General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[RobStark]

50,000 British VW drivers kick off dieselgate lawsuit

With no Europe settlement, emissions scandal could cost billions more

 

[RobStark]

Plenty of food and a roof over his head. Livin large.

That is not food.

It is working capital.

 

[mongo]

That is not food.

It is working capital.

No demand
Too much overhead
Losing money on every apple

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Truly, he does have it better than many of the global population, given the two items you mention, however basic they may be.

Yes; I'm glad someone pointed this out. I cannot post worse examples here, but there is lot worse.

 

[SteveG3]

This! It was so aggravating to me when the initial Consumer Reports review failed to even mention OTA (especially while dinging autopilot).

How can any review miss this ground-breaking capability that only Teslas have?

In 2015, about 2.5 years into Consumer Reports having been generally very positive about Tesla, the Wall Street Journal clubbed them with a very aggressive article.

“The Journal column argued that the magazine “prostituted” itself to “shill” for a $120,000 vehicle favored by government policy makers.”

A rave review for Tesla is under attack

Since then, in nearly everything from CR relating to Tesla, I’ve sensed a conscious effort to be skeptical about Tesla and to make sure anything they put out has heavy doses of criticism.

To be clear, I’m not saying CR is being dishonest, but rather that the WSJ let out a bullying roar aimed right at CR’s lifeblood (its reputation as an honest unbought source of consumer advice), and CR was so shaken by it, they didn’t realize that roar was bs, and/or didn’t want to risk a fight with so much at stake. Though CR didn’t have anything to apologize for, pretty much all they’ve subsequently put out on Tesla has had an apologetic “we’re not fanboys” overcompensating tone to my view.

fwiw, the WSJ used the same bullying tactics to say “shut up!” to Jay Leno a couple of years back when he started publicly making quite favorable comments about Tesla.

If anyone is not already aware of this, the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch about a decade ago (he owns MarketWatch and Baron’s as well).

 

[ValueAnalyst]

In 2015, about 2.5 years into Consumer Reports having been generally very positive about Tesla, the Wall Street Journal clubbed them with a very aggressive article.

“The Journal column argued that the magazine “prostituted” itself to “shill” for a $120,000 vehicle favored by government policy makers.”

A rave review for Tesla is under attack

Since then, in nearly everything from CR relating to Tesla, I’ve sensed a conscious effort to be skeptical about Tesla and to make sure anything they put out has heavy doses of criticism.

To be clear, I’m not saying CR is being dishonest, but rather that the WSJ let out a bullying roar aimed right at CR’s lifeblood (its reputation as an honest unbought source of consumer advice), and CR was so shaken by it, they didn’t realize that roar was bs, and/or didn’t want to risk a fight with so much at stake. Though CR didn’t have anything to apologize for, pretty much all they’ve subsequently put out on Tesla has had an apologetic “we’re not fanboys” overcompensating tone to my view.

fwiw, the WSJ used the same bullying tactics to say “shut up!” to Jay Leno a couple of years back when he started publicly making quite favorable comments about Tesla.

If anyone is not already aware of this, the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch about a decade ago (he owns MarketWatch and Baron’s as well).

All media outlets suffer from similar attacks. I suspect this is precisely the reason why Bloomberg also publishes negative-toned Tesla articles.

What you described is a real and prevalent issue.

 

[JRP3]

Truly, he does have it better than many of the global population, given the two items you mention, however basic they may be.

Looks like plenty of water too.

 

[Todd Burch]

If anyone is not already aware of this, the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch about a decade ago (he owns MarketWatch and Baron’s as well).

And his son James is now on the Board of Directors at Tesla. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

 

[SteveG3]

All media outlets suffer from similar attacks. I suspect this is precisely the reason why Bloomberg also publishes negative-toned Tesla articles.

What you described is a real and prevalent issue.

Not sure what you mean...

WSJ clubbing all the other media outlets publicly? have not seen that

All media outlets as aggressively cubbing Tesla? Very very common, but, not all, and at those that do, some nearly all the time, but some a mixed bag of coverage.

Other?


And, VA, I’m just trying to understand what you meant here.

 

[replicant]

All media outlets suffer from similar attacks. I suspect this is precisely the reason why Bloomberg also publishes negative-toned Tesla articles.

What you described is a real and prevalent issue.

Conspiracy is a possibility for sure, but my exprience in online content generation and adversiting (plus Occam's razor) convinced me that any publisher who relies predominantly on ad revenues will favor clickbait headlines and polarizing editorial lines to antagonize every side of their readership.

When an organization, a person or an issue, has a voiceful and nascent fan base, it's easy fore pseudo-reporters to inflate and bash their claims in order to discredit each side (say, early trenders vs laggards) and to stir them up. It's like building a barricade under the pretense of "providing all the fasts and reportings rumours" so you get emotions to explode and both opposing sides to go nuts. Every one will finally have to pay attention as headlines go awry.

These media usually ends up downplaying the scandal they created (or at least inflamed) themselves to make sure that enough people still see them as a useful institution.

The more you research a topic, the more all media tends to be of a yellow tint.

 

[SteveG3]

Conspiracy is a possibility for sure, but my exprience in online content generation and adversiting (plus Occam's razor) convinced me that any publisher who relies predominantly on ad revenues will favor clickbait headlines and polarizing editorial lines to antagonize each sides of their readership.

I don’t know that I would use the term conspiracy, but in terms of media coverage of Tesla, Occam’s razor, Hanlon’s razor,... all left in the dust years ago.

 

[jimmyjohn]

It doesn’t sound as crazy when you think about it as humans trying to earn a living wage. If the world did a better job of providing assistance while efficiently retraining affected individuals for modern jobs, these people would not have to “brainstorm ideas for intentionally complicating EV production.” They are simply trying to survive, keep a roof over their family’s heads, and put food on the table. Those who rated the above related posts “funny” are disconnected from this global reality.

By "living wage," you mean cells phones (with unlimited data streaming), tablet computers, flat panel televisions with cable hookups, fast food every day, and two cars, right?

For the vast majority of cows attempting to earn(?) a living wage, daily existence revolves around NOT understanding the difference between acceleration and speed.

 

[replicant]

Hanlon’s razor

That is the one I had in mind.

But again, I think reporters' malice has far more to do with exploiting people's emotions in the context of an industrial revolution for quick ad $$$ (with stakeholders/money on both sides of the energy transition) than simply opposing EV/renewable and taking side w/ fossil interests. I'm pretty sure they don't care about the grand scheme of things (e.g biosphere's futur): they think they have to play the get-rich-quick game like anyone else and, anyway, the words of one reporter can't weight much.

 

[Sean Wagner]

U.S. factories exported 2.1 million new made-in-the-USA vehicles valued at $57.5 billion last year , up from 1.95 million vehicles worth $52.5 billion in 2013, the U.S. International Trade Administration reports.

U.S. rings up car exports despite strong dollar

56k American made Ford Explorers were exported to non-Nafta Countries.

Ford sells over 1M cars per year in Europe but doesn't export from the USA very much because of the 10% tariff. As opposed to the 2.5% tariff here. Ford sells primarily mainstream vehicles where 10% makes a huge difference whereas luxury car imports from Europe face a 2.5% tariff which doesn't affect sales very much.

GM is very successful in China but doesn't export from the USA primarily because of the 25% tariff. It sells about 3M cars here per year China. GM is a North American and Chinese car company. It is quite successful in Canada and Mexico too. GM makes a tidy profit selling full size cars and trucks in the Middle East as well.

Exports to Japan are very low in part because of consumer taste and in part due to non tariff trade barriers.

Exports to South Korea were hindered largely by non tariff trade barriers. Now 50k vehicles will be able to be exported without any non tariff trade barrier BS per year.

My signal omission - I meant cars built by American manufacturers and exported from the US globally.

It's really a piddling amount - the Ford Explorer is an exotic in Europe, unlike the new Mustang.
The Jeep Wrangler may figure in the list of truly global cars, but is also very rare.

Incidentally, the top exporters of US-made automobiles are the German car companies, and BMW's Spartanburg factory is the #1 exporter of US-made cars by value. See for instance BMW's Spartanburg plant finds its calling

In Europe, the Ford Fiesta was last year's number one selling vehicle [!], but such a cheap car can only be made locally.

Great job, Ford! It does show that GM might have harnessed their erstwhile European operation much better and developed Opel profitably if they had unleashed the local management [being controlled from afar by Detroit was always their gripe]. Never mind the multiple millions they sunk into SAAB [sigh], and billions they practically gifted Peugeot and Fiat.

It's no fluke of fate that the German automotive industry accounts for an outsize chunk of global profits - everyone aspires to target cars at the upscale segment where profits are relatively abundant. Which makes Toyota's profits all the more remarkable, of course.

China's prohibitive tariffs and barriers/forced technology expropriation should of course have been targetted a long time ago, as Elon Musk has said. If I remember correctly, of late BMW is being forced to share electric tech with their Chinese JV partner.

People will make their own choices what to buy among the globally competitive offerings. The second gen Cadillac CTS was actually starting to sell in Europe [they actually had a wagon] when GM went a) bankrupt and b) off on a tangent with weirdmobiles that don't fit the market at all.

 

[mongo]

Pulling from market action:

I meant that generally. The majority thought the earth was flat, the majority thought electric vehicles were powerless golfcarts that couldn´t work in reality, the majority thought you can´t land solid rocket boosters, etc. etc.

There has even been a TED lecture on this very topic.

Someone landed a solid booster? (as contrasted to the shuttle SRB that parachuted into the ocean)

The majority now think the earth is round and the sun is the center of the solar system, is it really the majority vs the state of knowledge/ science?

 

[Iceman]

Pulling from market action:


Someone landed a solid booster? (as contrasted to the shuttle SRB that parachuted into the ocean)

The majority now think the earth is round and the sun is the center of the solar system, is it really the majority vs the state of knowledge/ science?

Alright - first stage, Orbital rocket booster. You know what I meant.

And it´s not quite meant to be taken literally so that whatever the majority is at any time on any topic is always wrong. It´s about what the populous thinks about things that aren´t fundamentally known and scientifically demonstrated. It´s more of a general principle.

It´s kinda baked into Warren Buffet´s advice to be greedy when everyone is scared and scared when everyone is greedy. Majority´s sentiment or take on the situation is wrong, go the other way.

 

[mongo]

Alright - first stage, Orbital rocket booster. You know what I meant.

And it´s not quite meant to be taken literally so that whatever the majority is at any time on any topic is always wrong. It´s about what the populous thinks about things that aren´t fundamentally known and scientifically demonstrated. It´s more of a general principle.

It´s kinda baked into Warren Buffet´s advice to be greedy when everyone is scared and scared when everyone is greedy. Majority´s sentiment or take on the situation is wrong, go the other way.

With all the rocket advancements, someone could have landed a solid, I even Googled to check before posting. Was thinking of the booster as glider landing system.

Agree: Being in the majority does not make you right (or wrong).
What happens if everyone learns Buffet? Market oscillation?

 

[SteveG3]

That is the one I had in mind. But again, I think reporters' malice has far more to do with exploiting people's emotions in the context of an industrial revolution for quick ad $$$ (with stakeholders/money on both sides of the energy transition) than simply opposing EV/renewable and taking side w/ fossil interests. I'm pretty they don't care about the grand scheme of things (e.g biosphere's future) and think they have to play the get-rich-quick game because that's the way it is, and because, individually, their words have little weight anyway.

Kind of figured that’s the one you meant.

Plenty of reporters and low level management, I’d agree (though there’s a conspicuous number who look quite likely to be paid off by someone- hedge funds or big oil, etc. see Cory Johnson, Rick Newman, Mathew DeBord, Anton Wahlman, Bertel S., etc).

However, while I’m agreeing there may be a large group that may not be under the impression that they are doing anything other than the sensationalizing that’s become rather pervasive, I think is actually doing PR of concentrated wealth (though I suspect even that group is well aware that some things are “no nos” and some smiled upon based on the, uh, tastes of sponsors and top management/ownership).


Here’s a post I put on another TMC thread re what I mean by that kind of PR,


“Media was deregulated a couple of decades ago. Over 90% of US media is now owned by 6 massive corporations.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

(probably more concentrated now than 2012 when that article was written)

We’ve seen a very large drift from jouranalism to PR for what tremendously concentrated wealth imagines to be in its best interests.“

 

[DurandalAI]

Please take all the starving masses discussion elsewhere, this isn’t Facebook.

 

[Iceman]

The same thing that happens when every body learn that when you are in row 36 on an airplane, you won´t get out faster even if you stand up half a second after the ding.

They won´t learn it.

But since it´s a hypothetical, the market would probably do some funky oscillations and then the question is, how scared does scared need to be before you get greedy and vice versa.

Sounds like a modelling excersize for someone who´s into that kinda stuff.