Articles/megaposts by DaveT

[InTheShadows]

Thanks Dave for your insight and also for going to the event. I really hope the Model 3 is on time. The X really shook my confidence in them.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Letter to SCTY's management (Lyndon/Peter/Elon)

As many of you know I've been a SCTY shareholder since Jan 2015. Recently their stock tanked as they pulled back certain growth plans in anticipation for the eventual lowering/ending of the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC). I think Solarcity's management could have and should have down a better job to prepare for this adjustment, rather to spring it on investors rather unexpectedly. Most importantly, I think Solarcity needs to take this as a wake-up call and innovate their product so it's truly differentiated and truly compelling to potential customers.

Here's a letter I emailed to Elon Musk (chairman), Lyndon Rive (CEO), Peter Rive (CTO). It's a follow up letter to an email I sent back in August 2014.

I decided to post the later here (rather than the SCTY thread) because the SCTY thread is a bit too active/distracting for me and I thought I could share my thoughts with those interested better here.

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Dave wrote:

Hi Elon, Lyndon and Peter,

I’m an investor in SCTY and would like to share some suggestions (I emailed all of you back in August 2014, see below, but haven’t received a reply so I’m emailing some updated suggestions).

My main point of this email is that SolarCity has got a marketing problem and I’d like to share some ideas to solve it.

1. Solarcity's message is not compelling to most people.
I was at the mall recently and talked with the folks at a small Solarcity kiosk. There were three employees but they were having a difficult time getting people interested in Solarcity. I noticed the slogans on the kiosk, that read “clean energy for less”. Everything seemed rather poor in effectiveness since I felt that the workers and marketing were overlooking the fact that installing solar panels is more inconvenient than remaining on the grid. Solarcity tends to downplay the inconvenience aspects (ie., possible transfer to new owner when selling house, net metering uncertainties, contractual liabilities, etc), and Solarcity focuses on the cost aspect (“solar is cheaper”). However, the main issue isn’t cost. Solar should be less expensive than the grid. But many potential customers aren’t compelled to sign up for Solarcity because of all the inconvenience factors.

In other words, the main issue for SolarCity should be to make solar power MORE convenient than being hooked up to the grid. This will draw in the masses like crazy.

2. Solarcity's product doesn’t stand out.
Most people (if they have money or access to cheap money) would probably prefer to buy their panels and save more money in the long-run. Also, in many people’s eyes Solarcity offers basically the same product as many other solar companies. This makes marketing that much more difficult.

I believe that Solarcity needs to innovate their product so it clearly stands out (see below for solution). One example is that I sometimes see Solarcity's ads online and in apps, but they seem just like the ads from other solar companies. It’s difficult to distinguish what’s different.

3. Solarcity doesn’t have the viral word-of-mouth growth that it needs.
I’m not denying that there’s word-of-mouth marketing from Solarcity’s customers, but what I am saying is that it’s not happening at the rate it needs to be to support viral and rapid growth. I think Solarcity needs to do some radical innovation (I’ll share more below) and if they do, you’ll see viral growth at minimal marketing/acquisition costs.

Overall, my suggestion to solve the above problems is to innovate and radically improve what Solarcity offers the customer. The focus should be on convenience first and cost second. Here’s my proposed solution:

Solarcity should offer solar power systems with the following:
a) no commitment, no initial cost
b) customer can start off with a small 2kW system (or even smaller) to get off high utility tiers
c) customer can scale up my system at anytime for no cost
d) customer can scale down my system at anytime for no cost
e) customer can have system removed at any time for no cost

Now if Solarcity could offer a product with these five criteria, I think this would solve all of Solarcity's marketing challenges (ie., acquisition costs, growth, etc). The reason being is that a product like this would be so compelling you’d have literally millions of customers signing up with little/no marketing/acquisition costs. The largest pool of customers probably would be customers signing up for small 2kWh systems to “try out” solar and lower their current electric bills. Then, they would scale up their system for no cost over time. And the other provisions like removing the system at no cost (or scaling down system for no cost) add assurance and peace of mind for customers that makes signing up with Solarcity a literal no-lose situation.

I know it wouldn’t be easy to implement a solution like this (both practically and financially), but perhaps it can be tested as a pilot project in just one area first.

I’ve heard you (Lyndon) share many times in the press that Solarcity’s main value proposition to the customer is “clean energy for less” than the grid. However, this value proposition isn’t differentiated from every other solar company in the world. In other words, it’s not an unique and compelling message, and it overlooks some of the inherent inconveniences of solar which are huge adoption challenges for new customers. Rather, I believe Solarcity’s value proposition should be “lower your electric bill by using scalable solar power (no commitment, no cost to scale up/down your system, no cost to remove the system)”. This value proposition will be different than any other solar power provider in the world and would be extremely difficult to copy as well. And it would be a no-brainer for anybody/everybody to sign up.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,
Dave

On Aug 2, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Dave wrote:

Hi Peter, Lyndon, and Elon,

I’m a SCTY investor and wanted to share an idea to improve your service. I’m also one of the most active members of teslamotorsclub.com and have posted several articles about SCTY there as well (Articles/megaposts by DaveT).

1. SolarCity should adapt their model to allow the customer to scale up or down their system when they want.
The idea is similar to Amazon Web Services (AWS) which allows developers to scale up or down computing power whenever they want. In SolarCity's case, if they can allow a customer to start using their service by installing a very small system (ie., 2kW solar system) just so that the customer can avoid the high tiers their paying (ie., I'm paying $0.33 for tier 3 energy). And then SolarCity could allow the customer to "scale up" the system whenever they want. In other words, if the customer wants to add solar power, SolarCity would come by and install more panels (of course this could be complicated with mounting, permits, install... but this is the magic that SCTY will have to create and solve). So, if I wanted to scale up my 2kW system to 5kW, SCTY would be able to do so seamlessly (they would just come by within a month or so and do it in a few hours). Now, this is going to take some major innovation from SolarCity to be able to do this type of "scaling" or "adding" to an existing solar system in a cost-efficient manner. Perhaps they can make their mounting system more modular (if it isn't already enough so) and they can streamline the permit processes even more.

2. SolarCity should offer customers to remove the solar system at any time at no cost.
So, if I wanted to remove my solar system, I should be able to request that from SolarCity and they do it (ie., within a month) and at no cost. Sure, it will cost SCTY to do so (man-hours, etc) but they could recycle the panels, inverter, mounts, etc.

The reason why I think SolarCity needs to offer this is because there are situations where a customer might want that kind of flexibility to remove the system. One example is I might want to rent out my house but I don't think the tenant will appreciate/use solar (who knows who's out there). Another example, if if I'm selling my house and the next owner doesn't have good credit so it might be difficult to transfer the currently structured PPA over to the new owner. In this case, I could just request SolarCity to remove the system at no cost to me.

3. IMO the ability to scale up/down a solar system and the ability to remove it at no cost would allow expand SolarCity's addressable market.
One example, is I would immediately get started with SolarCity and have them install a 2kW system at my house and get out of any Tier 2/3 usage, so my electricity bill will drop substantially. I'm thinking of perhaps moving in the next year or so, so that's why I wouldn't want to buy/purchase a system outright. And if SolarCity could offer this on-demand scaling service where I could scale up or down my system size at anytime (and remove it at no cost), then I probably would be tempted to forgo purchasing a system completely and just use SolarCity. Sure there will always be people who will outright purchase their system, but if SolarCity's PPA program offered this scalable optionality (with no-cost removal) then it would make it much more appealing to even more people.

Imagine if SolarCity offered this scaling up/down feature, no-cost removal and no-commitment approach. SolarCity could get people started with a small 2kW system to get people off high utility tier usage. And if it was no-commitment (no-cost removal) and free scaling up/down, I would imagine a flood of people (1m+ this year alone) would take SolarCity up on this offer.

Now some people might say that what I'm proposing is impractical or impossible. But as SolarCity scales, their cost improves and their able to improve their product services. What I'm proposing is what I think solar ought to be:
- no commitment, no initial cost
- can start off with a small 2kW system (or even smaller) to get off high utility tiers
- can scale up my system at anytime for no cost
- can scale down my system at anytime for no cost
- can have my system removed at any time for no cost

Compare this to outright purchasing/financing a solar system. Outright purchasing/financing a solar system might be the better option for those who are confident they're going to be staying in their current house for the next 10 years. But for those who think they could move in 2-5 years, they might want more flexibility and convenience. Also, purchasing/financing could require additional complexity (longer applications, credit checks, etc).

Right now, SolarCity probably doesn't need to focus on offering what I'm proposing since their currently addressable market is so huge that they just need to provide energy for less than what the utility offers it for. As long as they do that they can probably continue to grow rapidly for the next several years. But at some point as solar costs come down, SolarCity will need to make their product/service more compelling (more convenient, more flexible, etc) than what will be offered for those who outright purchase/finance their systems from other companies. I'm fairly confident that SolarCity will be able to do this... especially with Solarcity’s focus on cutting costs and improving their product/service.

Thanks,
Dave
​

Nice letter would
1. Consider using titles and last names in address. Very familiar type of address unless they are your close friends or perhaps grew up with them. Using more respect would be better
2. Why do you own stock with these short falls in the company. Would buy some if they take your advise but continuing to hold if you believe as you do does not sound like a good plan

 

[Chickenlittle]

TSLA 1.5: My recent thoughts on TSLA

A few thoughts on TSLA...

Overall, I'm extremely long on TSLA because I am ultimately bullish on Tesla in the long-term (5-15 years).

However, I've been disappointed in how Tesla has been executing over the past 1-2 years. In a previous post a while back I shared about TSLA 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 scenarios (Articles/megaposts by DaveT). With that framework, I've always felt Tesla has potential for TSLA 2.0 or 3.0 but more recently they've been acting/executing like TSLA 1.0.

View attachment 168500
You left out the most important of your criteria. They must acknowledge you and give you an early test drive ahead of everyone else. They should meet 2017 model 3 guidance??? They have not given that yet.

One example is the Model X delays. I understand that things can get delayed, but the main problem I have is how those delayed were handled. Reservations holders were mostly kept in the dark, and Tesla kept giving vague excuses.

Another example (although less significant) is how Elon announced a Roadster battery upgrade back in Dec 2014, but now almost 1.5 years later nobody has received the upgrade.

Another example is Tesla was supposed to be producing 2000 cars/week (back in late 2014 Tesla said "To accommodate accelerating Model S demand and prepare for the rapidly growing order book of Model X reservations, we are investing to increase production to more than 2,000 vehicles per week by the end of 2015"). Now Tesla is saying 1600-1800 cars/week sometime during 2016.

Tesla had to reduce 2015 guidance.

It's gotten to a point where it's becoming difficult to believe what Tesla says. And that's not a good thing.

So while they act like TSLA 1.0 (by missing guidance, delays, bad communication, etc) there are times where they show glimpses of TSLA 2.0. For example, 2016 guidance of 80-90k cars was very strong and definitely TSLA 2.0. Also, their new CFO seems to have the exact priorities Tesla needs as well.

So, I'm torn. Tesla often acting like TSLA 1.0 and giving fuel to the shorts/bears. But sometimes showing glimpses of TSLA 2.0 and giving hope to the longs/bears.

Last month, TSLA hit a recent low of $141.05. I don't think there's been enough talk about what that means. I wasn't expecting TSLA to go below $180. But when TSLA hit $141.05 it made me rethink how strong Tesla is as a company and a stock. Sure last month there were severe macro concerns and the environment around high-growth stocks was pessimistic. But, we weren't even in a recession and yet Tesla tanked to far below what most were expecting. My personal take is that all of Tesla's execution shortcomings gave fuel to the shorts/bears. Lots of longs got stopped out. But I think ultimately Tesla holds responsibility for letting the stock drop under $180 because of it's poor execution (and lack of ability to give confidence to investors).

Having TSLA drop under $180 and even to $141.05 shows me that Tesla as a company is still very vulnerable. In the event of a recession, TSLA (and other high-growth stocks) will likely get hit hard and last month's fall gives a glimpse at how things might be (or might be much worse) in a recession. If a recession hits and TSLA gets hit hard, it could profoundly impact Tesla's ability to raise capital and fund it's growth plans. It might need to scale back it's growth plans or raise less money at less favorable terms than it would like.

Anyway, I'm hoping that Tesla can get it's act together and start acting more like TSLA 2.0. This is why I think the Model 3 reveal is crucial. Tesla really needs to nail it. The Model 3 needs to look amazing. I'd be very happy if it looked like a smaller Model S with some adjustments. However, the more it looks like a Prius, the more TSLA investors are screwed. But I'm fairly confident we won't get anything that looks like a Prius.

The Model 3 also needs to perform well. People need to be impressed by the test rides given at the event. It needs an impressive 0-60mph time, impressive range, etc.

Also, Model 3 reservations need to good well. We need to see healthy growth in reservations and Tesla needs to communicate well with reservation holders. Personally, I don't think Tesla is doing a good job with this currently. Sure, they've given some details but they've left out a ton of details which I hope they will share soon. For example, owners are given priority but for how long? Is there a deadline by which owners need to reserve a Model 3 in order to get priority over non-owners? etc.

But if all goes well with Model 3 and Tesla impresses, then this could be a very big TSLA 2.0 statement and it could bode well for TSLA. Tesla also needs to meet guidance (80-90k cars this year) and get free cash flow positive. In my opinion, the ideal situation would be for Tesla to hit it out of the park with the Model 3 reveal and if the stock price is favorable (ie., $250 or more), then I think they ought to raise funds (ie., $1 billion or more) so that they have extra capital for Model 3 tooling, etc. If stock price is not favorable after Model 3 reveal, then they might need to wait until they car beat Q1 or Q2 guidance or get cash flow positive. Or show Model 3 reservations are in the hundreds of thousands. Then, at that time they can raise funds. But I definitely think Tesla ought to raise funds at the opportune time, and that will strengthen Tesla's cash position and it's ability to execute Model 3.

Lastly, I strongly think Tesla needs to meet their Model 3 guidance of late 2017. Tesla tends to have a habit of barely meeting their self-imposed deadlines... for example, I can see them squeak out several founder cars on Dec 31, 2017 and then only ship a few hundred cars in Q1 2018. But that won't be good... again that would be Tesla acting like TSLA 1.0. If Tesla gives expectations to thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of reservation holders, then they should be held to those promises. Here's how I view it... if Tesla doesn't take money from anyone (ie., reservation money), then they can delay things a bit and it doesn't matter a whole lot. But if Tesla is going to take money from people and give a date (ie., late 2017) of when production will start, then Tesla should take that very seriously and do everything it takes to make it happen. This is where I have some doubts. Perhaps Elon will make some last-minute tweaks or they might get started with a few suppliers late. But it doesn't seem like Tesla's strength is keeping deadlines. And I think this can really hurt TSLA as it gives fuel to the bears/shorts and weakens the long-term bull story (ie., if Tesla can't keep deadlines now then how is their execution going to be if/when they produce millions of cars).

If Tesla continues though to delay things and give excuses (and act like TSLA 1.0), then even if they act like TSLA 2.0 at times (i.e., deliver 80-90k cars this year), I don't think the stock is going to do as well as some uber-bulls think.

Here's the thing with valuations, especially with auto companies. If TSLA acts 1.0, then investors will apply typical auto multiples to TSLA's stock (i.e., 5-10x P/E or future P/E). P/E for auto companies are low because it's super capital intensive and margins are typically low. But if TSLA can act 2.0 and show high growth, then investors can treat Tesla more as a growth/tech/energy company and give it a much higher multiple, which will give TSLA a much higher valuation.

The past year or so, Tesla's been in the middle... TSLA 1.5 (because they act like TSLA 1.0 sometimes and sometimes act like TSLA 2.0). The result is we have a lot of volatility around the stock and the stock price hasn't really appreciated much from a couple years ago. TSLA 1.0 and 1.5 is no man's land. Every TSLA investor wants (or should want) Tesla out of there and into a clear TSLA 2.0.

So to recap, missing guidance and missing deadlines is all TSLA 1.0. Let's hope that Tesla is moving past that. And let's hope that Tesla can be consistently TSLA 2.0 (or higher) and start exceeding guidance, meeting deadlines, and ultimately suck the life out of the bear/short position.

TSLA 1.5: My recent thoughts on TSLA

A few thoughts on TSLA...

Overall, I'm extremely long on TSLA because I am ultimately bullish on Tesla in the long-term (5-15 years).

However, I've been disappointed in how Tesla has been executing over the past 1-2 years. In a previous post a while back I shared about TSLA 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 scenarios (Articles/megaposts by DaveT). With that framework, I've always felt Tesla has potential for TSLA 2.0 or 3.0 but more recently they've been acting/executing like TSLA 1.0.

View attachment 168500

One example is the Model X delays. I understand that things can get delayed, but the main problem I have is how those delayed were handled. Reservations holders were mostly kept in the dark, and Tesla kept giving vague excuses.

Another example (although less significant) is how Elon announced a Roadster battery upgrade back in Dec 2014, but now almost 1.5 years later nobody has received the upgrade.

Another example is Tesla was supposed to be producing 2000 cars/week (back in late 2014 Tesla said "To accommodate accelerating Model S demand and prepare for the rapidly growing order book of Model X reservations, we are investing to increase production to more than 2,000 vehicles per week by the end of 2015"). Now Tesla is saying 1600-1800 cars/week sometime during 2016.

Tesla had to reduce 2015 guidance.

It's gotten to a point where it's becoming difficult to believe what Tesla says. And that's not a good thing.

So while they act like TSLA 1.0 (by missing guidance, delays, bad communication, etc) there are times where they show glimpses of TSLA 2.0. For example, 2016 guidance of 80-90k cars was very strong and definitely TSLA 2.0. Also, their new CFO seems to have the exact priorities Tesla needs as well.

So, I'm torn. Tesla often acting like TSLA 1.0 and giving fuel to the shorts/bears. But sometimes showing glimpses of TSLA 2.0 and giving hope to the longs/bears.

Last month, TSLA hit a recent low of $141.05. I don't think there's been enough talk about what that means. I wasn't expecting TSLA to go below $180. But when TSLA hit $141.05 it made me rethink how strong Tesla is as a company and a stock. Sure last month there were severe macro concerns and the environment around high-growth stocks was pessimistic. But, we weren't even in a recession and yet Tesla tanked to far below what most were expecting. My personal take is that all of Tesla's execution shortcomings gave fuel to the shorts/bears. Lots of longs got stopped out. But I think ultimately Tesla holds responsibility for letting the stock drop under $180 because of it's poor execution (and lack of ability to give confidence to investors).

Having TSLA drop under $180 and even to $141.05 shows me that Tesla as a company is still very vulnerable. In the event of a recession, TSLA (and other high-growth stocks) will likely get hit hard and last month's fall gives a glimpse at how things might be (or might be much worse) in a recession. If a recession hits and TSLA gets hit hard, it could profoundly impact Tesla's ability to raise capital and fund it's growth plans. It might need to scale back it's growth plans or raise less money at less favorable terms than it would like.

Anyway, I'm hoping that Tesla can get it's act together and start acting more like TSLA 2.0. This is why I think the Model 3 reveal is crucial. Tesla really needs to nail it. The Model 3 needs to look amazing. I'd be very happy if it looked like a smaller Model S with some adjustments. However, the more it looks like a Prius, the more TSLA investors are screwed. But I'm fairly confident we won't get anything that looks like a Prius.

The Model 3 also needs to perform well. People need to be impressed by the test rides given at the event. It needs an impressive 0-60mph time, impressive range, etc.

Also, Model 3 reservations need to good well. We need to see healthy growth in reservations and Tesla needs to communicate well with reservation holders. Personally, I don't think Tesla is doing a good job with this currently. Sure, they've given some details but they've left out a ton of details which I hope they will share soon. For example, owners are given priority but for how long? Is there a deadline by which owners need to reserve a Model 3 in order to get priority over non-owners? etc.

But if all goes well with Model 3 and Tesla impresses, then this could be a very big TSLA 2.0 statement and it could bode well for TSLA. Tesla also needs to meet guidance (80-90k cars this year) and get free cash flow positive. In my opinion, the ideal situation would be for Tesla to hit it out of the park with the Model 3 reveal and if the stock price is favorable (ie., $250 or more), then I think they ought to raise funds (ie., $1 billion or more) so that they have extra capital for Model 3 tooling, etc. If stock price is not favorable after Model 3 reveal, then they might need to wait until they car beat Q1 or Q2 guidance or get cash flow positive. Or show Model 3 reservations are in the hundreds of thousands. Then, at that time they can raise funds. But I definitely think Tesla ought to raise funds at the opportune time, and that will strengthen Tesla's cash position and it's ability to execute Model 3.

Lastly, I strongly think Tesla needs to meet their Model 3 guidance of late 2017. Tesla tends to have a habit of barely meeting their self-imposed deadlines... for example, I can see them squeak out several founder cars on Dec 31, 2017 and then only ship a few hundred cars in Q1 2018. But that won't be good... again that would be Tesla acting like TSLA 1.0. If Tesla gives expectations to thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of reservation holders, then they should be held to those promises. Here's how I view it... if Tesla doesn't take money from anyone (ie., reservation money), then they can delay things a bit and it doesn't matter a whole lot. But if Tesla is going to take money from people and give a date (ie., late 2017) of when production will start, then Tesla should take that very seriously and do everything it takes to make it happen. This is where I have some doubts. Perhaps Elon will make some last-minute tweaks or they might get started with a few suppliers late. But it doesn't seem like Tesla's strength is keeping deadlines. And I think this can really hurt TSLA as it gives fuel to the bears/shorts and weakens the long-term bull story (ie., if Tesla can't keep deadlines now then how is their execution going to be if/when they produce millions of cars).

If Tesla continues though to delay things and give excuses (and act like TSLA 1.0), then even if they act like TSLA 2.0 at times (i.e., deliver 80-90k cars this year), I don't think the stock is going to do as well as some uber-bulls think.

Here's the thing with valuations, especially with auto companies. If TSLA acts 1.0, then investors will apply typical auto multiples to TSLA's stock (i.e., 5-10x P/E or future P/E). P/E for auto companies are low because it's super capital intensive and margins are typically low. But if TSLA can act 2.0 and show high growth, then investors can treat Tesla more as a growth/tech/energy company and give it a much higher multiple, which will give TSLA a much higher valuation.

The past year or so, Tesla's been in the middle... TSLA 1.5 (because they act like TSLA 1.0 sometimes and sometimes act like TSLA 2.0). The result is we have a lot of volatility around the stock and the stock price hasn't really appreciated much from a couple years ago. TSLA 1.0 and 1.5 is no man's land. Every TSLA investor wants (or should want) Tesla out of there and into a clear TSLA 2.0.

So to recap, missing guidance and missing deadlines is all TSLA 1.0. Let's hope that Tesla is moving past that. And let's hope that Tesla can be consistently TSLA 2.0 (or higher) and start exceeding guidance, meeting deadlines, and ultimately suck the life out of the bear/short position.

you have forgotten your most important criteria...do you get priority treatment and not have to wait in line for a test drive. Maybe even get to discuss event with the head people there. Meeting model 3 2017 guidance for model 3??? They have not given that yet. If company is to blame for large decrease in sp to 141 then why not credit them with climb to 227....guess that doesn't fit your thesis. Perhaps you should consider following sleepyhead who had as much insight into tesla.....guess he is gone now

 

[DaveT]

2. Why do you own stock with these short falls in the company. Would buy some if they take your advise but continuing to hold if you believe as you do does not sound like a good plan

SCTY makes up a small percentage of my portfolio, maybe 2.5% or so. I have a low cost basis ($14.50). And I like their management and have some confidence that they'll adapt and do the right thing.

 

[DaveT]

you have forgotten your most important criteria...do you get priority treatment and not have to wait in line for a test drive.

I've never said those were my criteria. What are you trying to say?

 

[DaveT]

Meeting model 3 2017 guidance for model 3??? They have not given that yet.

Tesla has stated late 2017 for start of Model 3 production. That's their current guidance.

 

[DaveT]

If company is to blame for large decrease in sp to 141 then why not credit them with climb to 227....guess that doesn't fit your thesis.

There are swings to every stock, especially high-growth/volatile ones like TSLA. But the company can contribute to certain low points by making them lower through missed guidance, delays, etc. A company can also contribute to making high points higher through exceeding guidance, revenue/sales, new products/plans, etc. In Tesla's case, their stock hasn't been very impressive the past 2 years. All I'm saying is that their missed guidance/deadlines/etc contribute to it.

Perhaps you should consider following sleepyhead who had as much insight into tesla.....guess he is gone now

Mean comments like that just aren't called for. If you're going to act low like that, please just stop commenting on this thread altogether.

 

[Chickenlittle]

SCTY makes up a small percentage of my portfolio, maybe 2.5% or so. I have a low cost basis ($14.50). And I like their management and have some confidence that they'll adapt and do the right thing.

Than why do you feel the need to advise them?

 

[Chickenlittle]

I've never said those were my criteria. What are you trying to say?

You should re read your comments following model X reveal event

 

[AlMc]

You should re read your comments following model X reveal event

@Chickenlittle: So that I might understand your frame of reference better...Were you at the X reveal? Do you feel that TM has managed expectations well, executed well, met guidance, and had acceptable communication in the last 12-24 months?

 

[Chickenlittle]

@Chickenlittle: So that I might understand your frame of reference better...Were you at the X reveal? Do you feel that TM has managed expectations well, executed well, met guidance, and had acceptable communication in the last 12-24 months?

Watched it but not invited there. I do not feel entitled to any special treatment. Didn't even get an invite despite having more stock than their CTO 18 months ago. Contrast to statements made here by Dave (after the event) that the chief leader there blew him off (perhaps they had more important things to do) or that he had to wait in line for a drive. It was at that point that he seemed to sour on the company. If he were that good an investor he wouldn't have languished with the stock despite all his perceived faults with tesla and scty management. there have been others here who thought their influence was much more than reality would indicate. For example sleepyhead who started his own blog then vanished.

 

[DaveT]

Than why do you feel the need to advise them?

It's called constructive feedback. And as a business owner myself, I highly value constructive feedback from my customers.

You should re read your comments following model X reveal event

Watched it but not invited there. I do not feel entitled to any special treatment. Didn't even get an invite despite having more stock than their CTO 18 months ago. Contrast to statements made here by Dave (after the event) that the chief leader there blew him off (perhaps they had more important things to do) or that he had to wait in line for a drive. It was at that point that he seemed to sour on the company. If he were that good an investor he wouldn't have languished with the stock despite all his perceived faults with tesla and scty management. there have been others here who thought their influence was much more than reality would indicate. For example sleepyhead who started his own blog then vanished.

So, I make some constructive feedback regarding Tesla and I get blasted as complaining because I didn't get privileged treatment and I'm bitter. Wow, this is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that all companies need constructive feedback and at times constructive feedback plays a more important role in shaping the companies future than at other times. Sure, there's a lot to pick at regarding Tesla but I choose not to share inconsequential/minor things that I don't think impact the company/customers significantly. But if there's an issue that comes along that I think is profoundly important and I think Tesla needs to hear constructive feedback regarding it, then I'm going to share it because I care for the company as a shareholder, customer, and fan. Some customers/shareholders will keep quiet, but some won't. And I think it's doing a disservice to everyone to personally attack those that do make constructive criticism of a company they are shareholders of and customers of.

Also, Chickenlittle, you seem to be accusing me of a lot of things (ie., souring on the company because I was personally blown off, etc). This is completely false again. I don't expect privileged treatment from Tesla other than what I think every customer should receive. And Tesla treats one customer (whether it's me or another person) poorly, then I'm going to hold my mouth and consider it an odd thing. But if it looks like Tesla is treating a lot of customers poorly and it affects Tesla's future, then I'm going to speak out on behalf of customers and because I want Tesla to do well.

Regarding what you said about "the chief leader there blew him off (perhaps they had more important things to do) or that he had to wait in line for a drive". First, I brought up that incident in that other post not to highlight how I was treated personally because I really could care less in the bigger picture. I'm more interested in how Tesla treats its customers, both present in future, and its long-term impacts on its growth/future. So, I brought up talking to one of the main event coordinators at the event, because I was sharing how I shared some constructive feedback on how they could have made the event better (ie., starting on time or at least telling people they were late, etc. Or by letting people know how long the test rides were going to take, or that they could only allow a few percentage to do test rides because of the shortage of cars. Etc.). And I shared how the person wasn't receptive to my comments. I only brought this up as an example of several conversations I've recently had with Tesla employees where I felt constructive feedback wasn't received well. And I only brought up those examples to show my concern regarding Tesla's ability to fix their communication with Model X reservation holders. Again, the point isn't about how one individual is treated but how customers at large are treated. And with Model X, I felt that Model X reservation holders deserved better communication throughout the reservation process and the lack of communication was hurting Tesla.

I know I haven't met you in person, Chickenlittle. But if you talk with those on this forum who have met me and talked with me in person, most will tell you that I'm a very passionate advocate of Tesla. And most will tell you that I don't show up at an event expecting to be treated special for whatever reason. Actually, you can ask those who've been to Tesla events with me and they can tell you what my attitude is at these events (you can PM me and I can give you a few forum members' names you can speak with).

Anyway, I feel like I'm wasting time on these baseless accusations.

Again, your snark remarks and false accusations aren't appreciated. Please go troll on another thread and stop wasting my time.

 

[MikeC]

I'd much prefer DaveT be able to spend his time on TMC (and in his own thread) sharing his insights on his view of the future of TSLA and not defending himself from personal attacks. If anyone has issues with his other thread, they should be responding in that one.

 

[Bgarret]

you have forgotten your most important criteria...do you get priority treatment and not have to wait in line for a test drive. Maybe even get to discuss event with the head people there. Meeting model 3 2017 guidance for model 3??? They have not given that yet. If company is to blame for large decrease in sp to 141 then why not credit them with climb to 227....guess that doesn't fit your thesis. Perhaps you should consider following sleepyhead who had as much insight into tesla.....guess he is gone now

Nice analysis DaveT. Not sure someone who is projecting Tesla at 360 in 2016 if they can better execute and communicate can be called traitorous, but what do I know. I think this is very similar to the approach Goldman Sachs has with their 3 different Tesla estimates.

As for Chicken - bit surprised at your umbrage to Dave T - and for that matter Sleepyhead. I disagreed with some of Dave T's post X analysis, but you sound strangely bitter. I followed Sleepy around the Internet a bit and don't believe he needs to be dumped on with what looks like very limited knowledge on your part.

Chill dude.

 

[FrozenCanuck]

DaveT - keep posting what you post. I appreciate it as a shareholder and company fan too. I would recommend not spending nearly as much time defending your reasons for sharing. We understand them and value what you write.

 

[AlMc]

I gave much thought to whether I should respond to some of the negative comments made about DaveT and Sleepyhead (Robert S.) but decided I will just agree with @FrozenCanuck and ask DaveT to continue to participate in at least this thread.

I feel his posts are valuable to shareholders as he takes into account all aspects (good or bad) of TM and how it might effect TSLA.

 

[aronth5]

DaveT - keep posting what you post. I appreciate it as a shareholder and company fan too. I would recommend not spending nearly as much time defending your reasons for sharing. We understand them and value what you write.

I gave much thought to whether I should respond to some of the negative comments made about DaveT and Sleepyhead (Robert S.) but decided I will just agree with @FrozenCanuck and ask DaveT to continue to participate in at least this thread.

I feel his posts are valuable to shareholders as he takes into account all aspects (good or bad) of TM and how it might effect TSLA.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Nice analysis DaveT. Not sure someone who is projecting Tesla at 360 in 2016 if they can better execute and communicate can be called traitorous, but what do I know. I think this is very similar to the approach Goldman Sachs has with their 3 different Tesla estimates.

As for Chicken - bit surprised at your umbrage to Dave T - and for that matter Sleepyhead. I disagreed with some of Dave T's post X analysis, but you sound strangely bitter. I followed Sleepy around the Internet a bit and don't believe he needs to be dumped on with what looks like very limited knowledge on your part.

Chill dude.

Maybe I know more than you think. A cautionary tale. Those that worship "Influential posters" are at risk. Sleepy head is an example. When posters challenged any of his statements he took it as personal attacks. So he left TMC and He went to contrarian blog where he had same issues and left it to form intelligent investor blog. He contacted people from TMC urging them into a "couldn't lose opportunity" to join that forum and urged people to invest in GTAT. I stayed away from that but anyone who followed advise lost everything they put into it(including him). I remember seeing Corning CEO in interview looking extremely confident and being too gracious to GTAT prior to announcement that Apple Watch and iPhone would not use sapphire. It was days before announcement of that and I warned of that. Sad that apples decision on GTAT BK the company. So follow your own research, avoid options if your asking advise on how to do option trading and don't be influenced by others. These are themes I have always ringed and hold too. So ignore my advise as well.

 

[Johan]

Maybe I know more than you think. A cautionary tale. Those that worship "Influential posters" are at risk. Sleepy head is an example. When posters challenged any of his statements he took it as personal attacks. So he left TMC and He went to contrarian blog where he had same issues and left it to form intelligent investor blog. He contacted people from TMC urging them into a "couldn't lose opportunity" to join that forum and urged people to invest in GTAT. I stayed away from that but anyone who followed advise lost everything they put into it(including him). I remember seeing Corning CEO in interview looking extremely confident and being too gracious to GTAT prior to announcement that Apple Watch and iPhone would not use sapphire. It was days before announcement of that and I warned of that. Sad that apples decision on GTAT BK the company. So follow your own research, avoid options if your asking advise on how to do option trading and don't be influenced by others. These are themes I have always ringed and hold too. So ignore my advise as well.

What you posted right now is both right and wise. However, I don't see how you can put DaveT in the same box? Surely he shows a lot more objectivity and presents very well reasoned and balanced opinions with regard to both TSLA and SCTY?

 

[DaveT]

Maybe I know more than you think.

Maybe you don't. It's ridiculous for you to try to associate me with GTAT somehow. That's just mind-blowing. If you knew as much as you claim, you'd know that I wasn't part of the GTAT-hype in any fashion or form.

I've always encouraged debate/discussion around anything I've said. I've also tried to provide a balanced and well-thought of perspective. I've never claimed to be always right. And I've never pressured people here by pumping a stock saying "you'll miss out if you don't buy", etc.

Chickenlittle, I'm getting tired of seeing this drag out here, so here's my proposal. Let's get on a Google hangout. We can discuss/debate anything you'd like. You can make your full argument and we can dialogue. Maybe we can clear some things up. We can record the hangout and it'll your choice if you want the recorded hangout posted or not.