Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
the difference between Amazon and Tesla in your discussion is that Amazon actually put those moats into place... where everything on your list has not actually been accomplished. (with exception of 373k first month reservations... which I see as nothing more than a marketing accomplishment)

additionally... each one of the items on your list has very large risks... and now that they are combined... each risk can affect the others making this compounding... for example... if SCTY breaks down and sucks cash from the company... that would affect all the rest... another... the amount of effort put into fully autonomous distracts from M3 success... etc.

I think it's possible that what will be studied in biz school is a company that had lots of potential but failed to understand the meaning of risk.
Utility scale TE projects are coming. It is immaterial whether they close this quarter or next. The only way TE gets derailed is for utilities to offer massive rate cuts for on peak power to industry. Solar acquisition whether it is solarcity or yingli is also immaterial, it is coming and can be derailed when the sun goes to a supernova, which is coming.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: SW2Fiddler
To buy protective options or not to buy them ... that is the question (for me).

Now that I've actually seen "Buy the Rumor, Sell the News" in action, I have a better idea of what the phrase means with respect to "Rumor", since here on TMC, we see the "rumor" WAY WAY WAY sooner than Wall Street and other investors see the "rumor", usually, but not always (because they get the jump on us on NYC visible items). The "Sell the News" part is pretty easy to understand, since that is a discrete single timepoint. What they're saying is that everyone ELSE buys the rumors as East Coast/average public sees it, and that everyone ELSE sells the news when it is released. So, the smart play is to figure out when Big Money, New York, and Average Investor learns of the rumor, and be in a position to handle a rise (when they are buying), and then sometime during that process when it is high, handle it having risen, and then be ready to handle for others to sell when the news hits, not being in a position to be hurt by this, and then again when that has occurred and things are low again, to be in a position to handle a rise (of any type -- recovery, new valuation, whether lower or greater, etc.).

The hard part for me to understand that phrase was to understand who it was commanding, and what time it was commanding it. Now that I understand the timing of it, I can decipher who is doing what, and how I'm supposed to react in that phrase. I.e., the phrase describes the herd, not the proper action, and the timing is of the herd, not of the people trying to figure everything out. Of course, we ourselves are part of some herd, too, so we always have to second-guess even our own best understandings. But, essentially, it's saying, "They buy the rumor as and when they hear it and manifest it, and sell the news (exactly when the news is released essentially supposedly and in most practice), so you need to be in a position to either be ready for, not affected by, or take advantage of that."

Say I'm a huge Fidelity selling lots and lots of Calls and Puts, hoping that everyone hopes that whatever TSLA does, it goes way up AND/OR way down, so lots of people will buy lots of Calls and Puts, and then Fidelity uses their big position to hold the price in a narrow band, and doesn't have to pay out on those Calls or Puts, like what happened yesterday supposedly according to some interpretations that I read here and filled in my own example here. So, if I were to think oh good, this ER is going to make TSLA do something and I bought lots of calls and puts, then the big option callers could rake in a bunch from me. On the other hand, if I somehow hedged those ... I'm not quite that advanced yet, but maybe matching each one of mine with selling my own options? I'll have to take some days off from my day job for once and sit down and figure this out.

In my mind it is simple. If I have a ton of stock, call Leaps in a stock, like TSLA, I buy only protective puts. Yes, mitigates the gains if the stock soars but also mitigates the loss if the SP drops.

It is more conservative than most of the postings I see here but it works for me.

Normal disclosure: it is your money, invest as YOU see fit and not how I, or any others see fit.
 
Utility scale TE projects are coming. It is immaterial whether they close this quarter or next. The only way TE gets derailed is for utilities to offer massive rate cuts for on peak power to industry.
That's impossible because utility scale TE saves utilities money. Not only that, but it makes their lives much simpler.

So unless utilities intentionally decide that they want to lose money and make their lives more difficult TE will be huge!
 
Last edited:
  • Funny
Reactions: larmor
Sorry, didn't follow. Why would being slightly GAAP positive or negative in a single quarter have any impact on the long term prospects for Tesla Mobility?

Do you see any other company beating Tesla to Level 5 autonomy? If so, they are really hiding their progress super well.

Isn't it more silly to be caught holding worthless puts 5 days before earnings for a record breaking quarter?
so what you're saying is... now that we've got another long term dream like concept to hang the valuation on... we once again don't have to look at the short term risks or execution?

did you ever question what the necessity of the timing of this AP announcement was?... it went from a Tweet to a week later asking for a couple more days to get a video produced... that means the timing of this was not planned... it was rushed. why would they do that?... why did Level 5 AP need to be announced right now?... rushed right in the middle of Q3 end/ER and SCTY voting?

yes... I think other companies are just as capable of creating fully autonomous vehicles... they might even use Nvidia's products... and might even use non-EVs.
 
did you ever question what the necessity of the timing of this AP announcement was?... it went from a Tweet to a week later asking for a couple more days to get a video produced... that means the timing of this was not planned... it was rushed. why would they do that?... why did Level 5 AP need to be announced right now?... rushed right in the middle of Q3 end/ER and SCTY voting?

That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is: AP 2.0 hardware is ready and is hitting production. 1000s of people get to see/notice it and invariably it will leak out. In fact actual clients will start getting it soon in a span of weeks in Bay area. It's best to get ahead of the leaks and actually make a big splash that it deserves.
 
yes... I think other companies are just as capable of creating fully autonomous vehicles... they might even use Nvidia's products... and might even use non-EVs.

Keep on dreaming. We are all entitled to our dreams. At least us bulls' dreams are based in some evidence, rather some phenomenal evidence. You have little to show for yours.
 
Myusername's normal practice is to blow every negative possibility out of proportion. He has on multiple occasions mentioned that if the stock hits 187, we're going to 160. The clear reason for these statements is to encourage fear in longs. The answers he gives to questions are typically more of a pretext for including negative connotations about TSLA. The negative connotations he's giving here are 1) there's little monetary value to Tesla's autonomous vehicle program because it is many years away from fruition, and 2) If TSLA doesn't show GAAP profits in Q3 the company may go "POOF" and disappear.

Moderators, I believe these issues should be open for reasonable discussion. Visitors to this forum should have an opportunity to understand the observations of regular forum members when those observations are based upon a logical argument, offer factual proof and are not emotional rants.
We have an observational bias, since we only get to know of product release at intervals. They have been working on M3 in parallel for a long time. They have been planning a factory and building it to just make batteries. They have been working on autonomy for a long time. While i know nothing more than what is shown, i am pretty sure if i ran a huge auto and energy company i would have to plan out more than a few quarters.
 
so what you're saying is... now that we've got another long term dream like concept to hang the valuation on... we once again don't have to look at the short term risks or execution?

did you ever question what the necessity of the timing of this AP announcement was?... it went from a Tweet to a week later asking for a couple more days to get a video produced... that means the timing of this was not planned... it was rushed. why would they do that?... why did Level 5 AP need to be announced right now?... rushed right in the middle of Q3 end/ER and SCTY voting?

yes... I think other companies are just as capable of creating fully autonomous vehicles... they might even use Nvidia's products... and might even use non-EVs.

The biggest risks for auto companies today is not having a visionary CEO, not having a Gigafactory, not having a Supercharger network, not having access to the talent in Silicon Valley, and making cars based on obsolete technology. This applies to all car companies except Tesla.

Regarding the recent announcement, It was an appropriate time to announce the hardware for Level 5 autonomy because there had just been a step change at the factory and now all cars being produced have the hardware. They are now charging for this hardware, so clearly they have to tell people what they are paying for.

By the way, I bought a Tesla with Autopilot 1 hardware before Autopilot 1 software was available. The promise of OTA update is not an empty one. I now drive 90% of my miles on autopilot.

Regarding other companies being just a capable of making fully autonomous vehicles, who will write their software? Talent pool is orders of magnitude greater in Silicon Valley. Talent is everything. Even if they outsource the software from Google or Apple, they will have to pay for it and will be at a disadvantage compared to Tesla because of lower margins. You can't outsource everything difficult about making a compelling EV and expect to retain high margins. Please see my post yesterday regarding "complex coordination" as discussed by Peter Thiel.
 
Last edited:
They are now charging for this hardware, so clearly ...
It seems it's going to be a long time before even Tesla fans stop posting this nonsense. Tesla is not charging for the hardware. It comes free with every vehicle. They are charging to activate the software. Really. Pay attention. It's important.
 
It seems it's going to be a long time before even Tesla fans stop posting this nonsense. Tesla is not charging for the hardware. It comes free with every vehicle. They are charging to activate the software. Really. Pay attention. It's important.

The hardware is not free. It is included as part of the purchase price of the car.

Your misunderstanding of this is detracting from the conversation at hand.

Why don't you go to a Tesla store and ask them to give you the NVIDIA hardware for "free". When you get your answer, perhaps you can edit your post.

Your focusing on semantics is just a sign that you are missing the big picture here. Its actually not important.
 
Last edited:
Something about the AP prices and margins to keep in mind is that eventually if Tesla and Elon maintain their stance (I hope they do) that all of the safety related portions of AP will be included for free on every car, they'll need to include the full autonomous software suite with every car at no additional charge.

It's possible that they'll start doing that with the M3 launch.

As soon as they can prove that their fully autonomous cars are safer than manually driven cars they should do that. By that time the hardware will be really cheap, and the software will have been amortized over at least 150k cars, and self driving cars will be a huge competitive advantage. Buying a car without it (competitors cars) will be like buying a horse and buggy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
if they do not show GAAP positive in 3 days... will you feel kind of silly talking about discussing Taxi contracts 5 to 10 years out of a completely unproven concept? (hint: your first M3 will not be fully autonomous)

I agree that hardware 2.0 is unlikely to ever receive regulatory approval in western countries for level 4/5. Which is why I said "if". But all projections are probabilities. It is possible Musk will reach his goal.

But I also believe that most Tesla owners will not rent out their cars . The first time the car is returned with the smell of B.O. and mystery stains the dream of monetizing a personal vehicle will sour.

Cars used by strangers will likely remain corporate owned.
 
the difference between Amazon and Tesla in your discussion is that Amazon actually put those moats into place... where everything on your list has not actually been accomplished. (with exception of 373k first month reservations... which I see as nothing more than a marketing accomplishment)

additionally... each one of the items on your list has very large risks... and now that they are combined... each risk can affect the others making this compounding... for example... if SCTY breaks down and sucks cash from the company... that would affect all the rest... another... the amount of effort put into fully autonomous distracts from M3 success... etc.

I think it's possible that what will be studied in biz school is a company that had lots of potential but failed to understand the meaning of risk.
And if I had written in 2013 about the competitive moat that Tesla was establishing with the supercharger network you would have responded with the fact that it was only in the US, had very limited coverage even there, could easily be replicated by the big auto companies, etc. But 3 years later it is in fact a huge competitive barrier as GM et al are beginning to roll out 200 mile EV's but have no fast charging network to support them.

I agree with you that each of these elements have big risks. We can divide those risks into two main categories: engineering and financial. I believe you have to agree that Elon and Tesla have demonstrated the ability to overcome all of the engineering challenges they have faced so far. In fact Engineering is the core competency of Tesla.

The financial challenges are having access to the large amount of capital necessary to fund all of these big initiatives and then creating a viable business model for them once they are operating. Up until recently Tesla could raise money as a Story Stock. The Model X engineering and production issues have made that harder. So the next round of capital requires some execution proof. Q3 results will provide most of that but it needs to be reinforced with Q4 guidance and results.

On establishing a viable business model for each of these initiatives Tesla has some luxury of time for two reasons. First and foremost is the unprecedented level of demand exhibited by the 373K reservations that resulted from a single two hour marketing event 6 months ago. And second is the inability of the large auto companies to field a viable competitive product because they move slowly, are hamstrung by having to stay competitive in current markets, believe their own bs, etc.

And then there is Elon, a wild eyed visionary who also has they ability to focus on whatever the current existential threat is to Tesla and guide the company to overcome it. There are countless examples of this - just read Ashlee Vance's biography.
 
Last edited:
I agree that hardware 2.0 is unlikely to ever receive regulatory approval in western countries for level 4/5. Which is why I said "if". But all projections are probabilities. It is possible Musk will reach his goal.

But I also believe that most Tesla owners will not rent out their cars . The first time the car is returned with the smell of B.O. and mystery stains the dream of monetizing a personal vehicle will sour.

Cars used by strangers will likely remain corporate owned.

I am curious why you are that pessimistic on 2.0.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: stealthology
I don't see it as likely. Musk believes in manufacturing innovation. He will keep all manufacturing close to his chest. We are actually seeing increasing verticalisation, with seats et al

I think Musk has been forced into talking about a million units out of Fremont due to capital constraints. He wants the company valued at a million units in 2020.

As I see it, Tesla is likely to remain production constrained for years. One way Tesla could surge production is to contract/license lesser Tesla vehicles. One way to approach vehicles below the model 3, including taxis, is to only build the battery and electronics in a gigafactory and let another company deal with the more traditional aspects of car manufacturing.

I shall name the low end brand "Tia".
 
  • Like
Reactions: CorneliusXX
I am curious why you are that pessimistic on 2.0.

Autonomous driving is not a hardware problem, it is a computer science problem. It will be know to be solved when it is proven to be solved.

Tesla has a gazillion issues to solve before level four is possible. Talking about level five in existing cars seems to be a joke. Have they eliminated the mechanical brake linkage in the S/X starting this week? If they haven't, these cars are not level 5 capable.

What Musk is playing at is Uber's valuation. If Uber is worth more than $60B, then Tesla is too. (I do think Tesla is well ahead of Uber, but no one knows the distance to the finish line)
 
And if I had written in 2013 about the competitive moat that Tesla was establishing with the supercharger network you would have responded with the fact that it was only in the US, had very limited coverage even there, could easily be replicated by the big auto companies, etc. But 3 years later it is in fact a huge competitive barrier as GM et al are beginning to roll out 200 mile EV's but have no fast charging network to support them.

I agree with you that each of these elements have big risks. We can divide those risks into two main categories: engineering and financial. I believe you have to agree that Elon and Tesla have demonstrated the ability to overcome all of the engineering challenges they have faced so far. In fact Engineering is the core competency of Tesla.
I disagree. IMO the core competency of Tesla is vision. GM could easily either roll out an alternative to the supercharger, or pay Tesla for access. The main barrier is that they don't have the vision to do it.

And then there is Elon, a wild eyed visionary who also has they ability to focus on whatever the current existential threat is to Tesla and guide the company to overcome it. There are countless examples of this - just read Ashlee Vance's biography.
Elon provides a lot of the vision and the guts to go for it, and he's crucial for implementation, sleeping on the MX assembly line for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
Status
Not open for further replies.