Anecdotal, but a lot more Xs on the road here in the San Diego area. And the place is littered with Ss. Yesterday, 3 in a row (one behind another) at a red light including mine. I switched lanes to make it happen.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
The cars have never been desired by more people. The future of EV has never looked better. The big institutional investors get this and IMO will support Tesla through proving the model 3. What is not true, however, is that Tesla success is inevitable. Plenty of ways to screw this up.
NikeWings
Active Member
Unfortunately, the biggest institutional investor, Fidelity (along with a few bond holders) isn't quite as confident in execution. I just noticed they reduced their CSO position from 13.8% to 8.9% as of 8/19.
That is an extremely suspect datum shown in that chart, NikeWings. The reason:
1. If you examine the other holders, not one has changed from the penultimate to the ultimate column,
AND much more tellingly....
2. The so-called "Latest" datum for Fidelity is exactly the precise amount that also is shown for their holding as of 12/31/15.
So I'm calling it aberrant, hyper-unlikely - rather, it shows a mis-placed figure.
1. If you examine the other holders, not one has changed from the penultimate to the ultimate column,
AND much more tellingly....
2. The so-called "Latest" datum for Fidelity is exactly the precise amount that also is shown for their holding as of 12/31/15.
So I'm calling it aberrant, hyper-unlikely - rather, it shows a mis-placed figure.
You Cannot know holdings (legally) until next 13-F is filed. Their internal staff would know, but not supposed to share.
Yes, execution is key. In fact, it is the only concern. What would alleviate that concern? Increasing production and delivery? Exactly at what rate?
A lot of people are stuck on the under 15K deliveries for Q1 & Q2, and think that is the high ceiling. 22K+ deliveries for Q3 Is a significant first step in alleviating the execution concerns.
Most mall walkers may not have funds to afford it. But sure, they will gawk. Wealthy people, for the most part, don't shop at the mall. To expensive. Wealthy people are so due to not spending much money.
NikeWings
Active Member
Last week's S4, page 168 (attached).
EDIT: I excluded Musk in my calcs as I was only interested in institutional ownership. Thus my % is slightly higher than the S4.
Last edited:
I don't know how reliable that data is, sometimes we get incomplete data online. Knowing how much experience Fidelity has in finding great companies, I would be surprised if they reduced shares. Peter Lynch influenced Fidelity's investment philosophy ever since 1974 when he was Fidelity's research director, then manager of Magellan fund (1977~1990, 29% componded), today he is still the vice Chairman.
In his book "One Up on Wall Street", he described finding and investing into those future 10 baggers, 100 baggers as the best investment approach. Tesla clearly has the ingredients and potential to become one of the largest companies. Selling doesn't make sense to me.
However, five Fidelity funds have sizable investment in Tesla. I guess it's possible some fund managers have different opinion and sold. I will have to see the next quarterly report to confirm. Even if in unlikely case certain fund sold, that will not affect how I analyze the company.
3Victoria
Active Member
NikeWings
Active Member
I used 149.24MM as the denominator, defined as:
Applicable percentage ownership is based on 149,238,810 shares of Tesla Common Stock outstanding at August 19, 2016. In computing the number of shares of Tesla Common Stock beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of such person, all shares of common stock subject to options that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of August 19, 2016 and restricted stock unit awards subject to release within 60 days of August 19, 2016 are deemed to be outstanding. However, these shares are not deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person.
stealthology
Member
True, most may not, but a good enough portion will. Can we get a mall directory posted? All the malls I've been to definitely have a good amount of luxury retailers. I do live in the DC area though.
EDIT: Let's see here: Saks Fifth Ave, Nordstrom, Hudson's Bay, Burberry, Coach, Hugo Boss, Armani Exchange, Michael Kors, Scotch & Soda (!), 7 for All Mankind, Apple, Microsoft, and ton of high end jewelers and other lux stores which I'm not fashionable enough to know about.
Find a Store | CF Chinook Centre
Last edited:
You should scroll down a few lines in the S-4 and see what the (2) footnote for FMR says:
"The foregoing information is based solely on Amendment No. 6 to Schedule 13G of FMR LLC filed on January 11, 2016, which the Company does not know or have reason to believe is not complete or accurate and on which the Company is relying pursuant to applicable SEC regulations."
The ownership for FMR shown in the recent S-4 is the number in Q4 last year. Similar statements can be found for Baillie Gifford & Co. and T. Rowe Price. They are all from Q4 2015 and do not reflect the latest ownership. Why they have this outdated information in the S-4 is beyond me.
Last edited:
IIRC, Tesla has been running 8 hours shift, 3 shifts per day for quite some time. So unless the workforce has doubled their efficiency, they would have hired more people. Thus the avoided up-front labor cost saving won't be much.
And since production rate in June finally increased a lot to 2000/week, except for the additional 2535 in transit, there were a lot of work in progress counted towards inventory too. But I do agree many of these could have been the pre-built inventory to be sold at 10% or more discount to interested customers.
I don't have the reference handy, but recent discussions show Tesla as running 2 sets of 12-hr shifts on an alternating 3 & 4 day work-week schedule. This is what the schedule would be like:
team 1 (3-day on week 1): M Tu W, 12-hr days
team 2 (4-day on week 1): Su Th F Sa, 12-hr days
team 1 (4-day on week 2): Su Th F Sa, 12-hr days
team 2 (3-day on week 2): M Tu W, 12-hr days
This keeps production only on day-light hours and only needs 2-teams with maximum workplace flexibility as a perk.
... now to find that link ...
Edit: Found the reference: Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016
Edit2: Hmmm, just re-read his posting and it doesn't seem to make sense anymore. ?!?!?!
Last edited:
NikeWings
Active Member
Yep you are right and @AudubonB suspicion is affirmed. That's a mysterious & intentional move and raises more questions.
I had read those footnotes and interpreted them as reporting on the sub-fund holders, voters and other admin elements of the shares as of those dates, rather than the specific share count. It never hit me they would intentionally report such dated financial material. Addresses and voters, yes. Financial data, no. Thx.....one mystery solved and another one opens.
That's my post. All I can say was that on my factory tour in July, I was told the work week was Monday 6 am nonstop to Friday 6 pm, with alternating 12 hour shifts. The workers had voted to do it that way.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
The way I've seen 2 sets of 12 hr shifts working is 1 shift takes Mo/Tu/We (for example), and the other takes Fr/Sa/Su. With the wo teams alternating Thursdays. That gives people the best stability in their schedules over time, and consistently sized "weekends". Of course the day that the two shifts alternate over can be any day of the week
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
