Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Drax7]

Elon is so smart, he would never allow this defect to go on at the risk of killing people, and
destroying everything he has worked for .

This is part of the misinformation campaign to malign tesla and manipulate the stock
price down. The shorts are desperate.

If he needs the money so badly, why does he give huge chunks to charity?
Obviously to buy leniency brownie points just in case.

 

[tanner]

This particular news event will die quickly. Stock is stable now in after hours.

Hope you're right. I keep seeing it go back and forth between low 229s and mid 228s.

 

[geneclean55]

Just my two cents.. I think we have some short interest in the stock trying to manipulate the price. I don't see this as a long time hinderance on stock price. Elon Musk is always in front on problems and as stated before by another person, he has issued several recalls to fix problems. For me, this pullback just represents another buying opportunity for TSLA stock. The TSLA story is a strong one both in cars and battery systems through the giga factory.

My thoughts exactly. News comes out late in the day when TSLA is a little in the red, and after recent surges in stock price. Fishy

 

[FredTMC]

Piper Jaffary initiates coverage. PT $223. Neutral rating

What a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Intl Professor]

Fits with my longer standing argument that Tesla has spare production capacity for the S. Otherwise why fill a production slot with a low margin 60kWh that might lead to a 75kWh upgrade later when it could have been filled right away with a 75kWh model? But since they have spare slots anyway, it's a net win to get customers in the door that had been discouraged on price before. We know from model 3 reservations that demand exponentially increases as the price dips.

Might also to be preparation for the 100 and a new cell, so they need to clear out the old cells. Just my hope because I really want an S or X, but M3 w/ most options is the only thing within my retirement income range and I don't want to sell the stock!

 

[tanner]

Stock is stable now in after hours.

No longer very stable.

 

[FredTMC]

No longer very stable.

Piper J initiated coverage... Neutral.

 

[Gerasimental]

Is there an analyst note to go with the neutral rating? Certainly interesting timing.

 

[tanner]

Piper J initiated coverage... Neutral.

Yep... Now it's time (for me) to contemplate unloading, at a loss.

edit: yikes... $226.40

 

[RobStark]

To answer the implied or explicitly asked question " do you expect Tesla to issue a press release if they are demand constrained?"

I don't expect them to ever lie.

When the day comes they are demand constrained I expect for them to be asked at the next public conference and for Tesla to give a convoluted answer that in uncertain terms acknowledges they are now demand constrained.

 

[MitchJi]

The key difference here is the cost of Model 3 is much lower, pricing it much lower is nothing but acceptable and expected. But the cost for the new 60 kWh cost is the same as the 75 kWh. So it's essentially a discount (pretty deep discount) on the same product on the cost side. You can't compare it with the Model 3.

This version of the 75 kWh pack probably costs the same, or maybe less than the original 60 kWh pack.

They decided that they want to provide a more affordable model, ran some numbers and decided that this is the most cost effective way to do it.

It's good news. Supports my estimate that their pack costs are probably under $170 per kWh. Could GM or BMW afford to do that?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

The suspension "issue" has been publicly discussed for years here and elsewhere. I don't know why it suddenly became a big deal now.

Honestly, for this guy to be back on the board after his earlier behavior while

I've been around Arstechnica and Macrumors long enough to know that the only way to deal with trolls is to quickly permaban them. It's not that hard to weed out people who do nothing but post silly nonsense. The problem is the time commitment, because I'm guessing that most of us who aren't retired don't have the time to constantly read the forum.

 

[Fallenone]

This version of the 75 kWh pack probably costs the same, or maybe less than the original 60 kWh pack.

They decided that they want to provide a more affordable model, ran some numbers and decided that this is the most cost effective way to do it.

It's good news. Supports my estimate that their pack costs are probably under $170 per kWh. Could GM or BMW afford to do that?

Again, I'm not saying this new 60 kWh (same cost as the 75 kWh) costs more or less than the old 60 kWh. It's just for each of these ones sold and not upgraded, Tesla is losing margin quite heavily. So, if it is only by selling the un-upgraded 60 kWh this year for them to hit 80k delivery target, it's not a good thing, other things held constant. But of course, they may be able to sell more than 90k with this introduction of the new 60 kWh, we just don't know that.

 

[RobStark]

In the past when they introduced a cheaper model it did not hurt ASP.

What customers save on the batter pack they will spend on other options.

And then revenue trickles in as people activate the sequestered reserve.

Or when Tesla pays for a used S60 but sells a CPO S75.

 

[Skryll]

This is clearly to undercut the 60,000euro limit for germany's EV car incentives that was introduced to cut out tesla out of competing with volkswagen / bmw etc. 60,000 euro today are worth 67908.00 USD. The base model on teslamotors.de now is 66,000 USD Good work.

 

[Krugerrand]

It's also a duh that cars are different than battery cells and packs. Much easier to test the heck out of packs. GN said that they. have not had one bad cell in all of their Volt Packs.

If you think that Tesla needs to "derisking" their CEOs and packs by installing them in production cars maybe you should buy GM instead of Tesla. Also you know that most cell and packs problems would take months or years to manifest?

I said NOTHING about packs. Not one word. And never argued that cars weren't different than battery cells or packs. I gave examples that proved Vgrinshpun #2 point. That is all.

 

[schonelucht]

I don't like the NDA funny business. Either the issue was defensibly a normal wear and tear job or irregular driving from the owner and then Tesla should have stood by that judgment. Or this particular car was indeed below spec and Tesla should have made the customer whole. I don't know which of the two cases it is, but I know it is not half-half so the half-half compensation made no sense. Again I think it shows how bad Tesla is in communicating with their customers. From the thread it is clear that the tone from the OP (already going down hill) took a real dive after he posted that NDA thing. Now screenshots are out there of the goodwill NDA on Tesla's letterhead ready for the next cycle of FUD that gets thrown at the company. This will eventually die down but not before it costs shareholders a few billions or so.

 

[techmaven]

I don't like the NDA funny business. Either the issue was defensibly a normal wear and tear job or irregular driving from the owner and then Tesla should have stood by that judgment. Or this particular car was indeed below spec and Tesla should have made the customer whole. I don't know which of the two cases it is, but I know it is not half-half so the half-half compensation made no sense. Again I think it shows how bad Tesla is in communicating with their customers. From the thread it is clear that the tone from the OP (already going down hill) took a real dive after he posted that NDA thing. Now screenshots are out there of the goodwill NDA on Tesla's letterhead ready for the next cycle of FUD that gets thrown at the company. This will eventually die down but not before it costs shareholders a few billions or so.

Tesla was under no obligation to do anything about this vehicle. It was out of warranty. Even if the suspension part was defective, it's out of warranty.

Clearly, the NDA didn't work since we know that Tesla cut him a deal. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Krugerrand]

Were you expecting an announcement from Tesla when demand falls?

Tesla won't have to announce it it'll be clear because, you know, production and delivery numbers will cease to RISE quarter over quarter and year over year - as they continue to do to date.

 

[X Yes?]

I don't like the NDA funny business. Either the issue was defensibly a normal wear and tear job or irregular driving from the owner and then Tesla should have stood by that judgment. Or this particular car was indeed below spec and Tesla should have made the customer whole. I don't know which of the two cases it is, but I know it is not half-half so the half-half compensation made no sense. Again I think it shows how bad Tesla is in communicating with their customers. From the thread it is clear that the tone from the OP (already going down hill) took a real dive after he posted that NDA thing. Now screenshots are out there of the goodwill NDA on Tesla's letterhead ready for the next cycle of FUD that gets thrown at the company. This will eventually die down but not before it costs shareholders a few billions or so.

This is just one of many articles lighting up the internet:
Safety agency warns Tesla over nondisclosure agreements with customers