-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Mr. Lump, Thank you for the link to the interview! Was your take-way different from mine?
If they do the cap raise now, the worst case scenario is that the stock rises to 350 later in the year and they have to live with 5% dilution instead of 3.5% dilution if they had waited for a higher price. Not a big deal...
But what if the market tanks over the next 3 months....much harder to do a cap raise and company would be "near the edge" as Elon mentioned in CC.
I'm all for taking risks when gain is substantial but here they should play it safe and do a cap raise YESTERDAY
But what if the market tanks over the next 3 months....much harder to do a cap raise and company would be "near the edge" as Elon mentioned in CC.
I'm all for taking risks when gain is substantial but here they should play it safe and do a cap raise YESTERDAY
erthquake
Active Member
I agree. Over-optimizing the raise timing for maximum SP seems a bit penny-wise, pound-foolish to me.
And so it begins...
Scott Pruitt's latest climate change denial sparks backlash from scientists, environmentalists
"
Scientists, environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers quickly denounced EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after he said Thursday on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to climate change.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he said.
He added that further study was needed to determine the extent of carbon emmissions' impact on global warming.
"
Scott Pruitt's latest climate change denial sparks backlash from scientists, environmentalists
"
Scientists, environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers quickly denounced EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after he said Thursday on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to climate change.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he said.
He added that further study was needed to determine the extent of carbon emmissions' impact on global warming.
"
well said. I can see doing a billion raise right here, I might hold off on doing more than that.
The time to raise money is when you don't (yet) need it... If there's going to be any trouble getting it, better to find out now and manage the cash flow to what's on hand.
Static fire of Falcon 9 just completed. Targeting EchoStar XXIII launch from @NASA's Kennedy Space Center on Mar. 14, early morning EDT. SpaceX on Twitter
I read this and naturally got thinking about short sellers in the most shorted stock
Sorry, she looks veraciously long and strong to me.
This was posted by @UnpluggedP in the 'Info and Hints from Elon Tweets' thread. I thought it needed to be more wide spread 
Looks like another big TE job could be incoming:
Ameliorate
Member
Ms Stewart was giving community banking perspective as it relates to lending to small business & gave an example of a regulation that didn't make sense, requiring a retire to provide a W2 in order to get a loan was one.
At this point I don't think throwing money at advancing the M3 will have enough value therefore the cap raise isn't in 16Q4 or 17Q1. When proof of concept/beta run is completed and production begins there will be a big need for higher capex. Once M3 production starts it is at Elon's discretion on how fast the ramp up will be. Advance sustainable transportation exponentially or in controllable pace. I bet he and his team is trying to figure out how to balance all of this. Elon wants all this done yesterday.
3Victoria
Active Member
hockeythug
Active Member
Nobody seem to be interested to do a napkin math exercise on Tesla's bet of installing up to 300MWh worth of batteries in Australia. Here is my shot at it. Assuming four shipments 75MWh each with the following schedule would require current production rate of 37.5MWh/week or 1.8GWh/year assuming 48 production weeks.
0 weeks - sign Contract
2 weeks - ship first 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#1)
4 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#2)
5 weeks - deliver batch #1 to SA Site
6 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#3)
7 weeks - deliver batch #2 to SA Site
8 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#4)
9 weeks - deliver batch #3 to SA Site
11 weeks - deliver batch #4 to SA Site
0 weeks - sign Contract
2 weeks - ship first 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#1)
4 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#2)
5 weeks - deliver batch #1 to SA Site
6 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#3)
7 weeks - deliver batch #2 to SA Site
8 weeks - ship 75MWh batch of PowerPacks (#4)
9 weeks - deliver batch #3 to SA Site
11 weeks - deliver batch #4 to SA Site
Esme Es Mejor
Member
Strictly speaking, Pruitt is right. We don't know enough about natural warming and cooling cycles to know whether CO2 is the primary contributor to the 0.8C rise in global temperatures since 1880. Most likely, it is. But there is a small chance that a natural warming cycle has been the primary contributor, and our emissions are a very large secondary contributor (say, 49%). Not very likely, but possible.
Of course, it's also possible that our emissions have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming. If we are in a natural cooling cycle, our emissions may have caused more warming (say, 1.0C or even 1.5C), but nature negated some of it. In that case, we're causing global warming at a faster rate than we are capable of observing.
At any rate, Pruitt's nit-picky, lawyerly point should not be the basis for policy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
