If you are going to cherry pick, then $TSLA hasn't done that bad from its mid-Feb lows (~$141) either.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
If you are going to cherry pick, then $TSLA hasn't done that bad from its mid-Feb lows (~$141) either.
joseph7h:
I say this not as criticism but as honest advice: I suggest you avoid investing in any individual stocks and stick to a well-diversified portfolio of index funds. It seems you lack the temperament and mental acuity to invest in specific companies. I think you will save yourself much stress and anxiety with a diversified, indexed approach. You'll no longer have to worry about the day-to-day fluctuations of specific stocks! Good luck to you!
racer26
Active Member
joseph keeps making baseless bearish comments here, its not like its a new activity.
Note: I don't have a problem sharing a forum with the bears, provided that they can make a cogent argument for their stance. There's plenty of reason to believe that TSLA could go down from here, at least in the short term. I can't find any rational arguments that it will go BK before it gets really, really, good though.
Note: I don't have a problem sharing a forum with the bears, provided that they can make a cogent argument for their stance. There's plenty of reason to believe that TSLA could go down from here, at least in the short term. I can't find any rational arguments that it will go BK before it gets really, really, good though.
I don't think we need to rush and ascribe malice to the frantic postings of a member who is just clearly unsuited, temperamentally, to be investing in stocks and who lacks the long-term conviction in his holdings to see him through day-to-day volatility.
joseph is clearly just inexperienced
My own guess is that today's decline is related to:
(a) oil decline of 2.5% -- that darn correlation again; and
(b) Elon's plan to talk Mars colonization.
While fun (and potentially game-changing), Musk's Mars plans feed into the market's view that he lacks seriousness on the goals of Tesla profitability or management.
Gerardf
Active Member
He keeps referring to a 10kWh PowerPack, and next writes :
" I find it amazing that no one has checked these claims with more thorough technical analysis, instead relying on the company's own marketing."
Hmmm... I think he has not done a whole lot of checking and analysis himself before writing this article.
And does he even know what the word "Thermodynamics" means ?
You will just have to take his word that he does, and that he knows more about LiION than Elon, JB and the other people at Tesla. Do not believe Elon, believe Maxx Chatsko !
Last edited:
Complete BS. NMC-cells that are designed for durability can last 5000-10000 deep cycles.
(I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you *really* shouldn't use Battery University as a source when it comes to specifics. They're great for more general information about battery technology, but they don't sit around analyzing all the different suppliers and the tech they currently have on the market.)
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Incorrect. He is clueless on the battery chemistries that Tesla is actually using. Tesla was initially using three chemistries, not two. He is assuming that every NMC and every NCA chemistry is identical.
I agree that people should do a critical analysis. However, there are a few things that I still don't know yet in order to do a full critical review. For example, the PowerWall product that is shipping is touted as 6.4 kWh and has 100% DoD. However, we don't actually know the true capacity of the cells. Is it the original 7 kWh? If so, then we are talking about 92% discharge. Further, when we talk about cycle life, the end capacity is often vague. In EV's we usually talk about 80% capacity at "end of life" while with stationary storage, it can be 50% to 80%, which 60% as the common metric. 5,000 cycles to 60% capacity at 92% DoD is very believable for NMC that is well manufactured and well taken care of.
On the other hand, it does appear that many competing solutions do not stand up to either price review, cycle life, or actual availability. We often get products that are not yet shipping, or not even in near final form, without any actual manufacturing facilities, or the products that do ship end up being quite pricey.
If the article was truly serious, they'd list actual products available to buy and their prices for a total solution and compare. Or use something other than Battery University as source material.
That article is completely ignoring the battery management beyond cell level chemistry. Battery management greatly increases life of the battery by reducing the occurrence of deep cycles. Tesla accomplished this primarily by:
1) Have higher battery capacity than rated and set upper/lower bounds on charge/discharge. It could be 10%/90% or 20%/80%
2) Thermal management by active cooling and heating.
I assume the writer of that article is referring to the second law of thermodynamics saying it wins every time. Of course, the law does not state that it wins in only 500 deep cycles or only 5,000 deep cycles. The proof is in the pudding. Compare Tesla's battery to Nissan's. Tesla obviously thinks about these things and engineers their products accordingly.
Well, brokerages must really be desperate to lend out shares to shorties. Schwab just sent me the lending request for my SCTY shares. My stake in TSLA is much greater than my recent acquisition of SCTY for an arbitrage play, so I'm surprised they specified only SCTY in the lending request agreement. I only have a little over a thousand shares of SCTY, so I wouldn't even cause a blip on the radar!
The share lending market is somewhat opaque and it appears that brokerages more or less set the prices by hand. The brokerage that offers the best price today might not offer the best price tomorrow.
Also consider that price is only one factor. Others include the ability to keep the shares lent out and to honor its commitments in extreme circumstances.
With that said, Schwab seems to offer the worst prices. IB is sometimes better than Fidelity and Fidelity is sometimes better than IB. On average, it seems that Fidelity's prices are marginally better. But that could change quickly. You would do well to price shop every so often.
racer26
Active Member
Elon goes live in about half an hour. He tweeted a preview video that's pretty impressive.
I sure hope SpaceX can make it to building this thing inside of my lifetime. I don't care if I get to ride on it (though that would be cool). I just want to be alive to watch it fly.
I sure hope SpaceX can make it to building this thing inside of my lifetime. I don't care if I get to ride on it (though that would be cool). I just want to be alive to watch it fly.
Just trying to learn -
With a margin account, doesn't the broker have the right to lend out shares and they keep the interest earned rather than the account holder? What kind of lending paperwork are you filing?
stealthology
Member
Keep it coming shorts, I'll appreciate the extra firepower on Oct 3, especially since short interest has been waning lately. 243K shortable ATM @ IB.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I echo @Rarity's comments. We know that IB explicitly pays 50% of interest charged (it's in their program documents) to the lender of the shares (minus a really small sliver to pay for transaction costs, ~1% or less). Fidelity sets the two rates separately, so at times, Fidelity will be keeping >50% and will sometimes be keeping <50%. Somebody posted a history of the lending and borrowing rates from Fidelity tracked over a few months - over that period, it looked like Fidelity was paying about 55% of the lending rate to borrowers.
Over time, I figure everybody will be in the vicinity of 50/50, and will maintain similar lending rates. Market pressures will keep them adjusting back towards each other.
I personally went with Fidelity as they seem more friendly for infrequent traders like myself. IB wants a large account balance or frequent monthly trading ($10 in commissions / month), while I don't typically need all the fingers on a hand to count annual trades. And I hate paying fees, so being able to have my brokerage account with no monthly charges is important to me
For lending your shares out, I consider understanding the safeguards that protect your shares to be paramount. You're protecting from a number of counter party risks. They all sound scary, but you've also got some powerful interests working in your favor. The most important, IMHO, is the power of your counterparty (your brokerage) to sell anything and everything in the borrower's account to reacquire your shares to return them to you. The collateral backstop is primarily to protect you from your brokerage being unable to perform, not so much the borrower's ability to perform (though I expect your brokerage gets the cash collateral from the borrower).
And you still risk selling your shares today, at yesterday's closing price. In a period of sustained stability in the share price, that isn't much of a risk. Where this is important is if TSLA moves 50% in a single day - that'll create large demands on short sellers to supply additional cash or close positions, and in the extreme of your brokerage being unable to perform, result in you receiving cash back for your shares instead of the shares (that just went up 50%). Of course, I think that looks like bankruptcy for the brokerage (they didn't return your shares, or update the collateral held by the 4th party at the end of the day), and they are understandably loathe to allow that to happen.
The financial strength and willingness of your brokerage to keep you whole when they borrow your shares is part of what you're choosing, when you choose a brokerage to lend your shares to.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
