2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

[RABaby]

Excuse the slight rambling and redundancy to make a point, but I think it is fair to present it here.

There are two basic arguments going on about Tesla and one is used as a distraction to hide from the real reason.
The distracting argument is the justification for shorting, i.e., that Tesla is is not going to produce the number of cars or batteries necessary to justify its market cap/stock price. The real argument is not simply an argument, but a war. That war is the environment and the future of Earth such that it supports human life - not to mention others.

Those who short a company when they believe it is likely to fail for lack of a good plan or some such reasoning have as valid a reason for going that route as those who buy a stock in company that they expect to succeed. But TSLA represents something different.

TSLA/Musk together are in a war to protect the Earth. If TSLA fails, and since I see no other entity the equal of Musk and TSLA entering the fray and lending support, then the losers will be the environment, along with its inhabitants.

Musk is the one person and Tesla the one company that has done more to offer a challenge to the the fossil fuel industry and its supporters or profiteers than anyone else. Tesla must succeed or humanity fails. And just watching the reports of significant effects of climate change is evidence that my claim is not outrageous.

Not only is the environment at risk, the desire for wealth through the sale of oil has cost millions of lives and violated cultures and spread hatred because those who back oil also back the military and its wars that protect oil resources by raping the lands and their people. Primarily, that pillaging has been committed by Americans and Brits.

There is also that second profiteer that also harms this country and encourages war through the manufacture of weapons of death. The military industrial complex in this country is no better than the fossil fuel industry. They actually work together in harming us, even as the Department of Defense insists they are doing this all in the name of protecting this country. Yeah, just like honor killings.

So I won't go on a prolonged diatribe about the evils some see and others ignore. But I will mention something about TSLA and Musk.
The enemies in this war includes any who give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry.
When the big shorts attack Tesla or Musk, they do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the company, but more with the goals
of the company. Those goals are a real threat to much of what is destroying this world - environmentally and socially. The funding of short activity is not for the purpose of making money; it is to destroy or sharply limit the growth of Tesla.

When I say I want to see brain matter on the sidewalks below the offices of those who attack Tesla or Musk, I am not speaking metaphorically. Musk is the leader of a just cause and he is being assaulted from all sides. In a war, there are casualties. Investors may lose money. In the case of fossil fuels, there are real victims.

The success of Tesla is the greatest weapon we can support in this war.
There is no question that Musk suffers from the battles. He is entitled to the support by those who believe in the mission.
If Tesla loses, the only intelligent life that will exist is AI.
Is it possible that AI would work to eliminate Tesla and Musk?

And in anticipation of a challenge by the few who short because they sincerely believe there are opportunities to profit, I have
nothing against capitalism and those who trade for the sole purpose of making a buck. But few are doing that in the case of TSLA.
There are those who still support Trump so there could also be equivalently limited thinkers who see TSLA as a great candidate for shorting. I have nothing to say to them because it would be a wasted effort - as it is for speaking to those who still support Trump.

If this seems too political for an investment thread, I would remind those people that the market does not function in a vacuum.
If you invest without consideration of anything, you are only throwing darts. If you give credit to shorts for having valid arguments,
you are sure to become one of the victims.

 

[Yuri_G]

3-4 new factories are only needed if Tesla clones the existing Fremont plant (Max expected 500k units total per year). 2 million vehicles would require 3 additional plants.

Tesla could conceivably build a much higher capacity factory, designed with better automation in mind. The company said they would elaborate on such plans later this year.

Your entire thesis can be summed up as: "task is so enormous that it can't be done". Maybe, maybe not. I am content to watch the chips fall where they may. My retirement portfolio has no dependence on TSLA whatsoever, which means I kind of don't care what happens, except for entertainment purposes. If my bet on TSLA is an extra good one maybe I get a Model Y for free... Not counting on it but it would be fun.

The biggest task was accomplished in 2012-2013. Creating a (great) car from essentially zero. Everything else is just a learning experience on the road to becoming a successful manufacturer on a large scale. Tesla designed the Model 3 to be an easily mass manufactured car the same way they designed the Model S to be the best car on the road. The earthquake hit on Friday, the tidal wave is on its way...

 

[elasalle]

Nice read .. The Model 3 Is Further Proof of Tesla's Asymmetric War Against the Auto Industry

 

[elasalle]

toasters toast... they don't get toasted.

Just point me to one ICE (car) toaster that has mass market share in US .. (once again apply the same logic for EVs)

 

[myusername]

Excuse the slight rambling and redundancy to make a point, but I think it is fair to present it here.

There are two basic arguments going on about Tesla and one is used as a distraction to hide from the real reason.
The distracting argument is the justification for shorting, i.e., that Tesla is is not going to produce the number of cars or batteries necessary to justify its market cap/stock price. The real argument is not simply an argument, but a war. That war is the environment and the future of Earth such that it supports human life - not to mention others.

Those who short a company when they believe it is likely to fail for lack of a good plan or some such reasoning have as valid a reason for going that route as those who buy a stock in company that they expect to succeed. But TSLA represents something different.

TSLA/Musk together are in a war to protect the Earth. If TSLA fails, and since I see no other entity the equal of Musk and TSLA entering the fray and lending support, then the losers will be the environment, along with its inhabitants.

Musk is the one person and Tesla the one company that has done more to offer a challenge to the the fossil fuel industry and its supporters or profiteers than anyone else. Tesla must succeed or humanity fails. And just watching the reports of significant effects of climate change is evidence that my claim is not outrageous.

Not only is the environment at risk, the desire for wealth through the sale of oil has cost millions of lives and violated cultures and spread hatred because those who back oil also back the military and its wars that protect oil resources by raping the lands and their people. Primarily, that pillaging has been committed by Americans and Brits.

There is also that second profiteer that also harms this country and encourages war through the manufacture of weapons of death. The military industrial complex in this country is no better than the fossil fuel industry. They actually work together in harming us, even as the Department of Defense insists they are doing this all in the name of protecting this country. Yeah, just like honor killings.

So I won't go on a prolonged diatribe about the evils some see and others ignore. But I will mention something about TSLA and Musk.
The enemies in this war includes any who give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry.
When the big shorts attack Tesla or Musk, they do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the company, but more with the goals
of the company. Those goals are a real threat to much of what is destroying this world - environmentally and socially. The funding of short activity is not for the purpose of making money; it is to destroy or sharply limit the growth of Tesla.

When I say I want to see brain matter on the sidewalks below the offices of those who attack Tesla or Musk, I am not speaking metaphorically. Musk is the leader of a just cause and he is being assaulted from all sides. In a war, there are casualties. Investors may lose money. In the case of fossil fuels, there are real victims.

The success of Tesla is the greatest weapon we can support in this war.
There is no question that Musk suffers from the battles. He is entitled to the support by those who believe in the mission.
If Tesla loses, the only intelligent life that will exist is AI.
Is it possible that AI would work to eliminate Tesla and Musk?

And in anticipation of a challenge by the few who short because they sincerely believe there are opportunities to profit, I have
nothing against capitalism and those who trade for the sole purpose of making a buck. But few are doing that in the case of TSLA.
There are those who still support Trump so there could also be equivalently limited thinkers who see TSLA as a great candidate for shorting. I have nothing to say to them because it would be a wasted effort - as it is for speaking to those who still support Trump.

If this seems too political for an investment thread, I would remind those people that the market does not function in a vacuum.
If you invest without consideration of anything, you are only throwing darts. If you give credit to shorts for having valid arguments,
you are sure to become one of the victims.

well here's something that's going to wrinkle your forehead... i'm a diehard tree hugging liberal and am short Tesla.

 

[UrsS]

Excuse the slight rambling and redundancy to make a point, but I think it is fair to present it here.

There are two basic arguments going on about Tesla and one is used as a distraction to hide from the real reason.
The distracting argument is the justification for shorting, i.e., that Tesla is is not going to produce the number of cars or batteries necessary to justify its market cap/stock price. The real argument is not simply an argument, but a war. That war is the environment and the future of Earth such that it supports human life - not to mention others.

Those who short a company when they believe it is likely to fail for lack of a good plan or some such reasoning have as valid a reason for going that route as those who buy a stock in company that they expect to succeed. But TSLA represents something different.

TSLA/Musk together are in a war to protect the Earth. If TSLA fails, and since I see no other entity the equal of Musk and TSLA entering the fray and lending support, then the losers will be the environment, along with its inhabitants.

Musk is the one person and Tesla the one company that has done more to offer a challenge to the the fossil fuel industry and its supporters or profiteers than anyone else. Tesla must succeed or humanity fails. And just watching the reports of significant effects of climate change is evidence that my claim is not outrageous.

Not only is the environment at risk, the desire for wealth through the sale of oil has cost millions of lives and violated cultures and spread hatred because those who back oil also back the military and its wars that protect oil resources by raping the lands and their people. Primarily, that pillaging has been committed by Americans and Brits.

There is also that second profiteer that also harms this country and encourages war through the manufacture of weapons of death. The military industrial complex in this country is no better than the fossil fuel industry. They actually work together in harming us, even as the Department of Defense insists they are doing this all in the name of protecting this country. Yeah, just like honor killings.

So I won't go on a prolonged diatribe about the evils some see and others ignore. But I will mention something about TSLA and Musk.
The enemies in this war includes any who give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry.
When the big shorts attack Tesla or Musk, they do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the company, but more with the goals
of the company. Those goals are a real threat to much of what is destroying this world - environmentally and socially. The funding of short activity is not for the purpose of making money; it is to destroy or sharply limit the growth of Tesla.

When I say I want to see brain matter on the sidewalks below the offices of those who attack Tesla or Musk, I am not speaking metaphorically. Musk is the leader of a just cause and he is being assaulted from all sides. In a war, there are casualties. Investors may lose money. In the case of fossil fuels, there are real victims.

The success of Tesla is the greatest weapon we can support in this war.
There is no question that Musk suffers from the battles. He is entitled to the support by those who believe in the mission.
If Tesla loses, the only intelligent life that will exist is AI.
Is it possible that AI would work to eliminate Tesla and Musk?

And in anticipation of a challenge by the few who short because they sincerely believe there are opportunities to profit, I have
nothing against capitalism and those who trade for the sole purpose of making a buck. But few are doing that in the case of TSLA.
There are those who still support Trump so there could also be equivalently limited thinkers who see TSLA as a great candidate for shorting. I have nothing to say to them because it would be a wasted effort - as it is for speaking to those who still support Trump.

If this seems too political for an investment thread, I would remind those people that the market does not function in a vacuum.
If you invest without consideration of anything, you are only throwing darts. If you give credit to shorts for having valid arguments,
you are sure to become one of the victims.

100% agree - that is why I have TSLA stock and Tesla car and solar cells on our roof. I don't care if I make money on the stock, but I do care a whole lot if Tesla and TSLA succeed in a big way.

 

[winfield100]

Quartz - July 31: Even oil-company executives want electric cars

'Fossil fuels are dead,' says CSX railroad chief: no more new trains for coal, ever

 

[Ameliorate]

well here's something that's going to wrinkle your forehead... i'm basically a wet noodle tree hugging liberal and am short Tesla.

Clearly you lack conviction. If this was actually true and you had to short something, there are all types of companies headed to bankruptcy, where one would actually net 100% profit. You KNOW even if you think Tesla is overvalued, it's not going to 0. Not even a 50% retrace from here. Don't bother trying to push that nonsense on us. Either you're not great at picking stocks or that statement is quite dishonest. What motivates you to short Tesla over a company with no future prospects/atrocious leadership/declining growth oh and since it matters to you, environmental harm when Tesla has none of these faults? It's only fault is in >>your<< opinion it's "overvalued"?
Get real.

 

[AudubonB]

He might buy a F-250 King Ranch pick up truck. Costs the same as a loaded Model 3. It is a living room on wheels that can move a lot of dirt.

View attachment 239015

Dangnabbit. I took that bait, but - of course - had to add the options that would turn that eye candy into a usable pickup.

You know - like 4WD. And options necessary to get it actually to be able to haul things.

Came to $74,895.

 

[dennis]

meaning what?... you get more money?... that's what you expect... that's exactly what I just got done chastising you for... and what if they don't exceed BMW and only make it to half of BMW, switch from growth to value and become sustainably profitable... resulting in a share price drop from here to sub $200?... would you consider that a success?

@myusername, every one of your posts comparing BMW to Tesla in terms of revenues and market cap overlooks one critical item: growth. BMW Is growing about 7% per year. Tesla has been growing 50%+ per year and that could increase in 2018 with Model 3.

The market values growth. Why? Well consider this: a company like BMW growing 7% a year takes more than 10 years to double revenues. A company like Tesla growing 50% doubles revenues in less than 2 years. Which stock would you rather own? The one that can double in 10 years or the one that can double in 2 years?

The disparity in growth rates is the fundamental reason that bears like you fail to understand why the market values Tesla so much higher than the traditional auto companies.

 

[22522]

I have decided that it might be a good challenge to convince some in this group that Tesla thriving a year from this September is important. That is after the tax credit is halved.

1. A lot of people do not recognize the cost of delay. With a normal trapezoidal shaped market life revenue curve, a month of delay on critical activities early translates into a month of lost revenue *at mature demand*. A quick outline of why that is can be seen when you look at the tail end of the trapezoid - when people stop buying Model 3s. Once a car is defined, that obsolescence (perhaps after a life cycle impulse) is determined by competitors. What we have now is a pile of all the money a model 3 will ever make. The whole goal is to make that pile of money as big as possible.
   
   What does that mean for a 1 month delay on the critical model 3 customer acceptance events? Mature annual demand is about 1,000,000 cars (I think that is conservative - the design is that good.). At $42K per car that is 42K*10^6/12months, or 3,500,000K, or 3.5 billion dollars in lost revenue that you will never see again. The critical event is bridging to the middle class. If you do that in June rather than December that is 6 months of lost revenue and a significant loss of incentive. That translates into 21 billion of revenue that Tesla will never see.

The most important thing Tesla can do for their future, and the future of all legitimate longs, is make and sell a lot of the $27,500 version starting this calendar year, 2017.

I see a couple of disagrees, which means either "I don't see it that way," or "I am in denial about this," or "The recommended behavior would not be good for my financial plan," which in this instance means you are a speculator who plans to sell before the revenue lull at the end of the tax credit - not a true long.

Let's speak only to the true long term health of Tesla. The only reasons to not see it that way are, a) the picture I painted was not clear, b) the picture I painted was wrong, or c) folks are just argumentative. For example, If I said, "When I slide this quarter off the edge of the table it will travel downward, toward the floor," they would "disagree" with a fact, or a list of facts.

To resolve whether it is case a) or case b) with respect to the revenue difference of approximately 21 billion dollars based on the Model 3 product mix this December, I need to draw the picture of the pile of money that a product generates over its lifetime and show the activities that move the edges - activities that determine how big a pile of money actually happens as consequence of a product.

The concept of seed corn might be lost on some. Farming is a long time constant business. You do not eat the entire harvest, or else there will be no food next year and everybody dies. The tax rebate is like seed corn. It can be "eaten" to maximize margins now, or it can be applied in a way that keeps Tesla out of harms way from near death experiences, let's call this "planting" in fertile ground.

I owe you some sketches that show how "time to customer acceptance by the middle class" is the key factor in realizing 21 million dollars in revenue over the market life of the Model 3. Will try to find or draw something...

 

[dennis]

what if the target was left at 500k/yr in 2020?... why was that not success?...

Because that would have disappointed hundreds of thousands of customers who would have to wait 3-4 years for a Model 3.

why wasn't success in 2022 large scale of adoption of EVs by the worlds automakers and Tesla having a chunk of that with a market cap target of $50b or less and a P/S of 1 like the rest of the auto industry?.

Because a $50B market cap and a p/s of 1 implies $50B in revenue in 2022. Which is a CAGR of 38%. Companies with a 6 year CAGR of 38% don't have a p/s of 1; it is more like 3 or 4 (e.g. AMZN).

Am I getting through to you yet?

 

[Waiting4M3]

Well here we are post model 3 reveal.
I think we are headed, down, down, down. There will be a massive effort to push this stock down post negative quarterly results. I think a lot of shorts are banking on that as their 'last'opportunity for a graceful exit. It will be interesting to see how much short interest falls over the next few weeks. Personally unless something dramatic is announced on the conference call, I see the price drifting down another 10 per cent or so. Not confident enough to sell any stock, but i did sell a couple of my options, (only have 8 contracts total) (got to keep things interesting) hoping to buy them back later this week.

The problem with pushing the PPS down to exit previous short position, is that once the PPS is pushed down, you have to buy back the previous short, and the new short position you created to push the PPS down, so you net more buy than sell. Maybe some of the shorts can time it right and get away with it before the PPS pops back up, but for all 23 million shorts, this will be like drinking sea water to quench your thirst when you're stranded at sea.

 

[22522]

Dangnabbit. I took that bait, but - of course - had to add the options that would turn that eye candy into a usable pickup.

You know - like 4WD. And options necessary to get it actually to be able to haul things.

Came to $74,895.

You don't need four wheel drive and the reference model 3 does not have 4 wheel drive or a towing package.
The pickup shown has leather seating and comes in more than one color. It will haul dirt as is. It is the most honest, best reference to the $50K Model 3. It also shows list price. I would suggest that you look in the mirror on the integrity call.

Also, your "awh shucks" supposition of fraud when selling fraud yourself, says you're done.

 

[dennis]

well here's something that's going to wrinkle your forehead... i'm a diehard tree hugging liberal and am short Tesla.

Have you considered seeking professional help?

 

[Waiting4M3]

Can you guys add some label to your posts indicating that you're replying to mmd or myusername so I can feel free to skip right past those? TIA

 

[larmor]

well here's something that's going to wrinkle your forehead... i'm a diehard tree hugging liberal and am short Tesla.

You'll have more success shorting oil, since the world's wars, armies and whole countries revolve on the oil trade and its value. And oil can be replaced with a battery, a fan, a solar cell and some wiring...

 

[CorneliusXX]

meaning what?... you get more money?... that's what you expect... that's exactly what I just got done chastising you for... and what if they don't exceed BMW and only make it to half of BMW, switch from growth to value and become sustainably profitable... resulting in a share price drop from here to sub $200?... would you consider that a success?

If horses grow horns then they might be unicorns

 

[mmd]

But Elon also hinted in tweets that the range will be more than Bolt's range, presumably for the base model. That raised the expectation for many M3 buyers. Proven wrong.

Again, many of us expected him to be referring to the larger pack, and stated as much. Proven correct.

Sorry you have only your wish.But there is a poll to back my statement. If this is how TMC fansite of know-it-alls voted, the twitter followers would have even higher expectations on this because of Elon tweets.
[POLL] Will base model M3 beat the Chevy Bolt's 238 mile EPA range?

 

[erthquake]

Sorry you have only your wish.But there is a poll to back my statement. If this is how TMC fansite of know-it-alls voted, the twitter followers would have even higher expectations on this because of Elon tweets.
[POLL] Will base model M3 beat the Chevy Bolt's 238 mile EPA range?
View attachment 239088

Technically speaking, when driving at real-world highway speeds (65-75 mph), I'd bet the base Model 3 does have more range than the Bolt. And highway is all that matters. No one needs to drive the full range of those cars if they're only about town all day and come back home to charge. Well, maybe cab drivers, but then the Bolt is useless anyway because it can't charge fast enough.