-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Given the void of real news about TSLA lately, I'm detecting a "spin" from various faux media outlets and twitter bears that looks very much like a coordinated attempt to manufacture falsely negative information to fill the void, with subtle and not-so-subtle FUD being spewed by a mix of paid-for propaganda and, I suspect, under the table favors.
Not so subtle is this idiotic tweet, in which the chart he posts directly refutes the point he makes in the text of his tweet:
Charlie Bilello, CMT on Twitter:
More subtle is a "ValueWalk" clickbait article calling Tesla "niche" (I will not link to these clickbait/linkfarms).
We need to stand up and fight this with counter-spin. I'm probably writing an article soon for a more respectable media outlet on TSLA, and I hope more of us can do the same.
Not so subtle is this idiotic tweet, in which the chart he posts directly refutes the point he makes in the text of his tweet:
Charlie Bilello, CMT on Twitter:
More subtle is a "ValueWalk" clickbait article calling Tesla "niche" (I will not link to these clickbait/linkfarms).
We need to stand up and fight this with counter-spin. I'm probably writing an article soon for a more respectable media outlet on TSLA, and I hope more of us can do the same.
great stuff, we need more activism like this, I'm trying to fight off more FUD in comments sections of SA articles again but writing an article is the best way to fight the FUD.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That's what it seems to be. They used the battery as a starting battery for the APU, which apparently kept the battery charging while it was running.
I skimmed the entire report (by that I mean I spent half an hour, but didn't read every word) and there was no mention of trickle charging in the list of causes or fixes. In fact it specifically said in a number of places that the battery (and the one in the other plane that caught fire) were never either over- or under- charged. Also the APU was off in the Boston one; it was parked for the night.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They don't actually understand that they are in fact overcharging the cells.
I think the report is wrong but we should probably continue this discussion in this thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/12821-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-Battery-Issues/page14
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
My news feed has been mostly negative "news" on TSLA today, but almost all of it has been baseless or ignorant speculation.
It is undoubtedly annoying for short-term and options traders that random pieces of trash can upset the market. A lot of people here won big on options in 2013 because TMC collectively predicted what the mainstream did not predict: that Tesla Motors could be a financially viable mass producer of electric cars. When the Q1 '13 earnings hit, it was a shock to the markets. I think the short-term game is just not a good one unless we know there's a good chance that the unbelievable will be announced at earnings time.
The whole "demand topped out blah blah" from so-called analysts is the next stage of doubt. Few people believe that Tesla can scale from 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of cars per year. A high-volume mainstream car like Honda Civic sells about 300k per year in North America. If in a few years Tesla begins to produce and sell Model 3 at a rate where that level of total sales is possible, it may be another shockwave. Until then, I predict steady but volatile upwards growth in TSLA based on Model X and Gigafactory/Model 3 news, and heavy doses of FUD attacks until Model 3 reaches full production. Short term traders until that time will likely largely be at the mercy of random news (real or fabricated) and bot bashes between companies with the capital to push around smaller market participants.
FUD never ends, what shareholder needs is continuous positive execution from TM. But since July production line upgrade, not only the production ramp up behind the schedule which caused Q3 miss and lowered 2014 guidance, but also the very recent P85D delivery delay (Tracking P85D delivery thread) concerns me. TM is supposed to deliver a large bunch of P85D to NA market in December. If P85D production and delivery is not executed well, then we'll see a good chance to miss Q4 and 2014 guidance again. Instead of FUD, I think the most challenging part for TSLA price is TM execution itself!!!
chickensevil
Active Member
This was stated even by Elon that it is fair criticism against the company that they are not doing so great on ramping production. Hopefully they can sort through these issues quickly. But at least the slow ramp is caused by valid reasons, like ensuring a high production quality. I would rather TM make 100 AMAZING CARS than 1000 really crappy lemons.
I don't think this is a valid reason rather an excuse. Any production needs to guarantee quality, when TM talked about the production ramp up, the quality is implied.
Same thing here for P85D, once it's committed to deliver production model, then it should be in high quality straight off the assembly line. If TM was not sure about the quality, then it should not make such release. Without good track of record of production ramp up, how do people believe the gigafactory schedule and quality? Then the model 3 promise?
Same thing here for P85D, once it's committed to deliver production model, then it should be in high quality straight off the assembly line. If TM was not sure about the quality, then it should not make such release. Without good track of record of production ramp up, how do people believe the gigafactory schedule and quality? Then the model 3 promise?
Citizen-T
Active Member
I think you are missing some fundamental truth about estimating. They obviously can't account for issues that they have not yet seen. They can leave a buffer to deal with whatever comes up, but how do you size that buffer? It's a guess.
You imply that quality should have been accounted for in the estimates, but this is obviously impossible. Right?
Perfectlogic
Member
Careful you don't get caught up in all the FUD. So what if Tesla had a few production issues causing a 2k car miss this year, their production target rate of 1k/week at the end of this year is easily met. So what if the D is delayed by a measly week, it doesn't change anything about the big picture which is what you are paying for in TSLA. Just keep calm and buy these illogical dips.
You do realize that RWD cars are still being delivered right? Its much better to front load the detailed QC in the beginning of the new product ramp which is what I believe they are doing. They can run all the simulations and provide estimates all they want, but problems can't be found till things are actually being done which is what we are hearing about now. If it is indeed a retrofitable part, we should be fine because many cars can be completed very quickly without starting from the begininng. I think the last time we had this, it was USB cables and frunk liners causing the delay.
MartinAustin
Active Member
The delivery projection was for "December" and it's December 4th. Please have some patience.
You can guarantee they have their eyes on the prize and are aiming to bring in these deliveries in Q4.
TSLA up in the pre-market! That's a change.
You can guarantee they have their eyes on the prize and are aiming to bring in these deliveries in Q4.
TSLA up in the pre-market! That's a change.
Obviously. But, it's about guidance they put out to the market. If they're systematically missing targets, at some point the market will start to re-evaluate the faith it has in other, longer-term, promises the company makes. This goes to the core that the other thread questions : how lang can Tesla push back the model 3 before it loses the window in which they hold their big competitive advantage on other car makers (be them traditional or start up)?
Essentially? Indefinitely. Here's why: no other carmaker has any plans to build:
1) a car that actually competes on range, power, and software-driven build quality and
2) a gigafactory-scale battery factory, which is necessary to achieve sufficient economies of scale to build anything but a "compliance car"
They will not wake up and do so until the Model 3 is released and is selling. By that time, they will either be begging Tesla to help them build a gigafactory, buying batteries from Tesla, or getting ready to go extinct.
This "competition" bunk is bunk.
In days of old this would have been a "spit out my coffee after reading it" situation:
From BARRON'S article on Tesla by Ben Levisohn this morning
But these days I know better than to trust anything I read in any media outlet.... and I don't drink coffee....
From BARRON'S article on Tesla by Ben Levisohn this morning
But these days I know better than to trust anything I read in any media outlet.... and I don't drink coffee....
Thumper
Active Member
I agree that these small blips do not hurt Tesla's long term advantage. However, we all buy growth stocks with the expectation that someday the little growth stock will be a mighty oak value stock. Anything that moves that day back causes the stock to loose value in the short term and most things that bring that day closer add short term value.
Latest explanation from someone's DS on the delivery thread:
Also no P85Ds have been going into production since Tuesday or so. They seem to have pulled forward RWD deliveries as well as one poster is getting his more than a week early. While this explanation easily means we could see fewer P85Ds delivered than we would like this quarter it also means there is no issue with producing them. It makes a lot of sense to me because there is still no EPA rating or announcement.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked