"
In 2005 Cat 2 Matsa hit a good distance from Shanghai, yet still "Heavy rainfall in Shanghai flooded 84 city streets; in some locations insufficient water drainage left homes and apartments flooded, with a total of 20,000 houses reporting flooding. The flooding also closed the city subway system for a few hours. Strong winds downed 2,700 trees and 400 power lines in the city. The typhoon damaged a construction site in the city, leaving three injured and one person killed. Throughout the city an estimated 15,000 houses were destroyed. Additionally, four people were electrocuted as a result of the flooding. In Shanghai alone, damage totaled $1.33 billion (2005 CNY, $164.5 million 2005 USD); seven people died in the city."
The same year, Cat4 Khanun hit at pretty much the same location, but harder. More than 800k people had to be evacuated (remember, this wasn't a hit on Shanghai itself). Damages totaled to $849 million (2005 USD).
The previous year (2004), Typhoon Rananim hit pretty much the same location (not Shanghai proper). "Wind gusts were recorded up to a local record of 211 km/h (131 mph). A total of 188 people were killed by the storm, mostly due to collapsed homes and landslides; roughly 1,800 were injured and over 18 million were affected by Rananim.[9] Economic losses in China amounted to about $2.2 billion (USD)"
I could keep going, but you get my point. Shanghai is very much in the firing line of very powerful storms, and it's been lucky that many of the most powerful ones recently have hit off to one side or the other.
That's an interesting attitude to take towards building a critical facility in a flood plain on reclaimed land in Typhoon Alley.
The wave heights from the Touhoku tsunami reached 4 meters in Chile and killed at least 12 people there. All the way across the Pacific. Colour me skeptical that a location immediately next to one of the most powerful subsea faulting zones in the world, built on low-lying reclaimed seafloor, is at little threat from tsunamis. Japan - a country famously proactive against natural disasters - vastly underestimated the potential. China is famous for downplaying the threats natural disasters can pose to its cities.
Shanghai is near the Ryukyu Trench, which is a mega-splay fault system and tsunami hazard where "after a quiescence of 241 yr, a potential great earthquake of magnitude 8.5 can be expected in the south Ryukyu forearc in the near future. A devastating tsunami linked to the mega-splay fault system could again heavily strike the coastal regions of the Ryukyu islands, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan and the Philippines."
I would count being rated as the eighth riskiest city in the world for natural disasters in an insurance analysis "disrupting life".
I also find "have you been there" a curious means for assessing disaster risk. I live a couple dozen kilometers from an active magma chamber, but that doesn't make me a vulcanologist.
Reclaimed land is riskier to flooding (whether from rain, surge, tsunamis, etc) and liquefaction in earthquakes. That's just the way it is. It has not been compacted over millennia.
On land that used to be ocean, and is currently barely above sea level.
Again: as investors, this is not "actionable information", in that we're not the ones making construction or siting decisions. But it is a risk factor that we need to be aware of.
Last edited:
yeah, but it only really works that way when you’re talking shares bought with cash - not everyone pro tesla has that luxury.
more than half shares on the street are bought with broker extended margin. therefore the drop in value impacts these people as well as long options holders
(yes i know half of you here think that whole class of tesla holder is evil, for some reason, but besides the point).
so yes, the stock took a hit when the plan didn’t go through, and the fact that it was taken advantage of by ruthless manipulators made it worse. hopefully everyone learned something from it.
Well, you could have looked that up before responding
Ampil: "... caused significant flooding, inundating 31,600 hectares of crops and affecting 260,000 people. One person was killed in China and total economic losses reached ¥1.19 billion (US$175.2 million)"
13W: No significant impact
Rumbia: "Rumbia killed a total of 22 people in East China and total economic losses were counted to be CN￥9.2 billion (US$1.34 billion).[114][115] Shouguang where 174.7 mm (6.88 in) of rain fell, was particularly hard-hit, with 10,000 homes destroyed and 13 people killed. The city is regarded as the nation's greatest producer of vegetables and agriculture suffered tremendous losses; 200,000 greenhouses sustained damage. Upstream on the Mi River rainfall reached 241.6 mm (9.51 in) and caused significant flooding. Water levels at three reservoirs rose dangerously high, prompting officials to release excess water to avoid collapse. The resulting increase downstream exacerbated the flooding in Shouguang.
Remember, we're just ones that hit this year. In 2015, Chan-hom hit near Shanghai, but not the city proper.. 1,1 million people were evacuated from the coast (coast = GF3). Nearly 30k ships were called back to port and 600 flights cancelled. "The storm produced high waves from Fujian to Jiangsu provinces, reaching five storeys high in Wenling, washing fish ashore and flooding the coast." In total, "Overall, Chan-hom affected 3.9 million people in eastern China, causing about ¥9.8 billion (US$1.5 billion) in damage"
In 2005 Cat 2 Matsa hit a good distance from Shanghai, yet still "Heavy rainfall in Shanghai flooded 84 city streets; in some locations insufficient water drainage left homes and apartments flooded, with a total of 20,000 houses reporting flooding. The flooding also closed the city subway system for a few hours. Strong winds downed 2,700 trees and 400 power lines in the city. The typhoon damaged a construction site in the city, leaving three injured and one person killed. Throughout the city an estimated 15,000 houses were destroyed. Additionally, four people were electrocuted as a result of the flooding. In Shanghai alone, damage totaled $1.33 billion (2005 CNY, $164.5 million 2005 USD); seven people died in the city."
The same year, Cat4 Khanun hit at pretty much the same location, but harder. More than 800k people had to be evacuated (remember, this wasn't a hit on Shanghai itself). Damages totaled to $849 million (2005 USD).
The previous year (2004), Typhoon Rananim hit pretty much the same location (not Shanghai proper). "Wind gusts were recorded up to a local record of 211 km/h (131 mph). A total of 188 people were killed by the storm, mostly due to collapsed homes and landslides; roughly 1,800 were injured and over 18 million were affected by Rananim.[9] Economic losses in China amounted to about $2.2 billion (USD)"
I could keep going, but you get my point. Shanghai is very much in the firing line of very powerful storms, and it's been lucky that many of the most powerful ones recently have hit off to one side or the other.
That's an interesting attitude to take towards building a critical facility in a flood plain on reclaimed land in Typhoon Alley.
The wave heights from the Touhoku tsunami reached 4 meters in Chile and killed at least 12 people there. All the way across the Pacific. Colour me skeptical that a location immediately next to one of the most powerful subsea faulting zones in the world, built on low-lying reclaimed seafloor, is at little threat from tsunamis. Japan - a country famously proactive against natural disasters - vastly underestimated the potential. China is famous for downplaying the threats natural disasters can pose to its cities.
I would count being rated as the eighth riskiest city in the world for natural disasters "disrupting life".
Reclaimed land is riskier to flooding (whether from rain, surge, tsunamis, etc) and liquefaction in earthquakes. That's just the way it is. It has not been compacted over millennia.
On land that used to be ocean, and is currently barely above sea level.
I think you overthink. Even this kind of floods happen, a couple days of production disruption at max.
Don’t worry, this is all intentional. Tesla believes in its mission of stopping climate change so much that they’re building this gigafactory in such an area that if they fail in that mission, they (quite literally) sink the company.
Krugerrand
Meow
I haven’t heard that name in a number of years. Hadn’t even realized he was there anymore.
w
Say towards a LONG tesla position I'm going to allocate $100K. If I'm currently allocated $20K, that would be 20% of the position that I am allocating towards this Long tesla position.
Prior to last opex, I was $100K long, but had continued to sell against 75% of the position OTM/ITM calls and never got called away, although I had to buy back some calls for the sept expiration. I also had sold 35% of the position at 310$ and 50% of the remaining 65% at the 292.5$ level. By then my adjusted share price was under 140$. I stayed long essentially 20% of the initial position. Granted, I've been tempted to add when we dipped under 260$ or lower but still have my hunches. As I said above, a 285$ or above close would be a buy into ER, or again under 255$.
Didn't see it as a post directed to me since it didn't have the @tivoboy quoted and quite frankly just didn't see it. That said,
Say towards a LONG tesla position I'm going to allocate $100K. If I'm currently allocated $20K, that would be 20% of the position that I am allocating towards this Long tesla position.
Prior to last opex, I was $100K long, but had continued to sell against 75% of the position OTM/ITM calls and never got called away, although I had to buy back some calls for the sept expiration. I also had sold 35% of the position at 310$ and 50% of the remaining 65% at the 292.5$ level. By then my adjusted share price was under 140$. I stayed long essentially 20% of the initial position. Granted, I've been tempted to add when we dipped under 260$ or lower but still have my hunches. As I said above, a 285$ or above close would be a buy into ER, or again under 255$.
P&L has nothing to do with market action? "Absolutely" nothing?
Good luck with your investing!
Krugerrand
Meow
Being positive in life/putting out positive doesn’t create an echo chamber. It simply creates a positive life loop, which has infinite advantages. Not going to go into the whole psychology of it because wrong forum.
Simply, there’s enough negativity in life, including on the Internet, I feel no need to add to it, especially when supporting such a trying and arduous endeavor as Tesla and Elon Musk have embarked on, so keep it to myself.
FYI, fair criticism not equal to negativity. Problem tends to be that few know how to deliver fair criticism in a non-negative, dramatic, et al way.
‘She’ is being dramatic and perpetuating an incorrect (and meant to be negative) line of thinking.
Let me phrase it in a non-dramatic, neutral manner;
Tesla issued 70kish new shares for Elon to buy for 20m. This means Elon is paying Tesla’s SEC fine and shareholders get diluted by 1 cent/share (or whatever the actual dilution amount is).
See how that worked? Statements of fact without the need to blow it out of proportion or go on some rant about how nobody on the board stands up to Elon, blah, blah, blah.
If you want to add fair? criticism....
As a shareholder I believe I should have been asked if I was okay with that/given the opportunity to vote against, yadda, yadda, yadda or some such etc., etc.,
MikeQ
Member
Tesla and the other automakers all had exactly the same amount of time. Only one company decided to take a chance. The rest of them refused to build a product. In reality, the other manufacturers were BETTER positioned than Tesla to pull off a desirable electric vehicle since they already had the manufacturing experience, supply chain, dealerships and service centers in place.
Last edited:
Profits will be $ 20 MM lower when fine is paid; no effect on cash.
As I've reminded readers before, Musk's intention to buy $20 mil TSLA mentioned in very first NYT article announcing SEC action. Also, he did not pay directly the fine for Tesla the company, so not in violation of the consent agreement.
Ford had a 100 year head start on Tesla.
GM destroyed their shareholder holdings when they declared bankruptcy and got bailed out. They are going to do it again most likely.
@M3Rider you really need to re-evaluate your statement. Might as well push for flat earth if you think Tesla had any advantage whatsoever over any other auto.
Porsche, Audi, Jaguar are practically vultures trying to ride what Tesla established.
Society needs to reward first movers, not vultures.
Those who dare.. WIN. Not like lame ass Audi who couldn’t even be bothered to stock their dealers with Etrons.
How’s that for commitment to EVs?
RoadsterPlease
Member
somehow the $tsla curve is an inversion to the market in the afternoon, both yesterday and today
What’s interesting is if you overlay today’s TSLA chart with NFLX chart. They are the same.
RoadsterPlease
Member
holy *sugar*, the same movement at 1pm and especially 1:30pm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
