Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[The Blue Owl]

The Ayn Rand-Worshipping Sears CEO That Blew Up His Multibillion Dollar Empire

How a Libertarian Used Ayn Rand's Crazy Philosophy to Drive Sears Into the Ground

Wow, I'd never heard of this guy before. I was always puzzled by the way Sears (mis)managed their entrance to the Canadian market. I was never interested to know more about the company, but I could see the effects on the ground. Little did I know they were led by a megalomaniac. What a tool.

Edit: I was confused: I was thinking of Target's entrance to Canada, which was a major failure. Sears has been here a long time, and they used to be well run. In recent years, though, they declined and sold a lot if not most of their stores, at least in Toronto.

 

[JRP3]

The Motley Fool has posted a number of pro-Tesla pieces recently, it's like they're becoming the anti-Seeking Alpha.

The Fool has always had a good number of pro Tesla articles. Remember the Fool is just individuals with different opinions, many of them have been pretty consistently pro Tesla.

 

[Drax7]

Wow, I'd never heard of this guy before. I was always puzzled by the way Sears (mis)managed their entrance to the Canadian market. I was never interested to know more about the company, but I could see the effects on the ground. Little did I know they were led by a megalomaniac. What a tool.

Edit: I was confused: I was thinking of Target's entrance to Canada, which was a major failure. Sears has been here a long time, and they used to be well run. In recent years, though, they declined and sold a lot if not most of their stores, at least in Toronto.

Ediie lampert adored by Jim Cramer .
A total fool now blaming tesla for his ineptness.
Thought he could transform Sears into some sort of real estate reit,
he miscalculated the retail experience entirely and never saw the Amazon train coming.
Never quite understood his convoluted strategy.
To undermine Rand because lampert is a fool is pure socialist propaganda.

 

[PeterK]

More anti-EV than Tesla specifically, saw it on Facebook because a denier friend "liked" it.

Articles: The Dirty Little Secret about All-Electric Vehicles

I commented a couple times but wasting my breath.

 

[JRP3]

Yeah, a bunch of mostly ignorant rabid dogs there. I dove right in and had some fun :biggrin:

 

[gene]

Yeah, a bunch of mostly ignorant rabid dogs there. I dove right in and had some fun :biggrin:

The comments alone on this article is proof we need Bernie Sander's free education!

 

[JRP3]

That's commie talk! :wink:

 

[PeterK]

The WSJ's Holman Jenkins is at it again. He wrote an opinion piece behind the firewall - "Voters Should Be Mad at Electric Cars: If Trump and Sanders fans hate absurd handouts to elites, the Tesla economy is the place to look." Unfortunately the trick of searching the entire title for a free preview no longer seems to work, at least not for me. Voters Should Be Mad at Electric Cars - WSJ

There is however an accessible video discussion with Jenkins egged on by Mary Kissel of the WSJ Editorial Board - "Opinion Journal: Tesla's Taxpayer Boondoggle" - claiming that Tesla and its buyers will get more in subsidies than the Model 3 costs, between $40K and $50K. "What a rip-off" says Kissel. Jenkins then argues that TSLA went up after the Feb 9 New Hampshire primary (of course he doesn't mention the 4Q earnings call on Feb 10), because with Trump's win Democrats decided Clinton will beat him in the general election and will extend the $7500 credit beyond 200,000 cars: "... so Tesla is very dependent on the outcome of this Presidential election." What a load of crap. Opinion Journal: Teslas Taxpayer Boondoggle

Somebody with a WSJ subscription (I declined to renew mine a few years ago, after well over a decade because I got tired of their increasingly visible bias), please post the gist of his calculations of $40K-$50K in subsidies - I'm really curious. Thanks.

 

[Johan]

The WSJ's Holman Jenkins is at it again. He wrote an opinion piece behind the firewall - "Voters Should Be Mad at Electric Cars: If Trump and Sanders fans hate absurd handouts to elites, the Tesla economy is the place to look." Unfortunately the trick of searching the entire title for a free preview no longer seems to work, at least not for me. Voters Should Be Mad at Electric Cars - WSJ

There is however an accessible video discussion with Jenkins egged on by Mary Kissel of the WSJ Editorial Board - "Opinion Journal: Tesla's Taxpayer Boondoggle" - claiming that Tesla and its buyers will get more in subsidies than the Model 3 costs, between $40K and $50K. "What a rip-off" says Kissel. Jenkins then argues that TSLA went up after the Feb 9 New Hampshire primary (of course he doesn't mention the 4Q earnings call on Feb 10), because with Trump's win Democrats decided Clinton will beat him in the general election and will extend the $7500 credit beyond 200,000 cars: "... so Tesla is very dependent on the outcome of this Presidential election." What a load of crap. Opinion Journal: Teslas Taxpayer Boondoggle

Somebody with a WSJ subscription (I declined to renew mine a few years ago, after well over a decade because I got tired of their increasingly visible bias), please post the gist of his calculations of $40K-$50K in subsidies - I'm really curious. Thanks.

The bolded statement is likely partly true: yes TSLA as a stock went up because smart investors understands that (perhaps sharply) increased chance of a democratic victory in the election would be good for TSLA, at least in part through stuff like the $7500 credit extending but mostly because of a "greener" (and smarter) democratical political climate in which Tesla does better than in a Republican climate. But the follow up conclusion is wrong: the $7500 credit is not important to Tesla, but the political climate is somewhat important (not life-or-death but should affect stock price).

 

[PeterK]

The bolded statement is likely partly true: yes TSLA as a stock went up because smart investors understands that (perhaps sharply) increased chance of a democratic victory in the election would be good for TSLA, at least in part through stuff like the $7500 credit extending but mostly because of a "greener" (and smarter) democratical political climate in which Tesla does better than in a Republican climate. But the follow up conclusion is wrong: the $7500 credit is not important to Tesla, but the political climate is somewhat important (not life-or-death but should affect stock price).

I'll let others who follow the market more closely comment but I for one am pretty skeptical of your reading. TSLA closed at $148.25 on Feb 9 and then dropped to a $143.67 close on Feb 10, a few hours before the earnings call. The stock then rebounded to close at $150.47 on Feb 11 and has been on a climbing trajectory since. Feb 10, the day after the primary, was the low - the climb started after earnings release and call.

 

[Johan]

I'll let others who follow the market more closely comment but I for one am pretty skeptical of your reading. TSLA closed at $148.25 on Feb 9 and then dropped to a $143.67 close on Feb 10, a few hours before the earnings call. The stock then rebounded to close at $150.47 on Feb 11 and has been on a climbing trajectory since. Feb 10, the day after the primary, was the low - the climb started after earnings release and call.

Let me please reframe the point I was trying to make: Holeman Jenkins is just as dumb as the sum of all investors in TSLA: they believe keeping the $7500 rebate, and the political climate in general, is important when in fact to Tesla the company themselves and to Elon I think they know it's not very important at all.

 

[Electroman]

Your friendly Koch brothers anti-EV/pro-oil dollars at work.

 

[Phil Seastrand]

Here's another article that contains so many questionable statements:
A Questionable Future for Electric Vehicles | Economics21

Some of the items:

• A paper by Thomas Covert, Michael Greenstone, and Christopher Knittel in the Journal of Economic Perspectives concluded that even with the decline in battery costs, the cost of crude oil would have to exceed $350 a barrel for a electric vehicle to be cheaper to operate.
• A study several years ago by the Boston Consulting Group put the cost to auto companies between $1,000 and $1,200 KWH--the capacity requirements for vehicles range from 18KWH to about 50KWH.
  
• An article in the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla's "combined subsidies amount to $20,000 per car and in California upward of $45,000."

Sigh...

 

[Gerardf]

From that article...:

Christopher Knittel in the Journal of Economic Perspectives concluded that even with the decline in battery costs, the cost of crude oil would have to exceed $350 a barrel for a electric vehicle to be cheaper to operate.
<<.....>>
Today, crude oil prices are slightly under $40 a barrel. Needing an almost hundred-fold increase in crude prices to justify electric vehicles.

Yeah, since 40 to 350 is almost a factor 100 ?!?!?
.. On the other hand, the quality of that statement in the article seems to fit the overall quality level of its content.

Edit : peeking at the other "articles" there if feel that is true for the whole site.
One would think the Koch brothers could afford to pay for writers with basic math skills.

 

[Fallenone]

That JEP paper is assuming the cost of EV to customers compared to ICE is the battery cost - $1000 (differences between ICE engine and electric motor). And the cost of battery needs to be paid back by savings on gas. The general logic is sound but I question the mere $1000 difference here. The authors didn't consider all the other parts of ICE drive train in the cost difference. The journal itself is not peer-reviewed. I'm not familiar with the field of economics but in fields of Science and Technology, without peer-review process makes a paper no more credible than a news report.

Here's another article that contains so many questionable statements:
A Questionable Future for Electric Vehicles | Economics21

Some of the items:

• A paper by Thomas Covert, Michael Greenstone, and Christopher Knittel in the Journal of Economic Perspectives concluded that even with the decline in battery costs, the cost of crude oil would have to exceed $350 a barrel for a electric vehicle to be cheaper to operate.
• A study several years ago by the Boston Consulting Group put the cost to auto companies between $1,000 and $1,200 KWH--the capacity requirements for vehicles range from 18KWH to about 50KWH.
  
• An article in the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla's "combined subsidies amount to $20,000 per car and in California upward of $45,000."

Sigh...

 

[Hogfighter]

Let me please reframe the point I was trying to make: Holeman Jenkins is just as dumb as the sum of all investors in TSLA: they believe keeping the $7500 rebate, and the political climate in general, is important when in fact to Tesla the company themselves and to Elon I think they know it's not very important at all.

The rebate is an interesting subject. Love it or hate it, it's here. It will be very odd when the rebate expires, and Americans will be incentivized to purchase a car from a foreign manufacturer such as BMW over a Tesla. That won't sit too well in Washington.

 

[Gerardf]

Tesla Model 3 reservations might begin early (with a discount) for employees

I predict a follow-up article very soon on S.A. by Anton W. on how Tesla is using its 14.000 employees to artificially increase the Model-3 reservation numbers.

He already did a first article mentioning how Tesla shareholders would abuse reservations and how employees would be used to for this purpose by Tesla, but I do think he will simply not be able to resist dong a follow-up.

In case you do not mind sending him a US$ 0,01 for that insinuating article (that is worth less) :
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3917946-model-3-deposits-will-impact-tesla-stock

 

[Ugliest1]

Not sure this is the right place to post, but it certainly adds fuel to counter some of the FUD about EV subsidies... the title says it all: Petroleum Services Association of Canada Asks For $500 Million To Clean Up Wells

Oil And Gas Group Asks For $500 Million To Clean Up Wells

 

[NewCow]

The Fool has always had a good number of pro Tesla articles. Remember the Fool is just individuals with different opinions, many of them have been pretty consistently pro Tesla.

Hi all, I'm the author of some of the Motley Fool articles (TMFNewCow). This is exactly what some people often miss about fool.com -- it's a community of writers, analysts, and investors that all have diverse opinions. So sometimes you'll read a negative article published on the same day as a positive article on any given company. I'm one the Tesla bulls on the site, have owned shares since 2011, and recently purchased a CPO S60. I'm also a CFA Charterholder and former stockbroker. If there's interest, I can start sharing my article links in the investor section of TMC. I just don't want people to think I'm spamming or trying to grab traffic (we're not compensated on traffic like Seeking Alpha writers are), but if my articles help promote thoughtful discussion I'm happy to share.

 

[Gerardf]

Not sure this is the right place to post, but it certainly adds fuel to counter some of the FUD about EV subsidies... the title says it all: Petroleum Services Association of Canada Asks For $500 Million To Clean Up Wells
Oil And Gas Group Asks For $500 Million To Clean Up Wells

WOW ! Thanks for posting that.

Maybe you should put it in a tweet referencing Elon's channel.