FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
So, the market is up over 1.25% currently. So, how about it TSLA? $240 is right in front of you. Go ahead and take it out...you know you want to.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
- Status
jhm
Well-Known Member
Enel Green Power to invest 9.6bn - English - ANSA.it
Enel currently has 9.8GW of renewable power and wants to add 7.1 more by 2019. So 17 GW could easily pair with 16 to 32 GWh of storage. Thus, they could need an annual supply in the range of 4 to 8 GWh. The GF could sell out quickly.
Enel currently has 9.8GW of renewable power and wants to add 7.1 more by 2019. So 17 GW could easily pair with 16 to 32 GWh of storage. Thus, they could need an annual supply in the range of 4 to 8 GWh. The GF could sell out quickly.
Gtoffo
Member
It's the renewables branch of the now privatised italian electricity and gas utility. BIG fish.
BTW, WTF is going on with the language used by the analysts?? First they are craving for **color**, second they can't distinguish cash burn from **cash deployment**. May be because they have lack of color and burn is much more colorful word than deployment?
Using "cash burn" describing what is going on at Tesla is retarded and myopic. Tesla is in the business of deployment of cash, the more - the better as far as I am concerned. They clearly know a thing or two how to do it effectively... Just look at their brand and protfolio of products...
Using "cash burn" describing what is going on at Tesla is retarded and myopic. Tesla is in the business of deployment of cash, the more - the better as far as I am concerned. They clearly know a thing or two how to do it effectively... Just look at their brand and protfolio of products...
doggusfluffy
Closed
Isn't the tentative plan for a European GF being needed just to supply Germany alone and that the daily cycler pack engineered specifically for their market?
Just to clarify, a lot of their installed capacity is hydro and geothermal, which would not need battery storage. I would guess that about halfof the existing capacity is solar/wind, and probably majority of the new planned capacity is solar/wind.
So any way one slices this we are probably talking about the storage needs in GW, not MW.
So any way one slices this we are probably talking about the storage needs in GW, not MW.
On terminology: Like many US industries, Wall Street has its own jargon (almost its own language), often nicknames and code words designed precisely to obfuscate and make opaque a professional world that simply does not want the common person to understand its language. Some of this coded language can be parsed with effort by those outside the club, but it is designed not to be. "Cash burn" has actually been a popular term in venture capital / investment finance since the mid-90's dot com era. "Color" is a more recently fashionable term.
Interestingly, if you want to decode some of the words used by traders on twitter and on conference calls among corporate finance professionals, I have found Investopedia to be a useful resource. I was actually trained in corporate finance and venture capital investment at one of the better business schools in the world, and even I have absolutely no idea what some traders and analysts are saying sometimes, by their own design.
On the subject of Tesla's cashflow needs and projections: As for the validity of forcing the conversation towards a discussion of Tesla's cashflow needs this year, I fully believe what Elon, JB and Deepak said on the call that GigaFactory 1 cash outlays are mostly complete, and the company will be generating exponentially more free cash flow in the latter part of the year, so much that they could grow the business completely "organically" (another Wall Street term meaning financing operations using working capital only).
However, when management and shareholders of a business that could generate much higher future cashflows with more capital desire to *accelerate* that growth, then injecting capital through debt or equity markets is absolutely the right thing to do. Not to do so would be poor management. So is Elon sandbagging a bit, and will he drop a huge beat on the market on the Q2 / Q3 earnings calls before considering financing Gigafactory 2 or 3? Maybe. Does he need to raise more cash to grow Tesla at currently planned rates? Absolutely not.
P.S. I love your contributions Vladimir -- don't get too frustrated by silly language
.
Last edited:
I don't know if we can pull it off unless covering creates some volume. Heavy call buying is driving max pain downward. I'm just looking for a good opportunity to roll.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Totally agree. Even better, they should be using the phrase "capital deployment" which is exactly the foundation of capitalism.
If a company can raise cash at a given interest rate and use it to get a return on investment to grow the business and thus future returns for shareholders at a rate greater than that interest rate, then they should do exactly that.
With so many companies sitting on massive amounts of cash though and no idea how to deploy it for any return better than treasuries I'm afraid we as a society have forgotten what capitalism is. I'm glad to see Tesla hasn't.
Like many US industries, Wall Street has its own jargon (almost its own language), often nicknames and code words designed precisely to obfuscate and make opaque a professional world that simply does not want the common person to understand its language. Some of this coded language can be parsed with effort by those outside the club, but it is designed not to be. "Cash burn" has actually been a popular term in venture capital / investment finance since the mid-90's dot com era. "Color" is a more recently fashionable term.
Interestingly, if you want to decode some of the words used by traders on twitter and on conference calls among corporate finance professionals, I have found Investopedia to be a useful resource. I was actually trained in corporate finance and venture capital investment at one of the better business schools in the world, and even I have absolutely no idea what some traders and analysts are saying sometimes, by their own design.
I get it, that "cash burn" is a commonly used professional finance term, but I would still challenge it - the hyperbola is excessive (again, I guess, because those professionals crave color), and terribly imprecise. In the laymen's language burning is wasteful process without much to show for it in the long term. So for some companies it is "burn rate" , for others - "deployment rate" :smile:
mejojo
Active Member
Why would hydro and geo (and wind) not be able to take advantage of battery storage? I guess if max generation is being 100% consumed even at night time, but I don't think this is the case for all sources.
Here's an example of thermal storage of night time wind power. It would seem battery storage may be more effective.
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/12/31/more-incentives-for-thermal-energy-storage-for-night-time-wind/
Managing peaks is even more critical with hydro. I live in hydro-land and I know some huge utilities that would love massive amounts of storage.
I haven't seen (I could get off my butt and do it) spending stats that back out capital deployment. I mean I would say that there is money spent on factory stuff, which increases capacity-- that is clear investment/deployment. Money spent on superchargers and service centers is also kind of an investment, but also something they can modulate (look for a sudden drop off in late 2015) and then there is the ordinary expenses, they would have if they were stead-state. Can someone tell me if that theoretical steady-state spend is less than their earnings? I don't have time today to try to answer myself, figure someone here might just know :redface:
Hydro and geothermal generally produce stable output of energy, and are suitable for a base load applications.
Wind and Solar, on other hand, have highly variable output which ideally requires battery storage to produce more steady and controllable output.
- - - Updated - - -
The output of hydro is easily controlled without using any battery storage, as it is by definition using water stored energy (behind the dam).
Wind and Solar, on other hand, have highly variable output which ideally requires battery storage to produce more steady and controllable output.
- - - Updated - - -
The output of hydro is easily controlled without using any battery storage, as it is by definition using water stored energy (behind the dam).
For all you analysts craving color, I offer you this:
Now, can some real professionals get beyond kindergarten and put out some substantive reports, please?
You raise an important point: not all the capex is committed; some parts could be ramped down to modulate cash flow, allowing Tesla more time to decide whether and when to raise more cash from either the debt or equity markets.
True, but max capacity is the issue. For industries downstream the penalties are crippling for exceeding limits at peak periods.
- Status
Similar threads
