Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

[aznt1217]

No, they do. The average vehicle achieves the average mpg on the sticker, unless the company cheats on it. Perhaps your result is different because you drive more inefficiently than most. I routinely beat EPA range and mileage because I drive more efficiently than most. Average that with everyone else and you get the number on the sticker.

The people complaining about range just need to learn to use the energy gauge or have other factors involved (bad road conditions etc). I've had no problems getting or beating "ideal" range in any tesla.

I typically do, but I know TONS of people that dont beat it.

 

[mejojo]

OK..so a fairly meh day.....but I noticed something interesting to me that I'm wondering indicates anything significant....most of my options were slightly red, but all my Jan 17 LEAPS (200, 220, 270) were up 3% each.

Is that a little bit of signal in the noise? Or just more noise?

 

[MikeC]

OK..so a fairly meh day.....but I noticed something interesting to me that I'm wondering indicates anything significant....most of my options were slightly red, but all my Jan 17 LEAPS (200, 220, 270) were up 3% each.

Is that a little bit of signal in the noise? Or just more noise?

Maybe more appropriate for the options thread but I say it's noise.

There is a wide bid-ask spread for 17s, so small daily moves in the stock price essentially keep the option price more or less within the spread. You will also notice that Schwab was valuing the options after close yesterday at the bid price even though the ask price was almost $400 more in some cases. Today they are valuing it between the bid-ask so it appears their value increased more than it actually did.

The lesson here is that there is not much to be gleaned from the daily price action of far out, thinly-traded options.

 

[Auzie]

Right. Maybe this has little to do with maximizing profit and more to do with providing the best Tesla buying experience for buyers who don't want to buy new? Other dealers aren't likely able to fully determine the condition of the vehicle. Probably won't sell an extended warranty for them. Can't service the vehicle for the buyer. Can't deal with getting the account for the vehicle transferred. Probably won't do a very good job of educating the buyer.

This is why I asked the original question. I suspect TM gets a much larger margin on high dollar new car sales (versus dealers) and lower margins on used/CPO, less costly cars (versus dealers). Why not just let the market set the price for the used cars moving forward and focus on producing new cars?

My bet is that CPO might not be driven as much by trying to get good margin and cash flows from CPO business but perhaps more to do with deriving indirect benefits that flow as a result of continual product care and adding value.

Due to the unique product nature, Tesla is in a position to easily add a lot of value to used cars. There are multiple benefits to that:

Good value secondary car market translates into strong positive influence in primary car market.
Strong secondary market feeds directly into Tesla's mission, speeds up transportation electrification.
It strengthens Tesla brand by ensuring product quality.
Financial benefits (business stream).

 

[ggr]

Maybe more appropriate for the options thread but I say it's noise.

There is a wide bid-ask spread for 17s, so small daily moves in the stock price essentially keep the option price more or less within the spread. You will also notice that Schwab was valuing the options after close yesterday at the bid price even though the ask price was almost $400 more in some cases. Today they are valuing it between the bid-ask so it appears their value increased more than it actually did.

The lesson here is that there is not much to be gleaned from the daily price action of far out, thinly-traded options.

The value of the time component of options depends on the volatility of the stock. So if the volatility increases, the longer term options may well go up even if the stock price goes down, so long as it isn't too much.

 

[AlMc]

My bet is that CPO might not be driven as much by trying to get good margin and cash flows from CPO business but perhaps more to do with deriving indirect benefits that flow as a result of continual product care and adding value.

Due to the unique product nature, Tesla is in a position to easily add a lot of value to used cars. There are multiple benefits to that:

Good value secondary car market translates into strong positive influence in primary car market.
Strong secondary market feeds directly into Tesla's mission, speeds up transportation electrification.
It strengthens Tesla brand by ensuring product quality.
Financial benefits (business stream).

I understand exactly what you are saying. It is just another aspect of this business that TM is going into unchartered territory. Flipping traditional car sales upside down. Higher margins on new cars. lower margins (probably) on a car you took in as 'trade', thus reducing the GM on the transaction (assuming lower margin on CPO) than just selling the new car without a trade in.

 

[Jack6591]

OPEC leader sees oil prices shooting back to $200 a barrel - Feb. 3, 2015

 

[chickensevil]

OPEC leader sees oil prices shooting back to $200 a barrel - Feb. 3, 2015

Talk about going from one end of the spectrum to the other!

 

[jhm]

OPEC leader sees oil prices shooting back to $200 a barrel - Feb. 3, 2015

$200, seriously? The last time oil touched $147 it sent the world into a global recession. $200 would absolutely crush the global economy. Energy enables human productivity, but when energy is too expensive it kills productivity, jobs are destroyed and demand crashes.

This sounds like a scare tactic aimed at keeping governments vested in oil production. I don't buy it. They claim the industry needs $7 - $10 TRILLION over the next 15 years to avoid economic collapse. This is total BS.

Think about how far a $1T investment in Gigafactories would go. This is enough for EVs to displace every ICEV in the new car market, plus have plenty left over for stationary storage so that all new electricity capacity is renewable. Under this scenario the price of oil drops to $25 for the end of time.

So think about it, should investors and governments sink $7T into oil development that degrades by 5% per year and fouls up our global lifesupport system or invest $1T into advanced battery capacity and usher in an era of cheap, clean and abundant renewable energy? I've made my choice. This is why the Gigafactory is so important.

 

[ggr]

$200, seriously? The last time oil touched $147 it sent the world into a global recession. $200 would absolutely crush the global economy. Energy enables human productivity, but when energy is too expensive it kills productivity, jobs are destroyed and demand crashes.

This sounds like a scare tactic aimed at keeping governments vested in oil production. I don't buy it. They claim the industry needs $7 - $10 TRILLION over the next 15 years to avoid economic collapse. This is total BS.

Think about how far a $1T investment in Gigafactories would go. This is enough for EVs to displace every ICEV in the new car market, plus have plenty left over for stationary storage so that all new electricity capacity is renewable. Under this scenario the price of oil drops to $25 for the end of time.

So think about it, should investors and governments sink $7T into oil development that degrades by 5% per year and fouls up our global lifesupport system or invest $1T into advanced battery capacity and usher in an era of cheap, clean and abundant renewable energy? I've made my choice. This is why the Gigafactory is so important.

This is the problem with thinking that mitigating global warming is "too expensive". It turns out that the costs are very reasonable compared to the costs of not doing it. Unfortunately, the people who receive that money are not the ones who currently own the governments. (Oops, possible political quarantine statement.)

 

[chickensevil]

This is the problem with thinking that mitigating global warming is "too expensive". It turns out that the costs are very reasonable compared to the costs of not doing it. Unfortunately, the people who receive that money are not the ones who currently own the governments. (Oops, possible political quarantine statement.)

Sadly that's a very true statement.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

This is the problem with thinking that mitigating global warming is "too expensive". It turns out that the costs are very reasonable compared to the costs of not doing it.

This ^_^

(I didn't mention the other part of the post because I like to be neutral with respect to American politics)

 

[Gerasimental]

Tesla pushes bill to bypass Ariz. car dealers

Anybody able to judge how likely this is to pass the house?

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Tesla is at this year's International Auto Show in Geneva.

 

[Gerardf]

We are having a nice start today.. Low volume.. but nice

 

[uselesslogin]

We are having a nice start today.. Low volume.. but nice

So how do folks see volume in general? Is it good to be strongly up on low volume? To me that means there aren't a lot of sellers and the buyers are bidding up the price to try to attract new sellers. That seems better than a high volume rise when the price is being probably being bid up by lots of buyers hoping to jump on the next momentum train. Still I guess there is no way to say for sure. I'm just wondering if there is some sort of conventional wisdom here.

 

[dmunjal]

$200, seriously? The last time oil touched $147 it sent the world into a global recession. $200 would absolutely crush the global economy. Energy enables human productivity, but when energy is too expensive it kills productivity, jobs are destroyed and demand crashes.

This sounds like a scare tactic aimed at keeping governments vested in oil production. I don't buy it. They claim the industry needs $7 - $10 TRILLION over the next 15 years to avoid economic collapse. This is total BS.

Think about how far a $1T investment in Gigafactories would go. This is enough for EVs to displace every ICEV in the new car market, plus have plenty left over for stationary storage so that all new electricity capacity is renewable. Under this scenario the price of oil drops to $25 for the end of time.

So think about it, should investors and governments sink $7T into oil development that degrades by 5% per year and fouls up our global lifesupport system or invest $1T into advanced battery capacity and usher in an era of cheap, clean and abundant renewable energy? I've made my choice. This is why the Gigafactory is so important.

When oil hit $147 in 2007, it was more about the weak dollar than supply/demand. Today's strong dollar is also partially responsible for the low prices today. Of course, shale oil, Saudi Arabia, and lower global demand play a part, too.

To get to $200 oil without changes to supply/demand would require a much weaker dollar. That would require the Fed to start up QE again to fight deflation in the US. Right now, the posture is to raise rates this year. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[austinEV]

I went all in at 220. so do I have stones?

These things have a way of working out. Will I care that I got in at 220 instead of 187 when the stock is at $500 in 2018? No.

 

[Causalien]

So how do folks see volume in general? Is it good to be strongly up on low volume? To me that means there aren't a lot of sellers and the buyers are bidding up the price to try to attract new sellers. That seems better than a high volume rise when the price is being probably being bid up by lots of buyers hoping to jump on the next momentum train. Still I guess there is no way to say for sure. I'm just wondering if there is some sort of conventional wisdom here.

Technically, a rise with higher volume makes the event more significant.

 

[chickensevil]

It does help that the market is having a decently green day today, so far.