General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[AlMc]

Clearly they were led to believe that Musk is a hardcore pothead by him striking a curious look on his face and tilting his head to the side when Rogan lit up a blunt, and asking,

Musk: "So is that a joint?" (pause) "Or is that a cigar?" (squints eyes and stares quizzically at what is obviously a blunt, not a joint)
Rogan: "No. It's marijuana inside of a tobacco..."
Musk: "So it's like.. posh pot, tobacco-pot..?"
Rogan: "You've never had that?"
Musk: "Yeah I think I tried one once..." (squints eyes)
Rogan: "Come on man."
Musk: (Laugh)
Rogan: "You probably can't because of the stockholders, right?"
Musk: (Quizzical look) "I mean, it's legal, right?"
Rogan: "Totally legal."
Musk: "Okay." (Picks up blunt and stares at it like a curious scientist examining an alien species)
Rogan: "How does that work, do people get upset when you do certain things?"
(Musk sniffs the blunt curiously)
Rogan: "There's tobacco and marijuana in there."
(Musk puffs a bit into his mouth but doesn't inhale it, then exhales. Ponders the experience curiously. Then shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head no, then hands it back)

You know, like any hardcore pothead would do Just like the typical stoner conversation that followed where Musk talked about how he doesn't like pot because it interferes with his ability to accomplish things.

Still not wise choice by EM. Bad optic/easy for FUDsters. to push an agenda to people that do not know Tesla/EM as well as Tesla product owners and stockholders.

 

[neroden]

Last night in the interview, Elon Musk spent two and half hours talking about AI, brain/machine interface, electric airplane, one hundred layers of underground tunnels, and many other interesting topics. All of these are possible to impact humanity significantly, especially AI; self-improving AI has the potential to wipe out humanity. This is a very real threat if we don't act upon it.

The only thing the media likes to talk about is that "Elon drank whiskey and smoked weed." That was literally the title of every news article I saw. There is something seriously wrong with this world. Who are the people controlling the media?

Perhaps your previous paragraph answers the question: It's being done by AI.

Sort of kidding... sort of not kidding.

We already know that the financial newsfeeds are filled with trash articles which are *autogenerated* by computer programs; "Zacks Investment Research" is famous for them, with their oddly stilted and repetitive language and failure to dig into the fundamentals behind anything.

We already know that algorithms are being used to promote articles to the top of news feeds based on bad metrics like clicks, and we already know from studies that they are promoting inflammatory garbage articles, rather than thoughtful in-depth articles.

So... in a very real sense... AI is generating the articles, AI is choosing the headlines, and AI is deciding which headlines to rise to the top. Really bad AI which is designed to maximize really stupid metrics.

Self-improving AI isn't wiping out humanity yet, but it seems to have wiped out news reporting.

 

[neroden]

This quarter looks pretty weak in Europe so far. A little hard to guess the end as it's about 900 cars should of Q1 at the same time, but also 900 behind Q2 at the same time (first 2 months of the quarter). So the 3rd month (this month) will be crucial as usual.

I wouldn't be surprised if last Q was in fact an outlier and they delivered more to Europe to delay the US and now it will be the opposite.

Still trying to maximize tax credits for customers.

But so far in 2018 this "smoothing out" has not materialized. Maybe it's a bit better than before, but its definitely not even among the 3 months.

It won't be smoothed out for a while even if they try to start smoothing it out now.

Maybe we'll have to wait until Model 3 starts shipping over here. They may do more frequent shipments per month then, which would also help even out S/X shipments a bit.

Yeah, that would be my guess.

 

[Remus]

In this case AI is an accelerator not initiator.

Perhaps your previous paragraph answers the question: It's being done by AI.

Sort of kidding... sort of not kidding.

We already know that the financial newsfeeds are filled with trash articles which are *autogenerated* by computer programs; "Zacks Investment Research" is famous for them, with their oddly stilted and repetitive language and failure to dig into the fundamentals behind anything.

We already know that algorithms are being used to promote articles to the top of news feeds based on bad metrics like clicks, and we already know from studies that they are promoting inflammatory garbage articles, rather than thoughtful in-depth articles.

So... in a very real sense... AI is generating the articles, AI is choosing the headlines, and AI is deciding which headlines to rise to the top. Really bad AI which is designed to maximize really stupid metrics.

Self-improving AI isn't wiping out humanity yet, but it seems to have wiped out news reporting.

 

[neroden]

I really do not think they are. Time and time again, when I speak to people who claim to be aware of tesla, their aims, their position, and their product, they have absolutely NO idea how many pre-orders they have, how many cars they are producing, and the rate at which production is climbing. They also seem to think that the LEAF and I-Pace are serious competition,

Biggest misconceptions I see lately are actually
(1) the price of the cars. At yesterday's electric car show, I had four people ask me if my car cost $200,000, and one thought the Roadster was a million-dollar car. (My car cost $80,000.) There are people who think Teslas cost twice as much as they actually do, or more.
(2) The volume of production. Most people have no idea how many cars Tesla has made or is making.

 

[neroden]

What do you guys think about this: there are approximately 100 milj passenger cars sold in a year. If after 20 years they're all electric and Tesla has 10% market share, it is 10 milj cars sold in a year. Which is about the same what Toyota sells now. Toyota's market cap is 195 bil. Tesla's is 45 bil. So Toyota is 4.3 times bigger. If Tesla is after 20 years as big as Toyota is now, market cap would rise approximately 7,5% in a year. Which is not much more than what you get from stock market normally with distributed portfolio.

What am I missing? Tesla energy? Tesla has better margin than Toyota (difficult to say what margin is 20 years from now..)?

Yes and yes. But I'll add one more thing: I don't think a diversified portfolio is safe in the current market. I think Tesla will succeed regardless of recessions because it's on the right side of the "renewable energy industrial revolution". The majority of companies in a diversified portfolio aren't, some are actually on the wrong side, and they will get hammered far worse than Tesla in a downturn.

 

[AWDtsla]

Still not wise choice by EM. Bad optic/easy for FUDsters. to push an agenda to people that do not know Tesla/EM as well as Tesla product owners and stockholders.

Nah, it was great. It's up over 7 million views in only 2 days, and even more amazing it's 2.5 hours of material, not some stupid soundbite.

Imagine if even 5% of those people decide to buy a Model 3 in the next year, Tesla still can't meet demand. We don't need to care about the 30% of the population that still thinks reefer madness is real. Those people will have to get dragged into modernity by other means.

 

[Driver Dave]

(Musk puffs a bit into his mouth but doesn't inhale it, then exhales. Ponders the experience curiously. Then shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head no, then hands it back)

Elon: "Now go buy the stock at sale prices to get ready for the boom about to happen. You're welcome."

It was simply a FUD hack.

Gift to the smart money.


Reality: Elon thought nothing of this. He was curious about what the hell that thing was. And took a scientific nerd puff. Handed back. Continued conversation.

 

[neroden]

No, the problem with modern journalism is that *we* reward them for their behavior, so they keep doing it. If *we* didn’t click the titles, if we didn’t assume or accept without question the headline and then spread it around like wildfire, if *we* demanded more from journalists then they’d be forced to be better.

OK, so no, that's not the problem. I actually think it's something more technical, or more economic, perhaps. People have always spread rumors, but something or several somethings is financially incentivizing it.

One problem is that the payment system for the ads, which is what usually gets the money for the article distributors, is based on *clicks*. Or clickthroughs, maybe. The number of times I've clicked something, read about three lines, went "that's garbage", and turned it off (while being disgusted with the advertisers who would advertise on such garbage) is very large.

In the old days the payment system was based on *subscriber numbers*, and this tactic doesn't get subscribers, it just gets "junk clicks". I've read a lot of discussions by advertisers about this problem, for decades (!) because *they* don't want to pay for junk clicks or even junk clickthroughs either, but it doesn't seem to have been resolved.

Some of the more dumbass of newspapers have attempted to have paywalls, but if people can't try before they buy, they don't subscribe at all, so that doesn't work.

Arguably the Guardian's "we're free but if you like us we will guilt-trip you into subscribing" is the correct business model; it's very slowly being copied by others, but very slowly. (I've seen it work in other arenas; the only "freemium game" I ever sent money to was the one where I started feeling guilty about playing for free and enjoying it for two years, and the automated response when I paid was "Thank you for *donating*". Sharp.)

Of course, malicious rumor-spreading has always been extra common in the stock market. The fact that the SEC went on a permanent vacation from actually doing anything about real stock manipulations sometime in the 1990s probably has something to do with the fact that things are back to 19th-century levels of bear-raid, rumor, "tip", "anonymous source" manipulation.

 

[Krugerrand]

OK, so no, that's not the problem. I actually think it's something more technical, or more economic, perhaps. People have always spread rumors, but something or several somethings is financially incentivizing it.

One problem is that the payment system for the ads, which is what usually gets the money for the article distributors, is based on *clicks*. Or clickthroughs, maybe. The number of times I've clicked something, read about three lines, went "that's garbage", and turned it off (while being disgusted with the advertisers who would advertise on such garbage) is very large.

In the old days the payment system was based on *subscriber numbers*, and this tactic doesn't get subscribers, it just gets "junk clicks". I've read a lot of discussions by advertisers about this problem, for decades (!) because *they* don't want to pay for junk clicks or even junk clickthroughs either, but it doesn't seem to have been resolved.

Some of the more dumbass of newspapers have attempted to have paywalls, but if people can't try before they buy, they don't subscribe at all, so that doesn't work.

Arguably the Guardian's "we're free but if you like us we will guilt-trip you into subscribing" is the correct business model; it's very slowly being copied by others, but very slowly. (I've seen it work in other arenas; the only "freemium game" I ever sent money to was the one where I started feeling guilty about playing for free and enjoying it for two years, and the automated response when I paid was "Thank you for *donating*". Sharp.)

Of course, malicious rumor-spreading has always been extra common in the stock market. The fact that the SEC went on a permanent vacation from actually doing anything about real stock manipulations sometime in the 1990s probably has something to do with the fact that things are back to 19th-century levels of bear-raid, rumor, "tip", "anonymous source" manipulation.

It’s still on us. Regardless of the payment system, all we have to do is not click, don’t support the outlets. If we don’t support then they’ll ask the question: why? And they’ll change. We stopped buying paper newspapers, so they stopped printing them (mostly).

We stop buying ICEs, they’ll stop making them. It’s really that simple.

Stop tuning into CNBC, FOX, BI, Bloomberg etc...

If an outlet offers junk, then stop giving them any attention and tell everyone you know.

 

[aubreymcfato]

They're definitely lower than Q2 and Q4 2017, but they might end up close to Q1. The last half of the last month of each quarter are usually quite busy, but who knows if that will be the case this month.

I think something like 1500 S/X per quarter may become the new norm as the S/X sees competition for the first time. But this also depends on the competition. The EQC seems quite lackluster, which may push some potential buyers into a Tesla. It will also be interesting to see the specs, pricing and availability of the e-tron. The i-Pace at least seems to be rolling out soonish.

Audi e-tron, Mercedes EQC, BMW iX3 and Jaguar i-Pace all have waiting lists for their cars, so it's not strange that this puts some buyers on the fence, waiting to see if any option is better for them than a Tesla. (Tesla should really also get their service wait times down, in some places it's 6+ months. No doubt it's affecting demand.)

I I think it's difficult to say at the moment: September 2017 was 2000, we could reach it if the last weeks of Q3 Tesla does his magic and delivers 200 per day (as it often does in the final days of a quarter).

 

[AlMc]

Nah, it was great. It's up over 7 million views in only 2 days, and even more amazing it's 2.5 hours of material, not some stupid soundbite.

Imagine if even 5% of those people decide to buy a Model 3 in the next year, Tesla still can't meet demand. We don't need to care about the 30% of the population that still thinks reefer madness is real. Those people will have to get dragged into modernity by other means.

Respectfully, I will agree to disagree with you on that. I DO hope you are correct.

 

[Ovulation]

Respectfully, I will agree to disagree with you on that. I DO hope you are correct.

Have you checked out marketing lately, companies try to manufacture a controlled outcry so that the pop media runs with it, it's a new form of publicity stunt ... I just say H&M and Nike ^^

 

[RobStark]

What am I missing? Tesla energy? Tesla has better margin than Toyota (difficult to say what margin is 20 years from now..)?

Toyota sells most of its vehicles below $30k. Lexus is a much smaller part of the Toyota Motor. Toyota Class 8 / commercial truck business is rather small.

I think Tesla will be much more dominant in the margin rich segments. Premium vehicles and Full sized pickup trucks. Commercial trucks.

PLUS TESLA NETWORK. PLUS SUPERCHARGER NETWORK PLUS TESLA SEMI PLUS MEGACHARGER NETWORK

ADD WAYMO, TOYOTA, DAIMLER, EXXONMOBIL

This is how you get to $700B-$1T market cap.

 

[Yuri_G]

Respectfully, I will agree to disagree with you on that. I DO hope you are correct.

If you read the comments on the video (which you should avoid like the plague, usually) they are overwhelmingly positive. Many of them stating that Elon seems far more relatable than the media portrays him. I think that's worth a lot given the FUD he and Tesla experiences. That, in turn, could help many people that didn't pay attention to EM or Tesla and believed the headlines, question the FUD being written daily. Those people are far more likely to support the company now that they have a positive opinion of Musk and are skeptical of what the media publishes.

 

[aubreymcfato]

Just a reminder that a "view" for Youtube could be as short as 6 seconds. Can'd find a source right now on this.
I think it's safe to assume 80% of the people just went there to watch Elon smoke so never overestimate Youtube (maybe TV is more conservative in its measures).

Still, we can bet hundreds thousands of people watched good portions of the interview, which it's still great.

 

[AlMc]

If you read the comments on the video (which you should avoid like the plague, usually) they are overwhelmingly positive. Many of them stating that Elon seems far more relatable than the media portrays him. I think that's worth a lot given the FUD he and Tesla experiences. That, in turn, could help many people that didn't pay attention to EM or Tesla and believed the headlines, question the FUD being written daily. Those people are far more likely to support the company now that they have a positive opinion of Musk and are skeptical of what the media publishes.

Ok, as I said before. I would have preferred he respectfully decline the weed but I admit I am 'old school'. I HOPE you are correct . It might end a study for Wharton School business majors about how a CEO should/should not act.....time will tell.

 

[AlMc]

Have you checked out marketing lately, companies try to manufacture a controlled outcry so that the pop media runs with it, it's a new form of publicity stunt ... I just say H&M and Nike ^^

time will tell

 

[Cattledog]

Ok, as I said before. I would have preferred he respectfully decline the weed but I admit I am 'old school'. I HOPE you are correct . It might end a study for Wharton School business majors about how a CEO should/should not act.....time will tell.

I watched the whole video, the 'weed' segment is 1% of the time, max. Complete and total non-issue as an issue, can't say what it will do to the stock price. I thought Elon was Elon. Can't ask for more, shouldn't expect less.

Really, at its core it's legal. As is drinking whiskey, a beer, coca cola, smoking a cigar, reading a newspaper, watching a video on your phone, taking the bus somewhere, missing a flight, mailing a package, buying milk, high-fiving your kid after a soccer goal, love, etc.

If I had to sell shares last Friday to pay my mortgage, I'd be pissed. But really what it's done in the short term is create a galactic buying opportunity. Shares, calls, cars, whatever. Place your bets.

 

[Todd Burch]

For those asking, I think a primary driver of perhaps lower Norway or other non-US deliveries is that Tesla has diverted most deliveries to the U.S. to best take advantage of Tesla’s expiring EV incentives.