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

General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sophisticated in interpreting this downsizing. Is it meaningful at all? Could someone help put this pull-back in perpective for me? What is the potential significance? Could it be due to internal issues at Ballie Gifford (unrelated to Tesla execution), or could this be construed as reflecting their impression of SP in coming months? Are you waiting to see if Tencent makes a move before drawing conclusions? Has Barron held relatively steady?
Big funds go through rebalancing regularly. They have set goals to have some percentage of their portfolio (measured in dollars) in particular stocks or industries. So after a run up in the price of a particular stock, eg. TSLA, their internal rules make them sell a few and diversify. Similarly after a run down they will often buy more. Every so often they will actually make an affirmative decision to increase or decrease the percentage allocated to a particular stock, and then there will be a bigger jump.

In these cases I think it's just rebalancing.
 
I am not sophisticated in interpreting this downsizing. Is it meaningful at all? Could someone help put this pull-back in perpective for me? What is the potential significance? Could it be due to internal issues at Ballie Gifford (unrelated to Tesla execution), or could this be construed as reflecting their impression of SP in coming months? Are you waiting to see if Tencent makes a move before drawing conclusions? Has Barron held relatively steady?

IMO, it's more BG has huge gains, and seeks better opportunities in alternative investments while re-balancing its portfolio. A Yr-over-Yr drop from 13,289,548 shares to 12,902,408 shares (or about 3%) is essentially noise. If there is any significance at all, it's just that BG, and other large institutional holders, are holding steady (tap, tap) not increasing their holdings but ready to bet either way based on whether M3 execution indicates a path to profitability and free cash flow.

Tencent's change in holdings is (possibly) an indicator of whether a large indigenous investor is willing to fund Chinese expansion, or just a mechanism to diversify wealth in off-shore China markets.

Ron Baron lost me with his plumbing (fluids) analogy to explain electricity and storage. I think his funds report periodic (more frequently and current than quarterly 13 Fs) data and commentary about holdings.
 
If the power company is behind the system, they could provide the web-connected HW and installation for the system.

Yes. This is the disconnect. I agree it could perfectly well be done power company side. It's not currently being done because it's a test project at such a small scale that actually developing this hardware, then installing it and potentially supporting it forever or taking it out again for something else makes no sense at this point. That being said, I still think it would be better if the car was able to drive the whole process, because the car knows more. For example, it knows if the customer asked to precondition, at what time the customer wants to leave, how much juise is still needed to get to full, potentially in the future know how long the drive is going to be (synced with agenda etc.), For all these reasons I think the best solution going forward would be the grid operator having a mechanism to tell the car : "if you can draw the following 5 minutes between x and y KW power then I will reward you" And then the car deciding what to actually draw. That allows the car to decide to ignore the grid wishes (at a cost) and draw up to the physical maximum because for example the owner unexpectedly switched on cabin heating, meaning an unexpected trip is starting soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mongo
  • Informative
Reactions: hiroshiy
Tesla's response:
This is an extremely misinformed and misleading article. To be absolutely clear, we are on track with the previous projections for achieving increased Model 3 production rates that we provided earlier this month. As has been well documented, until we reach full production, by definition some elements of the production process will be more manual. This is something Elon and JB discussed extensively on our Q3 earnings call, and it has no impact on the quality or safety of the batteries we’re producing. As noted in our Q4 deliveries release, during the fourth quarter, “we made major progress addressing Model 3 production bottlenecks, with our production rate increasing significantly towards the end of the quarter.”
Furthermore, as is often the case in manufacturing, some parts of the production process require the expertise of employees with engineering or manufacturing experience, and others don’t. We’ve created thousands of new high-quality jobs in Nevada in recent years. As we continue to expand Gigafactory 1 and ramp Model 3 production, we’ve been able to teach new skills to thousands of new employees, many of whom had no manufacturing experience prior to joining Tesla. New hires on the module line receive extensive training, including safety training, and learn about the importance of proper cell-to-cell spacing so they can identify such issues in the production process. More broadly, battery production – and the module line in particular – is overseen by our top engineering talent, and many of Tesla’s most senior leadership.
Finally, the implication that Tesla would ever deliver a car with a hazardous battery is absolutely inaccurate, contrary to all evidence, and detached from reality. It is irresponsible to suggest as much based on unnamed, anonymous sources who have provided no such evidence and who obviously do not have a complete understanding of the extensive testing that all batteries in Tesla vehicles are subjected to. As with Model S and Model X, which have well demonstrated safety records, we maintain a rigorous approach to quality and process control for the Model 3 battery. Even more importantly, to our knowledge, there has not been a single safety concern in the field related to Model 3 batteries at any point over the six months of Model 3 production.

As for the assertion about cells touching in Model 3 batteries, this is extremely misleading and displays a complete lack of basic knowledge about how our batteries work. Every battery in a Tesla vehicle has thousands of cells, the vast majority of which are at the same voltage potential as neighboring cells. Hypothetically, even if two cells of the same voltage potential were touching, there would be absolutely zero impact, safety or otherwise – it would be as if two neutral pieces of metal touched. Despite this fact, all Model 3 battery modules’ cell positions are measured twice in manufacturing to verify process control and quality of outgoing parts. Conversely, if at any point in the production process cells are touching at different voltage potentials, they cannot be electrically interconnected. Over the course of the production process, we conduct three different tests to ensure the right number of cells are electrically connected in Model 3 modules. Additionally, the long term reliability of cell position is something validated through testing, including shock and vibration, and high temperature and humidity testing, as well as thermal cycling endurance testing throughout design and via sampling in production. All of this testing is designed to prevent touching cells from being installed in any of our vehicles, including Model 3. Finally, the safety aspects of our module design would continue to function even in the presence of touching cells, so the concerns raised are further unfounded.

These false claims are being made even though we have a proven history of making the safest vehicles on the road, with Model S and Model X receiving 5-star safety ratings not only overall but in every subcategory. Although not yet tested by NHTSA, Model 3 has been designed and internally tested to have the same result. Data from NHTSA’s testing shows that Model S and Model X have the two lowest probability of injury scores in the history of NHTSA testing. Furthermore, over billions of miles of actual driving, Tesla’s vehicles have been roughly five times less likely to experience a fire than a conventional gasoline vehicle. In light of these facts, it’s preposterous to suggest that a company as committed to safety as Tesla would allow untested or unsafe batteries to go in our vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdy0627
Nice response from Tesla. It's sad that they have to take time out of their day to type all that. (after all they are already pretty busy in the first place!)

It's also sad that the so-called reported Lora Kolodny won't be taken to task over this or compelled to issue an apology. It's also sad, even in foresight since it hasn't happened yet, that the CNBC site won't carry any of Tesla's response. Otherwise they would look silly for posting the garbage in the first place.

The story is taking pride of place on CNBC's home page.

I can imagine their editors: "well damn them, if Tesla aren't going to pay for any TV commercials on our station, we're still going to extract some web hits by writing garbage articles about them!"
 
Well, I can't say I'm surprised about the CNBC piece--TSLA was trending up, and the earnings call is soon, after all. That is one weak-sauce report, though--quoting delays as of mid-Dec, which Tesla has already acknowledged, as news?

From the Electrek comments: "Lying is bad. Quoting a liar is journalism!"

In any event, thanks for the opportunity to buy back those covered calls I sold late last week at a solid profit, CNBC!
 
Well, I can't say I'm surprised about the CNBC piece--TSLA was trending up, and the earnings call is soon, after all. That is one weak-sauce report, though--quoting delays as of mid-Dec, which Tesla has already acknowledged, as news?

From the Electrek comments: "Lying is bad. Quoting a liar is journalism!"

In any event, thanks for the opportunity to buy back those covered calls I sold late last week at a solid profit, CNBC!
I did the same today and welcomed back all of the calls I sold last week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaxxon
LOL.. what a hit piece (CNBC, not Electrek, they rule!). I know Tesla sells and generates massive clicks but what the heck is wrong without journalist these days. They are all turning into click bait now that print is dead. Sad, but really a good opportunity to buy the darn dip. So get out there and do it!
I wonder if mark was able to cover some puts? Will be interesting to hear if he planted this story. All the employee feedback appears to be from last year. Sounds like a desperate attempt to cover.

Sad

Don’t miss a chance to say hi to mark on twitter. If he planted this story and covered on news that is, I believe, a felony. Sorry I was too busy to buy today.
 
Last edited:
I’m all for punishing this charlatan Lora Kolodny. Which would be worse: SEC investigation or Twitter barrage?

Having given this further thought, I would favor an SEC investigation. We don’t even know if “Lora Kolodny” is a real person or who at CNBC is ultimately responsible for these misdeeds.

People should be held accountable if they are conspiring to manipulate markets with false information.
 
Having given this further thought, I would favor an SEC investigation. We don’t even know if “Lora Kolodny” is a real person or who at CNBC is ultimately responsible for these misdeeds.

People should be held accountable if they are conspiring to manipulate markets with false information.
I would guess she’s a dupe, hooked up with fake and stale news by dirty shorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
there's only one truth right now and it's this... someone is lying. based on historical evidence, you at a minimum have to begin questioning this company.

Yeah, all those no good owners configuring their imaginary Teslas, with imaginary VINs, and imaginary deliveries. More power to the CNBC reporters getting all of those quality anonymous sources with up to the minute information on production!
 
At least we know now for certain that 1. the guidance reported earlier this month (1000/week by end of January) was intentially rightfully intended as a guidance by Tesla 2) they are on track to reach that goal.

Conclusion current production must be close but not quite yet 1000/week. Recent analysis from the reported assigned VINS is in line with this conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.