TrendTrader007
Active Member
Right. I'm just making wild guesses here more like flipping coins. I'm right half the time and wrong the other half
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
To be fair, the dot com bubble happened for very specific reasons - not enough people knew how to monetize the internet. It's like we've, as a society, have figured how to do that across a multiple number of methods. This might be the boom everyone was expecting back in the late 90's.
larmor
Active Member
Well some people knew how to monetize the internet: they put "internet" in the name of their company and got funded...
And pass it on, pleaseTT007: Whatever you are drinking, make mine a double
. I just wish he made that tirade rhyme. Would be awesome...
Runarbt
Active Member
In Norway our neighbour have just been informed about a 4 month delay on their Ampera-e and a price increase of $1500. (some due to mandatory extra stuff).
racer26
Active Member
I wonder what's driving the 2%move? Nothing of note to me seemed to have happened...
While I don't have any illusions of converting anyone here to a buy/hold, buy trading shares on dips into silly price levels strategy (nor am I making any prediction about the share price tomorrow, this week, month, ...), I will share a couple of possible near term vulnerabilities for those with time sensitive trades,
1) Tesla's latest blog out Sunday night is quite suggestive that we will see some articles trying to mislead via anecdotes about the safety at Tesla's factory and worker satisfaction/interest in unionizing,
We have received calls from multiple journalists at different publications, all around the same time, with similar allegations from seemingly similar sources about safety in the Tesla factory. Safety is an issue the UAW frequently raises in campaigns it runs against companies, and a topic its organizers have been promoting on social media about Tesla.
Some of the publications who have contacted us have rejected covering this “story” because they understand it is a misleading narrative based on anecdotes, not facts. However, there will likely be a few publications that choose to publish stories regardless, so we want to make sure the public also has the facts. Watch for these articles to downplay or ignore our actual 2017 safety data and to instead focus on a small number of complaints and anecdotes that are not representative of what is actually occurring in our factory of over 10,000 workers.
Creating the Safest Car Factory in the World
2) In an article on the economics of Tesla's Solar Roof by Consumer Reports I accessed through Yahoo, Tesla (and CR) and its Solar Roof were hammered, and, I do mean hammered, in the comments section for not including the cost of financing, or the opportunity cost of using tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a Solar Roof rather than investing those funds elsewhere, as well, to a lesser extent, as overstatements re the cost of asphalt roofs. I happen to think this is one of the very rare instances there are Tesla detractors with an intellectually honest criticism. The economics may or may not work out for any given homeowner, and, for some it's not strictly about economics, but, I find the broad emphatic statements last November that this will be cheaper than a traditional roof/cost of energy to have been overstatements. This is somewhat subjective, but, to me, Elon's presentation implied that the Solar Roof coming out this year would be definitively cheaper for the bulk of consumers. There's some vulnerability there, where there's more vulnerability, is Tesla not including the cost of financing in its calculator. Showing a bottom line of savings without even mention of financing costs, let alone incorporating it into the calculator is not technically a falsehood, but it is an attempt to use consumer ignorance to make the product look more strictly economically compelling than it actually is.
We've seen deluges of articles trying to talk Tesla down based on falsehoods... I think it's likely that with the opening of intellectual honesty being on their side, we will see the usual gibberish peddlers produce a deluge of articles trying to talk Tesla down on Tesla's cost calculator and their general marketing of the Solar Roof as cheaper than a conventional roof/energy costs. I'd expect many of these articles will try to inflate this instance of overselling into a broader smear that Tesla generally misleads consumers and cannot be trusted, and in some instances, even, that Tesla's entire operation is built on trying to dupe and take advantage of the public. Having put up a muddy calculator on its website, Tesla is not going to be in a very good position to clear up the considerable mud that is likely to slung at the economic attractiveness of the Solar Roof.
Note: If you disagree with me about Tesla overstating the economics of the Solar Roof, that's fine, it's debatable. fwiw, I've had enough of that debate for now on the general thread, and I'm not looking to bring that discussion here. my point is, don't be surprised if we see a stream of critical articles coming very soon, whether you agree with me that some criticism is valid in this case or not.
1) Tesla's latest blog out Sunday night is quite suggestive that we will see some articles trying to mislead via anecdotes about the safety at Tesla's factory and worker satisfaction/interest in unionizing,
We have received calls from multiple journalists at different publications, all around the same time, with similar allegations from seemingly similar sources about safety in the Tesla factory. Safety is an issue the UAW frequently raises in campaigns it runs against companies, and a topic its organizers have been promoting on social media about Tesla.
Some of the publications who have contacted us have rejected covering this “story” because they understand it is a misleading narrative based on anecdotes, not facts. However, there will likely be a few publications that choose to publish stories regardless, so we want to make sure the public also has the facts. Watch for these articles to downplay or ignore our actual 2017 safety data and to instead focus on a small number of complaints and anecdotes that are not representative of what is actually occurring in our factory of over 10,000 workers.
Creating the Safest Car Factory in the World
2) In an article on the economics of Tesla's Solar Roof by Consumer Reports I accessed through Yahoo, Tesla (and CR) and its Solar Roof were hammered, and, I do mean hammered, in the comments section for not including the cost of financing, or the opportunity cost of using tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a Solar Roof rather than investing those funds elsewhere, as well, to a lesser extent, as overstatements re the cost of asphalt roofs. I happen to think this is one of the very rare instances there are Tesla detractors with an intellectually honest criticism. The economics may or may not work out for any given homeowner, and, for some it's not strictly about economics, but, I find the broad emphatic statements last November that this will be cheaper than a traditional roof/cost of energy to have been overstatements. This is somewhat subjective, but, to me, Elon's presentation implied that the Solar Roof coming out this year would be definitively cheaper for the bulk of consumers. There's some vulnerability there, where there's more vulnerability, is Tesla not including the cost of financing in its calculator. Showing a bottom line of savings without even mention of financing costs, let alone incorporating it into the calculator is not technically a falsehood, but it is an attempt to use consumer ignorance to make the product look more strictly economically compelling than it actually is.
We've seen deluges of articles trying to talk Tesla down based on falsehoods... I think it's likely that with the opening of intellectual honesty being on their side, we will see the usual gibberish peddlers produce a deluge of articles trying to talk Tesla down on Tesla's cost calculator and their general marketing of the Solar Roof as cheaper than a conventional roof/energy costs. I'd expect many of these articles will try to inflate this instance of overselling into a broader smear that Tesla generally misleads consumers and cannot be trusted, and in some instances, even, that Tesla's entire operation is built on trying to dupe and take advantage of the public. Having put up a muddy calculator on its website, Tesla is not going to be in a very good position to clear up the considerable mud that is likely to slung at the economic attractiveness of the Solar Roof.
Note: If you disagree with me about Tesla overstating the economics of the Solar Roof, that's fine, it's debatable. fwiw, I've had enough of that debate for now on the general thread, and I'm not looking to bring that discussion here. my point is, don't be surprised if we see a stream of critical articles coming very soon, whether you agree with me that some criticism is valid in this case or not.
Last edited:
Too many. I can't figure out which one(s) to bet on. And you really can't trust the accounting statements of some of them (mainland China is not known for reliable auditing yet, not that the US is either). And you'd darn well better be able to read Chinese to read their reports, or the news reports about them.
TSLA does 2% moves for no reason at all *routinely* and has since the IPO. It's *volatile*. Don't try to ascribe a reason to any move that small. Now, a 10% move, probably a reason, but what was the reason for the February 2016 move? I never found a reason.
Gerardf
Active Member
I have the impression that was on a 'volume' of 300 shares ?
Börse Frankfurt (Frankfurt Stock Exchange): Stock market quotes, charts and news
Edit : still only 834 now. Maybe I should buy some there.
Last edited:
CyberDutchie
Active Member
It could be related with a downgrade from Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley, per note put out at 4am GMT (giving traders in Europe time to read and act):
The Price of Ambition: Downgrade to EW
Changes to model and price target. Following 1Q results we have updated our model and now have a higher estimate of OP loss in 2017 and 2018. Following these adjustments (mainly higher R&D, SG&A and the impact of higher capex) we now expect Tesla to remain loss-making on a US GAAP basis until late 2019. Our estimate of cash burn for 2017 widens to $3.1bn from $2.3bn previously, taking our forecast of gross cash to under $1bn by the end of 2018. By itself, these changes to our model would have taken our price target to $292. Rolling forward the starting point of our DCF of the core business to May 1st (from Jan 1st) was an equal offset. Our price target thus remains unchanged at $305, or roughly 6% downside from the current stock price.
What’s changed since our January upgrade to justify our change in rating?
Model 3 expectations appear to have recovered substantially over the last 4 months. Earlier this year investor expectations for Model 3 hit a trough with most investors we spoke with at that time expecting zero deliveries of the model during 2017 A series of subsequent reiterations from management and the spotting of release candidates testing on public roads have increased expectations of timing and volume significantly. Although we cannot quantify what the market expectation is at this point, we believe our forecast of 2k Model 3 deliveries this year is substantially below current market expectations. Looking to 2018, we believe our 90k volume forecast is also far below Street expectations, possibly one-half or one-third market expectations for Model 3 volume next year.
We expect much larger and more well capitalized competitors to unveil strategies that directly address sustainable transport and mobility. There have been numerous developments that suggest to us the continued preparation of an assault by large tech firms on the market for shared, autonomous, electric mobility. The two most important milestones we would point out that have come to light since our January upgrade are: (1) the move by Waymo (Alphabet’s autonomous/shared mobility unit) to multiply its autonomous Pacifica fleet by 6x (see our April 25th report: Waymo Steps Up the Fight Against Uber, Lyft and Tesla); and (2) the revelation that Apple has become the latest firm to secure an autonomous driving permit in the state of California. See our April 28th report: Tesla’s Biggest Competition is Likely Not Other Automakers.
We do not feel China is going to be a significant long term market available to Tesla. As the auto industry changes from selling unconnected driving machines to offering transportation on demand through connected, automated, data-harvesting devices, we believe conventional views of what makes a ‘global car company’ could be rightfully challenged. To be clear, over the long term we have a very difficult time imagining firms delivering on-demand, automated mobility services in a global model across multiple countries with both data and profit accruing to those firms. We see a fragmentation along national lines driven by the same concerns that have driven a similar fragmentation in today’s utilities. Some governments may not accept the operation of mission-critical services by foreign firms. While we expect China to be the world’s largest EV market at some stage, we question how much of this market will be made available to foreign firms. We find many investors we speak with believe that China may soon be a larger market opportunity for Tesla than the United States. We are far more skeptical on this issue. Our thoughts on this issue have changed materially since our January upgrade: See our April 21st report: Autonomous Cars and US National Security.
Our scenarios of adjacent businesses like solar, storage and trucks are not enough to significantly move the needle on Tesla valuation. In recent weeks the market has begun to digest recent adjacent business opportunities open to Tesla. Our previous work on the solar and stationary storage market in collaboration with Stephen Byrd and Devin McDermott from our Electric Utilities team identified areas where Tesla’s storage and energy products could add value but even in bullish scenarios we struggle to accrue value more than 5% of today’s market cap with high risk. As such, we currently ascribe no discrete value to Tesla shares for solar and stationary storage. We collaborated with Ravi Shanker from our Freight Transportation team on analyzing the economic impact of Tesla entering the Trucking and Logistics business through both truck manufacturing and battery leasing services. We believe the Tesla truck opportunity is real and is a natural market adjacency to the personal transport model, but we don't see it being worth more than 10% of market cap. Please see Ravi’s April 20th report: Why Does Tesla Want To Get Into Trucking?
Tesla’s stock is trading slightly above our price target. The stock offers 6% downside with a very wide range of potential outcomes. Investors may view Tesla as a call option on disrupting some of the largest and most important markets in the world. We don’t disagree with this view at all. However, even call options can have fair value and we believe the option premium embedded within Tesla’s $53bn is fairly to fully valued at this point.
There is a lot more in the note, but just wanted to share the above to give you a sense for Adam Jonas' reasoning behind the downgrade.
Reciprocity
Active Member
A couple of things it seems a lot of people miss about the value of the solar roof vs other roofs and why the opportunity cost of financing vs investing else where are silly arguments:
1. I don't know why people think a roof is optional and that having a roof is critical part of a home. The fact is that the solar tiles are for homes that need a new roof or new construction and that don't have solar. Homes with roofs that don't need replacing should go with solar panels.
2. All the arguments you mention fail to take into account the fact that you get a roof that is far superior to the one you are replacing and any other roof you would put on. This has a value that is conveniently left out of many people's calculations to life time return on investment. For instance, no one compares the solar roof to asphalt + solar and includes the fact that the asphalt will need to be redone every 15 years or so or more often with weather damage. Also they ignore the fact that the solar will more then likely need to be reinstalled each time. They concurrently leave off every downside to asphalt + solar when making the comparison.
3. If you put a $10,000 roof on your house that's going to last 15 years, the value it adds to your home goes down 1/15th every year, or worse as it goes down on terms of future replacement cost which will be higher then the cost today. If you put a $60,000 then subtract the solar portion to make it equivalent to the asphalt example you end up with a $40,000 value that declines in value over 100 years. This is because you can replace both solar probs of both solutions every 20 years at roughly the same cost. Assuming the panels don't get damaged by storms that do not impact the solar tiles. Every calculation I have seen outright ignores the fact that a better roof is more valuable to the owner and future buyers and more then makes up for the difference in price with longevity and flat out higher value for better looks.
Lastly, the solar roof is not for everyone. It's for everyone else. Meaning, it you need a new roof and/or you can't put panels on the front of your house and you have few to no other options then the solar tiles are for you. Solar tiles are not for you if you love on an $80,000 house, just tear off your old roof and get asphalt and traditional solar.
People need to stop comparing apples to oranges and then ignoring the benefits and value a superior roof would bring.
I continue to ignore Jonas until his model reflects a Model 3 ramp consistent with what Tesla is forecasting. Tamberrino isn't even worth commenting on. One can only speculate whether the many companies at risk of disruption by Tesla that GS and MS have a financial interest in has influenced the quality of analysts that these powerhouse firms have assigned to Tesla research.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
I agree that the market value contribution from solar is uncertain at this point given no info on margins and the slow ramp.
On the other hand, the analyst also downplays the energy storage and trucking opportunities with which I do not agree.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Article
