-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Certainly the S and EV's in general are much safer than their petroleum counterparts, but let us not pretend that a burning vehicle, of any sort, is not a safety risk. Also let us not pretend that another such event in a Tesla vehicle could not negatively affect the stock price. As a whole Andrew's concerns are not unreasonable. I'm operating on a longer time period so I held my shares.
Curt, what is your read on the reason/timing of the David Strickland's departure from NHTSA. Do you think it is at all related to the Tesla investigation?
I suspect that the delay in providing a decision is due to the fact that Strickland will soon be joining a law firm that represents and lobbies for the automotive and oil industries. Delay in the decision avoids concerns about conflict of interest or adverse reaction from his new employer. Strickland has made a point of the fact that all issues currently under study will not be decided prior to his departure on January 17. The Tesla matter may have been what he primarily meant by that. I imagine that the president would prefer that the ultimate decision be made by Strickland's replacement. Whether the law firm's job offer to Strickland was made to influence his Tesla decision, I'll leave to conspiracy theorists.
Last edited:
To clarify, I agree that another Tesla fire could dip the stock price. (In fact I hope it does, so I can load up.) But a concern about Tesla's fire safety is not reasonable IMO. A non-burning vehicle, of any sort, is a safety risk. The relative risk of competing vehicles is the key issue.
I think it is reasonable to be concerned about people's reactions to the fires, but not about the fires themselves.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
IMO, there are certain moves and events that cannot be countered. In the case of Tesla as a phenomena, it is one of those things where even if you know its inner workings, there is nothing you can do to kill it. It's more of a:"Tesla happened, now what's our possible move?"
So David can leak all he wants, the best the others can achieve is a copy of the current state of tesla. By the time they manage it, Tesla will be a completely different entity fit for the right time, instead of locked down by legacy.
It's the solution I've realized when pondering about competing products from China. How do you win against a country full of brilliant honor roll reverse engineers?
Last edited:
Seems to me a leak of details about Tesla would be the least of our worries.
More troublesome would be if Strickland's joining Venable is indeed a quid-pro-quo from the oil/gas/ICE-auto lobby, for a negative NHTSA report forcing a potentially expensive recall. How common is it for a firm to announce a gov't official is taking on a huge new job in the private sector while he's still officiating over some highly sensitive government investigations?
I consider the quid-pro-quo scenario unlikely, but in the spirit of being prepared for anything (I do not believe for a second that we've seen the last of anti-Tesla trickery and shenanigans from the oil/gas/ICE-auto industry), I am trying to envision what could be the worst-case short-term impact on the stock: TSLA plummets to what, $100? $80?
More troublesome would be if Strickland's joining Venable is indeed a quid-pro-quo from the oil/gas/ICE-auto lobby, for a negative NHTSA report forcing a potentially expensive recall. How common is it for a firm to announce a gov't official is taking on a huge new job in the private sector while he's still officiating over some highly sensitive government investigations?
I consider the quid-pro-quo scenario unlikely, but in the spirit of being prepared for anything (I do not believe for a second that we've seen the last of anti-Tesla trickery and shenanigans from the oil/gas/ICE-auto industry), I am trying to envision what could be the worst-case short-term impact on the stock: TSLA plummets to what, $100? $80?
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
From Strickland's WSJ interview comments yesterday it sounds as if NHTSA is only considering a potential recommendation to thicken the bottom plate or not. In my opinion, this wouldn't be terribly expensive for TM to implement.
My question for everyone is whether or not Strickland made this comment or the writer simply inferred it (plate thickness)? TIA
Also, I believe NHTSA can make a suggestion without having the word 'recall'. I still can't fathom a negative outcome here. Safety of the people, not materials is what the NHTSA is all about.
Truthfully... I think minimal at best. The adapters being sent out aren't much as this news came out Friday and the adapters don't have a material financial impact.
In terms of battery pack modification, I think all of us are reading into this too much. It takes the government a while to investigate, we aren't as efficient as the Germans. I won't echo the other posts above, but I'll say no amount of modification is going to bend physics. The other aspect of this is, I firmly believe (with some hope) that a small modification is priced in which explains the flatness in shares as of late.
After reading the linked piece, the quote from Elon about Tesla having "more work to do" has me concerned with how the market will react to the overall article on Monday. I think Elon Musk is a great CEO with a great company in his hands but either he or his PR team need to come up with more positive things to say at interviews and avoid being too candid.
I think the link was actually a good, honest take on the mission at hand. Will wait for final thoughts until the whole article comes out but I look at the linked part as the glass half full, not half empty.
If someone is candid about negative things, I trust him more when he says positive things.
Also, why are you concerned about a short-term dip in the stock price? If you think it will happen, then you have info you can use to make money.
Come on, do people really think that this was a negative comment?? Sounds like an attempt to spin his statement into FUD to me - in reality, of COURSE they have more work to do. They have had more work to do from the beginning. Elon has made no bones about the need for easing production constraints and increasing battery supply, among other things. Hence the whole giga factory idea. I would have been far, far more concerned if he had said something along the lines of 'everything is great, we are going to continue maintaining the status quo.' Elon's statement can be best compared to the continual reassessment, improvement, and development of products akin to Apple under Steve Jobs. Would you rather have Tim Cook???
Agreed. Let's see on Monday if we are right. An no Cook please as a Visionary Engineer is worth so much more.
Krugerrand
Meow
You must be new to the party...but I know you are not, which makes you either a slow learner or a reluctant learner. You can decide. Elon Musk is always going to say what he believes to be true. Being candid is one of his best traits. It's fascinating that people have gotten so used to being lied to that they've come to prefer it over the truth. Since this is an investment thread, I'll put this right on topic;
Those investing in a company, whether long or short term, should find comfort AND ease in investing when they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that what's coming out of a certain CEO's mouth about all things company related are, indeed, the truth. That's got to take allllllllllllllllllll the guesswork out of it, no?
Actually, Tesla could really use a Tim Cook. They have visionary engineers like JB Straubel. Instead, right now, they need top notch supply chain and manufacturing expertise. That's Tim Cook.
- Status
Similar threads
