Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Articles/megaposts by DaveT

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But then at some point, we have to start discounting his opinions as such.
You mean you aren't already doing that?

When he tweets "taking the company private, funding secured" but then it turns out it's just some sjeik who sleepily nodded when Elon floated the idea of them bankrolling his wish,
Which is what I figured it was...
then why are so many retail investors on this forum surprised when the price doesn't shoot up to $420.
I can't say I'm surprised, but it shows that the stock is undervalued. The odds of the go-private deal going through were high to start with and get higher every day which passes.

When Elon says, "The shorts are destroying the company, there is no alternative", why are we taking that then as gospel, dismissing their arguments out of hand, claiming that interviews with the most respectable newspapers are 'a disgrace'.
Because that's a statement of intent. Musk wants to take the company private. He's said he'd prefer it for many years, then he said he was considering it, and now he's hiring the top M&A law firms in the country. At this point, thinking it won't happen is betting against *Musk with his mind set on something*, and you'll note Musk hasn't given a timeline at all. When Musk has stated that he's going to do something, and that something is in fact *possible*, how many times has he not done it?

My conclusion: He's going to take the company private come hell or high water; he insists on it. There are enough ways to do it that he's going to do it sooner or later. The only thing which can stop him is a high stock price, and the short-sellers are keeping the stock price down.

When Elon says Tesla will be structurally profitable and cash flow positive in Q3 and Q4 + does not need to raise money, what does that mean then for the financials?
In this case, several of us had already run the numbers and concluded the same thing, as you know from luvb2b's thread, so he was just saying what we'd already figured out. Q3 should be roughly breakeven, and easy enough to make cash-flow-positive (though I won't be surprised if it's slightly below "profit"); Q4 will be clearly profitable and cash-flow-positive.

When he promises us they are doing everything they can to get the short range to the market, is that a mental exercise for him or an effort that has a reasonable chance of actually making it in early 2019?
Again, we already know what the company is doing here, because they have a track record. They're going to deliver the more expensive cars as long as there's still a waiting list for them -- and we can estimate the size of the waiting list, and how long it will take to fulfill it. 2/3 of reservation holders can be expected to want long-range, based on an old Electrek survey. (Nearly all of them apparently want AWD.) The US/Canada LR waiting list gets depleted around the end of the year. They could switch to the overseas waiting list, but so far they've made an effort to push cars in places where incentives are expiring, and that's the US right now. Therefore, according to past behavior, they will put out the short-range car around January. The "new battery module design" is apparently being implemented now, and 5 months is a reasonable amount of time to get it going, but even if they don't, it's not rocket science to build packs with fewer cells using the "old battery module design".

If none of his words can be taken to mean anything tangible and can't be used to hold the company accountable, what practical difference does it make for me that Elon thinks he is giving an honest assessment? He might as well be lying, I can't use his words to construct a picture of what the current situation is and what a reasonable future path forward there is at Tesla.
Well, practice harder. I've spent most of my investment career working out what the pronouncements of CEOs mean by filtering them through an understanding of the CEO's personality and the company's historic behavior. Reading between the lines is part of investment analysis. This isn't just Musk! They're *ALL* like this in one way or another! You can't take any of their words at face value... some of them sandbag predictions, some of them misdirect attention away from money-losing ventures, and frankly Musk is easier to understand than a lot of them.

And finally, it's all fine and dandy to be 'hey bro, it's just a mental picture'. But he is the chairman of the board, the CEO and the major insider of a public company. With those functions come certain regulations and expectations that you can't simply dismiss.
Yeah, he's complied with all of those. Unlike Lee Raymond at Exxon (who belongs in federal prison for life for his actual *crimes*) or the CEO of Bombardier just before it sold off all its profitable businesses to support the unprofitable ones (I'm still sore about that).
And as is usual, you can get away with a lot of things but it's always a final straw that breaks the camel's back... Icarus and all that.
 
I think he'd benefit from COO, or CEO.
I can see Sheryl Sandberg being an amazing CEO, with bias towards operations, rather than vision. And he may have to surrender that title in order to get best of the best. I think it would be hard recruiting type A as a COO, as she knows it would be too hard working for Elon from that position.
I'm glad that Sheryl Sandberg as a COO/CEO was just a rumor that didn't materialize. She's done a good job running Facebook operations and setting the Google-style ads bidding system. But running a social networking company that one can applies common sense is different than running an engineering company that requires a reasonable grasp of engineering principles. It's also questionable how she was completely out of sight in the past year in handling FB publicity issues - an area that her abilities should shine through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Important to know if those $ are US or CAD.

Wait, maybe Ellon meant $420 CAD!!

I'm with you Zhelko.
I hope SEC doesn't start poking around, as I am on thin ice here
Did I intentionally try to manipulate markets by quoting $CAD market moving investment, without qualifying it as $CAD? What are loses shorts will/have experience because of my manipulation? Emotional pain?
I knew I should have gone anonymous...
;)
 
There's been lots of noise and lots of drama of late, but here's a thought.

One of the most impressive things about Tesla in 2018 is that they are now making 5000 Model 3s per week, which means that the Gigafactory is bringing in raw materials and transforming them to 5000+ finished battery packs per week. I don't think this has been given enough attention.

Think of the logistics of that massive amount of raw materials arriving in time, and all the steps it goes through to make battery cells and then finished battery packs. Not many people thought Tesla could do it, but they did. The Gigafactory is a great success, and is allowing Tesla to produce a mass market electric car that is beyond anything any other manufacturer is able to do.

Going from 5000 Model 3s/week to 10k Model 3s/week is going to be much, much easier than going from 0 to 5000. Yet, going from 5000 to 10,000 is where Tesla is going to go from barely profitable as a company to very profitable.

And then you've got the Model Y and the pickup truck coming.

I think Tesla will expedite the pickup truck and bring it along a similar timeline as the Model Y. The Roadster will likely be delayed by 2 more years, and the Semi also as well.
 
From a volume perspective I agree that Y+ pickup would be the next logical combination, however the semi and Roadster are already designed and it sounds like the pickup is much earlier in the process. Plus the logistics of adding the battery and manufacturing for Y + pickup is substantially more complicated that current plan.

But, hey, with Elon who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate the Great
From a volume perspective I agree that Y+ pickup would be the next logical combination, however the semi and Roadster are already designed and it sounds like the pickup is much earlier in the process. Plus the logistics of adding the battery and manufacturing for Y + pickup is substantially more complicated that current plan.

But, hey, with Elon who knows?
Agreed. The Semi and the Roadster are both much lower volume and higher profit products than the Y. Introducing them should be much less of a problem in terms of logistics (space) and cost (high volume manufacturing lines), than Y. As much as I think Model Y and the Pick up will be a success, I hope Semi and Roadster will start production as planned.
 
Unlike the Y and the pickup the semi and Roadster exist and the semi seems to be making regular trips.

Yep.
And Roadster and Semi already have some reservations.
I think Tesla should really push for those, as they can produce them in much lower volume (and probably ramp up quickly adding more people to the line).
Pickup and Y are not here yet (we've not seen a single design) and I'd love for Tesla a whole, blessed year of pure focus on production&delivery and no drama ;-)
 
Here’s some of my latest thoughts in brief. I don’t have time to go into detail with each thought, but you’ll get the drift.

World is becoming increasingly radicalized. The U.S. as well.

There’s such vitriol against Tesla and Elon.

The source of the vitriol can be confusing.

Some people think the motivation is financial and the instigators are short-sellers.

That doesn’t explain the wide-scope of vitriol against Tesla and Elon.

Steve Bannon gave us a deeper clue in his latest interview clumping together Tesla/Elon with Google, FB, Amazon… companies that he detests because he thinks their selfish globalist companies that hoard wealth and aren’t good for the lower/middle class.

Bannon wants to break up these big Internet companies and also put their data in a public trust. This type of thought will likely increase.

Bannon claims this will be a big issue in the 2020 elections.

The far right needs a poster boy to channel their globalist/elitist hate, and they seem to have latched on to Elon and Tesla.

This explains why the hate against Elon/Tesla seems religious. Because it is. Because nowadays political views are increasingly religious/ideological.

People on TMC assume FUD will decrease when Tesla becomes profitable. This is because they believe the source of FUD is short-sellers.

But if primary source of vitriol against Elon/Tesla isn’t short-sellers, and rather it’s being fed from the far right (ie., hate against globalists/elitists), then there’s strong possibility FUD actually increases into 2020 and the elections.

There appears also to be a partnership of sorts (maybe not formal) between short sellers and the far right. Thus, the largest U.S. stock in terms of dollar amount being shorted is now Amazon. Perhaps short sellers and far right aim for government to crack down on Amazon.

Elon appears to believe primary source of attacks is short sellers. He might be mistaken, as lots of TMC folks might be as well.

In a battle if you don’t know from where you’re being attacked, it’s difficult to appropriately defend.
 
Last edited:
It's important to remember that the far right loves elites, particularly the old-school, most entrenched elites. "Divine right of kings" types preferred. Any claimed hostility to elites is just propaganda to feed the masses. It's well known that the far right's primary goal is to protect entrenched elites, because that's who pays for the far-right propaganda.

This was true with Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Peron, and of course Trump.

You can think of Bannon & company as working directly for the Saudi monarchy and you'll be pretty much right. And go figure, Bannon has said lots of positive things about the Saudi absolute monarchy/religious theocracy.

As you would expect from elite aristocrats, they direct their lackeys to attack anyone who seems likely to threaten their aristocracy -- hence the attacks on companies such as Amazon and Tesla, which threaten to break their existing monopolies.
 
It's important to remember that the far right loves elites, particularly the old-school, most entrenched elites. "Divine right of kings" types preferred. Any claimed hostility to elites is just propaganda to feed the masses. It's well known that the far right's primary goal is to protect entrenched elites, because that's who pays for the far-right propaganda.

This was true with Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Peron, and of course Trump.

You can think of Bannon & company as working directly for the Saudi monarchy and you'll be pretty much right. And go figure, Bannon has said lots of positive things about the Saudi absolute monarchy/religious theocracy.

As you would expect from elite aristocrats, they direct their lackeys to attack anyone who seems likely to threaten their aristocracy -- hence the attacks on companies such as Amazon and Tesla, which threaten to break their existing monopolies.

One problem for Tesla is that, in addition to the longstanding criticism from the far right, they are taking criticism from the far left— who paint them as union-busters endangering workers to build playthings for the rich.

So, while the right is attacking Tesla for threatening the elites, the left is attacking them for being one of the elite. It’s a painful squeeze to be in the middle of. I think the continued roll-out the Model 3 helps (it can’t just be the elite driving them), and especially the intro of the SR will help, but I suspect they’ll be catching it from both sides for years to come.
 
Apologies for polluting your thread Dave but after all the noise in recent months and my significant annoyance with Elon’s twittering, this podcast brought me back to Earth: Harvard scientists working on last resort proposals to chemically dim the sky to mitigate global warming.

From time to time we (including Elon) would do well to sit down and take a look at the clear blue sky, and remember the reason this company was formed in the first place. Eyes-on-the-Prize Elon, the rest is incidental.

Crazy/Genius by The Atlantic on Apple Podcasts
 
One problem for Tesla is that, in addition to the longstanding criticism from the far right, they are taking criticism from the far left— who paint them as union-busters endangering workers to build playthings for the rich.

So, while the right is attacking Tesla for threatening the elites, the left is attacking them for being one of the elite. It’s a painful squeeze to be in the middle of. I think the continued roll-out the Model 3 helps (it can’t just be the elite driving them), and especially the intro of the SR will help, but I suspect they’ll be catching it from both sides for years to come.

It's readily apparent the right attacks Tesla in major ways and why they do so. Would you post some links to support your contention that the 'Left' as a whole is attacking Tesla? The portion of the progressive polity whose primary goal is reversing the 30+ year decline in union membership and political power is disappearingly small. Concern for the environment, especially climate change, is in the top three concerns of the great majority of progressives. They understand that Tesla and Elon Musk are the most significant force working to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the world.

Refuting false equivalence between Left and Right is critically important. Progressives range from politically moderate to progressive to far left. But the far left is quite small percentage wise compared to moderates and progressives. Contrast that with the Right.
Moderate Republicans are nearly extinct. 'Principled' conservative Republicans are an endangered species. The large majority of Republicans are far right and farthest right. As shown by 80% of them still supporting Trump after two years of chaos and decades of criminality steadily being exposed.
 
Bannon wants to break up these big Internet companies and also put their data in a public trust.

This is not wrong, by the way, but in this Tesla is a tiny player compared to the GAFA (Google-Amazon-Facebook-Apple).
Data ownership is a serious problem, and probably the only thinkin the world that hybrid human-toad of Bannon gets right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
At some point, capitalists and technologists will have to ask themselves if the commercial collection and exploitation of personal data at large scale is worth risking democracy.

I hate Bannon's vision but I agree that, in a first principle way, his basic propositions are sound.
 
I would mostly agree with @DaveT , but the attacks on Tesla are not coming from one direction or one ideology, they are coming from an alliance of forces. There are some people motivated to attack Tesla because they have a short position, but I would not be surprised if the bulk of shorts are doing it for strategic/political reasons, not economic. If so, they are prepared to lose their money if their bet doesn't pay off.

The far right have taken over the Republican Party and turned it into a fringe party who will vote for them out of habit. The US has always had an extremist minority, mostly on the social conservative right. Many new religions started in the US (and most of those in the Northeast). Other religious movements started in Europe, but moved almost entirely or completely to the US: 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites (Pennsylvania Dutch), the LDS church, the whole branch of Christianity known as Evangelicals, and several other religions that either died out or have nearly died out (Wikipedia claims there are still two elderly Shakers left for example).

Some of those religions never took very deep roots and others took root in a different part of the US from where they started. Evangelical Christianity took root in Appalachia and the Deep South and shifted a number of other religions in the region in their direction.

Whether anyone reading this believes in any of those religions or not, most are socially pretty conservative and they have had an impact on the national character of the US. The US has been one of the most socially conservative developed countries for quite some time, especially since around 1980. That has been decaying in recent years as ideas like legalizing same sex marriage and marijuana have taken hold, but the push back is still pretty strong in some parts of the US.

These social conservatives have been manipulated by a group of wealthy oligarchs who want to control the entire country. We have heard some of their names in the news: the Mercers, Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, etc. The Koch family has been behind every right wing fringe movement in the US since 1960: The John Birch Society, the Moral Majority, the Militia Movement, and the Tea Party. One of these movements crop up every time a Democrat gets elected president. Most of the people attracted to these movements are the same social conservatives who have been part of the fabric of the US from the beginning.

These oligarchs see the new wealth being created from tech to be a threat to their power base. The billionaires and millionaires created by tech are sometimes conservative, but most are progressive. Initially these people were mostly apolitical though and had little direct impact on American politics except to write some checks for Democratic politicians' campaigns. Mostly these new tech wealthy didn't compete with the legacy industries much. A better iPhone or a more powerful computer processor has little impact on the oil and gas business and may actually help industries like defense.

But the tech wealthy have begun to find their political voice. Jeff Bezos bought one of the flagship newspapers in the US, the one best known for political reporting: the Washington Post. Other tech wealth people like Tom Steyer (Silicon Valley venture capital guy) came out advocating political positions like impeaching Trump.

And in this mix was another new tech billionaire who threatens to overturn the entire base on which many of the oligarchs base their wealth: Elon Musk. If Elon was just doing SpaceX, it would not be as big a threat. He could threaten some corners of defense contractor's world, but not all that much. However Tesla threatens to disrupt not only the car business, but the energy business too.

The American automotive business probably feels the most immediate threat from Tesla. Tesla is proving that the thing they said was impossible: compelling and usable electric cars were not only possible, but better than ICE. Up until about a month ago, they could claim that affordable electric cars were not possible in quantity today and even if they were, few people wanted them. Note all the FUD articles in June claiming Model 3s were not selling when a concentration of them were seen somewhere, usually waiting for transportation or until the end of the quarter. Tesla revealed the Model 3 not only is selling well, but the cars being traded in for it are not all luxury or other EVs and some thought, but mainstream ICE are being traded in too.

Tesla is pushing the energy business on two fronts. They probably are not deeply concerned about the threat from electric cars yet, but it is a long term threat. (Realistically it's going to take a long time to get all the legacy ICE off the road.) In the nearer term they are looking at first coal, then natural gas becoming economically unfeasible as Tesla Energy grows. In that market Tesla is just the tip of the iceberg, but remember these are the same people who trotted out the collapse of Solybra as a political point too.

The energy sector has mostly given up on coal except for a few die hards. Coal is not economically feasible and it hasn't been for some time. Natural gas though is in a glut in North America. The wholesale price is very cheap and it's been the biggest nail killing off coal. Some wells only produce natural gas, but almost all oil wells do too. As they pump the oil out of North American oil fields, they have natural gas as a byproduct and they need to get rid of it somehow. In Saudi Arabia they don't have any use for most of it and they just burn it in flares, some big enough to be seen from space, but too much of that is frowned on with environmental laws in most countries.

The growth of solar, wind, and other renewables threaten the viability of natural gas and could leave oil companies with a glut of gas they can't sell as a byproduct of oil production. Killing Tesla is a two-fer for the oil business.

I find Bannon's push to "hold" all the data held by tech companies in a public trust chilling. I can see his larger goal. He wants to be able to do what the Russians did in 2016 on a wholesale scale and if he had access to all the data on users that companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have collected, they could use it to ensure permanent Republican control of government. I'm not all that thrilled with anyone having that treasure trove of data on the public, but I definitely don't want Bannon or anyone like him anywhere near it.
 
I would mostly agree with @DaveT , but the attacks on Tesla are not coming from one direction or one ideology, they are coming from an alliance of forces. There are some people motivated to attack Tesla because they have a short position, but I would not be surprised if the bulk of shorts are doing it for strategic/political reasons, not economic. If so, they are prepared to lose their money if their bet doesn't pay off.

The far right have taken over the Republican Party and turned it into a fringe party who will vote for them out of habit. The US has always had an extremist minority, mostly on the social conservative right. Many new religions started in the US (and most of those in the Northeast). Other religious movements started in Europe, but moved almost entirely or completely to the US: 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites (Pennsylvania Dutch), the LDS church, the whole branch of Christianity known as Evangelicals, and several other religions that either died out or have nearly died out (Wikipedia claims there are still two elderly Shakers left for example).

Some of those religions never took very deep roots and others took root in a different part of the US from where they started. Evangelical Christianity took root in Appalachia and the Deep South and shifted a number of other religions in the region in their direction.

Whether anyone reading this believes in any of those religions or not, most are socially pretty conservative and they have had an impact on the national character of the US. The US has been one of the most socially conservative developed countries for quite some time, especially since around 1980. That has been decaying in recent years as ideas like legalizing same sex marriage and marijuana have taken hold, but the push back is still pretty strong in some parts of the US.

These social conservatives have been manipulated by a group of wealthy oligarchs who want to control the entire country. We have heard some of their names in the news: the Mercers, Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, etc. The Koch family has been behind every right wing fringe movement in the US since 1960: The John Birch Society, the Moral Majority, the Militia Movement, and the Tea Party. One of these movements crop up every time a Democrat gets elected president. Most of the people attracted to these movements are the same social conservatives who have been part of the fabric of the US from the beginning.

These oligarchs see the new wealth being created from tech to be a threat to their power base. The billionaires and millionaires created by tech are sometimes conservative, but most are progressive. Initially these people were mostly apolitical though and had little direct impact on American politics except to write some checks for Democratic politicians' campaigns. Mostly these new tech wealthy didn't compete with the legacy industries much. A better iPhone or a more powerful computer processor has little impact on the oil and gas business and may actually help industries like defense.

But the tech wealthy have begun to find their political voice. Jeff Bezos bought one of the flagship newspapers in the US, the one best known for political reporting: the Washington Post. Other tech wealth people like Tom Steyer (Silicon Valley venture capital guy) came out advocating political positions like impeaching Trump.

And in this mix was another new tech billionaire who threatens to overturn the entire base on which many of the oligarchs base their wealth: Elon Musk. If Elon was just doing SpaceX, it would not be as big a threat. He could threaten some corners of defense contractor's world, but not all that much. However Tesla threatens to disrupt not only the car business, but the energy business too.

The American automotive business probably feels the most immediate threat from Tesla. Tesla is proving that the thing they said was impossible: compelling and usable electric cars were not only possible, but better than ICE. Up until about a month ago, they could claim that affordable electric cars were not possible in quantity today and even if they were, few people wanted them. Note all the FUD articles in June claiming Model 3s were not selling when a concentration of them were seen somewhere, usually waiting for transportation or until the end of the quarter. Tesla revealed the Model 3 not only is selling well, but the cars being traded in for it are not all luxury or other EVs and some thought, but mainstream ICE are being traded in too.

Tesla is pushing the energy business on two fronts. They probably are not deeply concerned about the threat from electric cars yet, but it is a long term threat. (Realistically it's going to take a long time to get all the legacy ICE off the road.) In the nearer term they are looking at first coal, then natural gas becoming economically unfeasible as Tesla Energy grows. In that market Tesla is just the tip of the iceberg, but remember these are the same people who trotted out the collapse of Solybra as a political point too.

The energy sector has mostly given up on coal except for a few die hards. Coal is not economically feasible and it hasn't been for some time. Natural gas though is in a glut in North America. The wholesale price is very cheap and it's been the biggest nail killing off coal. Some wells only produce natural gas, but almost all oil wells do too. As they pump the oil out of North American oil fields, they have natural gas as a byproduct and they need to get rid of it somehow. In Saudi Arabia they don't have any use for most of it and they just burn it in flares, some big enough to be seen from space, but too much of that is frowned on with environmental laws in most countries.

The growth of solar, wind, and other renewables threaten the viability of natural gas and could leave oil companies with a glut of gas they can't sell as a byproduct of oil production. Killing Tesla is a two-fer for the oil business.

I find Bannon's push to "hold" all the data held by tech companies in a public trust chilling. I can see his larger goal. He wants to be able to do what the Russians did in 2016 on a wholesale scale and if he had access to all the data on users that companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have collected, they could use it to ensure permanent Republican control of government. I'm not all that thrilled with anyone having that treasure trove of data on the public, but I definitely don't want Bannon or anyone like him anywhere near it.

Dear @wdolson, can I link this on Reddit? I think it's a great essay worth sharing.
 
Even Dave T. Is looking at only one part of the elephant. Who is attacking Tesla and Musk?

Almost everyone! Right and left.

Why?

Because Tesla and Musk are disrupters.

Disrupters have a minority of passionate fans, amidst an ocean of doubters and critics, and those directly threatened by the disruption.

I would like to say to Elon what I’m now saying to those of us on this forum who are recoiling from the FUD: This vitriol comes with the territory! Nobody gets to disrupt for free.

The louder the noise, the more the disruption is taking hold.
 
From a volume perspective I agree that Y+ pickup would be the next logical combination, however the semi and Roadster are already designed and it sounds like the pickup is much earlier in the process. Plus the logistics of adding the battery and manufacturing for Y + pickup is substantially more complicated that current plan.

But, hey, with Elon who knows?

If Elon is correct in that Tesla will have FSD capability in 4-6months(EST (Elon Standard Time)), then imo the most logical thing is to paus Pickup and Model Y for a few years and instead focus on a self driving taxi car. The margins from these will make any margins from Y pale in comparison. Make it robust, long range, simple and with sliding doors on the right side. Take anything they can from Model 3 plattform just to get it out on the street fast and capture market share. Fancy pickups can come later once they are raking in cents for every mile their fleet is driving.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: mickificki
Status
Not open for further replies.