A problem with intelligent people is that sometimes they can be very good at defending their position even when they are wrong.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
A problem with intelligent people is that sometimes they can be very good at defending their position even when they are wrong.
For all climate change deniers, I offer the definitive proof that it exists. Some have complained when I make GDP predictions by my distinguished economist friend by saying, "I get predictions from my dog." Here's my dog.
Amid Europe’s Heat Wave, Rare Flamingos Lay First Eggs in 15 Years
Amid Europe’s Heat Wave, Rare Flamingos Lay First Eggs in 15 Years
Ex Audi CEO Stadler to stay in prison:
Abgasaffäre: Ex-Audi-Chef Stadler muss im Gefängnis bleiben - WELT
"despite knowledge of the manipulation or in conscious denial of it he allowed that the respective engines have been continued to be used and taken into sales."
The investigation and the court case is ongoing. The attempt from his lawyer to set him free until the trial starts and ends has been declined. The judge does see a risk of manipulation.
Abgasaffäre: Ex-Audi-Chef Stadler muss im Gefängnis bleiben - WELT
"despite knowledge of the manipulation or in conscious denial of it he allowed that the respective engines have been continued to be used and taken into sales."
The investigation and the court case is ongoing. The attempt from his lawyer to set him free until the trial starts and ends has been declined. The judge does see a risk of manipulation.
mutle
Member
Wow, the Saudis have been looking to take Tesla private since 2017. Only 1/3 of $70 billion needed per Elon. Seems quite doable.
RT
1/3 x 206 million shares minus 34 million short interest x $420 = $14.5 billion
Definitely doable.
will IRA retirement accounts be able to invest in the new private Tesla?
It doesn't look like IRA accounts can currently invest in SpaceX unless they invest through GOOG or a couple Fidelity funds that have small posiitons.
I'm guessing the answer is no but would appreciate any feedback.
Thx,
Peter
It doesn't look like IRA accounts can currently invest in SpaceX unless they invest through GOOG or a couple Fidelity funds that have small posiitons.
I'm guessing the answer is no but would appreciate any feedback.
Thx,
Peter
I disagree with damodaran's analysis, but I also disagree with your assessment of him. I've read all his reports, and their flaws have always been about being too conservative.
Some shorts have been urging Tesla longs to switch from Tesla to Google, because Google holds SpaceX.
Google's market cap is almost $900B. They owns about 7.5% of SpaceX, which is worth about $2.4B.
If I invest $10 in Google, less than 3 cents will be working on SpaceX. If SpaceX goes up 1000% from here, it will only improve my gain on Google by 3%. I think most people on this board understand this concept. Shorts either don't understand it, or want to mislead.
Google's market cap is almost $900B. They owns about 7.5% of SpaceX, which is worth about $2.4B.
If I invest $10 in Google, less than 3 cents will be working on SpaceX. If SpaceX goes up 1000% from here, it will only improve my gain on Google by 3%. I think most people on this board understand this concept. Shorts either don't understand it, or want to mislead.
Excerpted below from a prior post, why I think Damodaran's assumptions are not conservative, but rather absurd, and almost surely intellectually disingenuous:
"tldr; Damodaran's capital requirement assumptions are absurd (and tank his valuation), and after pointing out to him in the comments section of his blog how far far far off base those assumptions are, he suggested that I was more familiar with Tesla and its circumstances than he was, and that he indeed needed to relook at those assumptions, but did not follow through on that.
2014 TMC post (#1677),
"There are various people out there who by reputation and/or having a huge platform to get out their message project starkly misleading ideas about evaluating Tesla's long term fundamentals. I think part of improving as an investor is learning first hand that you have to understand the long term fundamentals of any business you invest in for yourself, and not rely on the "reputation" or "expertise" of someone else.
What were Moody's and Standard and Poor's reputation pre 2008? The "gold standard" in rating debt?
As John Wooden said "your character is what you really are, your reputation is merely what others think you are."
Here's a few quick examples of people, including Damodaran, whose reputation and/or platform have led many off the path with Tesla
[snip...]
Aswasth Damodaran Implied credibility and objectivity of being an academic, reputation you've suggested of being the top global academic expert on valuation paired with a more modest platform (his blog) which at times becomes a large platform... for example when his Tesla valuation call of ~$65 and months later ~$120 got written up in the Wall Street Journal, led to appearances on CNBC about Tesla being overvalued, and made the rounds of repetition in the other financial media outlets.
What we can now see of Damodaran's output on Tesla tells me I'd take what he says with as much skepticism as I take what Cramer and John Lovallo (see below) say.
When he wrote his blog saying Tesla was worth ~$120 I had a pretty thorough back and forth with him where he explicitly stated his valuation was based on Tesla needing to spend $50 billion on capex in the next 10 years to get up to revenues in his model suggesting 1 to 1.5 million vehicles/year (he never explicitly shared his unit sales assumptions), and that this would mean they'd have to more than double their share count to raise that money; that is, he directly said he saw Tesla's 2024 share count reaching 300 million. I went through with him what they would need in capex through his timeframe (outlining and offering back up on projected costs for additional service centers, stores, vehicle factories and battery factories), and it wasn't even half of the $50 billion he claimed... in fact it was so much smaller, retained earnings are likely to fund the lions share of it.
He wrote back basically a ~"I see what you are saying, looks like you may be right. I'm going to have to look at this some more independently... though I have to look at the competition this opportunity would draw" at the time. When I raised the question again this week, he gave me basically, ~"now that Elon has given away the battery patents, the story of them being an EV company and battery maker has been undercut. I don't know what they are about."
Sleepy, frankly that response is even less appealing than Cramer's "I don't know how to value the darn thing"... do you really think Damodaran doesn't know whether Tesla has an opportunity in EVs and batteries in general because of the patent move? While this current "I don't know now what Tesla's worth" stance is much like what Cramer has done, unlike Cramer, he publicly said in the past that he could value the stock and that it was overvalued. He did this a couple of times, and appeared on CNBC to say it. If his goal was to convey what he thinks about the company, don't you think it would make sense to put out a blog pulling back his earlier valuations? That is saying something like "I was premature in making valuation calls on Tesla in the past... it's not a business I feel confident in determining a valuation for."
I'd say what we've seen from Damodaran is analogous to Alex Rodriguez. Lots of talent, but I wouldn't take what's been produced at face value.
[...snip]"
That guy is trolling you. I recalled my shares on Monday.
@neroden
I have been trolling them back, no mercy, with simple facts, like 35,000,000 shares removed from trading. liquidity will drastically reduce, prices will spike upwards, "you guys built a bomb, Elon triggered the unstopable countdown timer and it will cost you at least $14.7Billion in 4-6 months"
these get 'unhappy' responses at best, when i also mention when the elephants unwind positions, the smaller shorts get trampled and "when the avalanche begins, the pebble no longer has a vote", a touch of shrillness appears, so i helpfully roll boulders of doubt down fertile fields of fear. But i'm not wrong as the 35M won't convert
So it's the Saudis.
This means I'm voting no. I simply don't trust them. That said, the deal will probably sail through, since the major investment banks don't care that the Saudi leaders are massive war criminals and promote terrorism and oppression of women worldwide. Not to mention when they locked rich investors in a hotel and shook them down for money -- Mr. Musk had better never visit Saudi Arabia. Just don't ever go into the country.
I still have to decide how much to keep, but this means I'll go on the low end. The Saudis are untrustworthy, which makes the downside of staying in much larger. We'll see what the minimum is to stay in, but I'm planning to keep much less than I was before I found out it was the Saudis.
This means I'm voting no. I simply don't trust them. That said, the deal will probably sail through, since the major investment banks don't care that the Saudi leaders are massive war criminals and promote terrorism and oppression of women worldwide. Not to mention when they locked rich investors in a hotel and shook them down for money -- Mr. Musk had better never visit Saudi Arabia. Just don't ever go into the country.
I still have to decide how much to keep, but this means I'll go on the low end. The Saudis are untrustworthy, which makes the downside of staying in much larger. We'll see what the minimum is to stay in, but I'm planning to keep much less than I was before I found out it was the Saudis.
I share your view on the Saudis in terms of terrorism, women and human rights as well as some other that I don't want to go into here because it does not belong here.
Understand that you don't trust them which is a fair statement as well.
Nevertheless this is about financing the transition to a sustainable world. Would I accept money from an institution of country that has behaved before badly be it politically or environmentally? Of course I would as the investment makes my mission more likely to succeed.
If we start trying to distinguish between good and bad money than we open a box of worms.
About the trustworthiness. Your statement is certainly true in terms of business you do in SA but not if we talk about a company listed at Nasdaq. They have to play by the rules otherwise there are enough instruments to make them to.
You should get published! ++++++1 for a highly entertaining and eloquent sentence!!!
Bet TSLA
Active Member
I think a compelling argument against your position is that if you don't like the Saudis owning Tesla, then you should buy more. They're going to get only the bits that others don't own. Getting out promotes what you claim to oppose.
A Tesla employee (in Germany) told me a few weeks ago that they were asked not to take holidays in August, but they haven't been told why... I'm hoping for a Model 3 in the showroom and test drives!
Every share you hold means one share less for the Saudis.
Ulmo
Active Member
I just read this morning's letter:
Update on Taking Tesla Private
Since this started at the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency, obviously this is a well integrated approach to this issue.
I think Elon Musk decided to go through the necessary process of making profitability work before subjecting anyone to a huge investment situation. I believe that was a mature and wise thing to do. While it is unfortunate in terms of timing opportunities lost, in the long run, it may have been a good decision to keep financial management disciplined and start the profitability phase of the company on the right path. I say this knowing full well that it is a revenue-funded growth plan, and that they may take options to grow outside the range of their current revenue. Note that I'm perfectly aware profitability was just proven, and not in the fake minds of the shorts.
Update on Taking Tesla Private
Since this started at the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency, obviously this is a well integrated approach to this issue.
I think Elon Musk decided to go through the necessary process of making profitability work before subjecting anyone to a huge investment situation. I believe that was a mature and wise thing to do. While it is unfortunate in terms of timing opportunities lost, in the long run, it may have been a good decision to keep financial management disciplined and start the profitability phase of the company on the right path. I say this knowing full well that it is a revenue-funded growth plan, and that they may take options to grow outside the range of their current revenue. Note that I'm perfectly aware profitability was just proven, and not in the fake minds of the shorts.
How you expect them to change if all their future relies on fossil stuff? Maybe supporting a company like Tesla is a good start?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
