Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[dirtyofries]

Damn it is a sell on news day again. Why don't I learn the lesson? Why many of you were saying today it is going to up $5, $10, and one even said $20? Well, again... when everybody is optimistic, it is the peak.

It's a good day to go shopping.

 

[austinEV]

Damn it is a sell on news day again. Why don't I learn the lesson? Why many of you were saying today it is going to up $5, $10, and one even said $20? Well, again... when everybody is optimistic, it is the peak.

Because over time it is like this:

news 1: sell
news 2: sell
news 3: giant surge upward
news 4: sell
news 5: sell

Yes, usually it is smart to get out before the actual news. That will work every time until the time it doesn't.

 

[andrerodpt]

Ten years ago Elon and Tesla need to convince an audience that there was a market for full-electric cars that were real alternatives to ICE cars.

We are it's audience and we don't need any more convincing that this is The Way. We are the early adopters and fanbase of Tesla (in spite some don't have the cash to shell for a MS/X right now).

Now Elon and Tesla need to convince other audiences. That's why, in my humble opinion, the truck/semi/bus come into play. Yes, we are as much pessimistic as some were 10 years ago. And that's fine.

But today, with the track record of Elon and Tesla, I wouldn't bet against it, in spite of Elonesque delays.

 

[mejojo]

Damn it is a sell on news day again. Why don't I learn the lesson? Why many of you were saying today it is going to up $5, $10, and one even said $20? Well, again... when everybody is optimistic, it is the peak.

Have no fear...the day you play it as sell on news, the news will be astounding, immediately accessible by the common investor, and cause immediate trebling of share price.

 

[srini]

You can either sell and play into the hands of those who don't want us above 227.50 or hold. Your choice. I will play for a breakout.

Thanks for trying, brother!

 

[phigment]

Because over time it is like this:

news 1: sell
news 2: sell
news 3: giant surge upward
news 4: sell
news 5: sell

Yes, usually it is smart to get out before the actual news. That will work every time until the time it doesn't.

I'm not sure this really is sell the news. Look at the volume... only 2M three hours in. Sure it's a bit more than the volume the last couple days, but this looks more like the majority of volume is made up in a few small increments making it look worse than it actually is. I expect a rebound come monday.

 

[Drax7]

Yes, one of the underappreciated virtues of renewable energy, DERs and EVs is that they source local energy and reduce the need to import fossil fuels. This is particularly critical for developing economies.

For example, India has been struggling with a trade deficit that has been devaluing the Rupee. A big chunk of this deficit was for importing coal. They have found within the last year that developing solar is cheaper than adding new coal plants and importing coal. The solar PPAs are in Rupees so there is no devaluation stemming from this local energy. Moreover they are able to reduce their trade deficit by $3B/yr by not importing so much coal. Within two years they will be a net exporter of coal with practically no imports. This will strengthen the Rupee and the Indian economy as a whole. EVs will further this trend and enable India to reduce its petroleum imports as well.

The thing about renewables displacing fossil fuels is that it will impact international trade rapidly as net importers find that domestic sources suffice. Indeed net importers like the US could become net exporters and further saturate seaborne markets. The US, a net exporter of coal, is on its way to becoming a net exporter of natural gas and finished petroleum products. LNG export is the market of last resort for surplus gas. So what happen as the global trade in fossil fuels declines and all countries are more energy self-sufficient. Shipping declines double. First shipping of the fuels declines, but second shipping of counter-trade, export goods that balance the importation of fuels, also declines. This transition will send enormous shock waves through the global economy. A lot less global trade will be required. It will look like a recession even as the standard of living generally improves. Economies that depend on energy exports will suffer the most. China will need to export fewer goods because it will need to import less energy to grow its economy.

I would submit that Musk is not looking to electrify shipping at this time in part because shipping will be in decline. LNG in the midst of a global glut will have plenty of challenges replacing a fleet of vessels that is in decline. Likewise electrifying air transport may not be so attractive if hyperloop starts to displace air travel. How about trains? They mostly transport coal and crude. So Tesla can't do everything. There are markets that will go into decline over the next 10 to 20 years, and Tesla does well to avoid these markets.

yeah and maybe as an unintended consequence people live longer and demand good and services for a longer period
of time which in turn doubles shipping .

 

[Vitold]

To all the luddites panicking about a jobless future: By freeing up drivers we gain human capital to go tackle something else that we humans deem "too hard, too expensive". Environmental cleanup? Can't afford it! Building housing in underprivileged areas? Who will do that? There is no reason to cling to old jobs that can be automated, we can move on to things we never thought we would have time for. In the same way that if you bought a robot to do your job, you would suddenly have time to fix up your house, learn french, volunteer for a political committee, get a second degree, etc. Society is better off for that change.

Humanity used to have to employ most effort just in farming to keep people fed. That got more efficient. Then people moved to manufacturing basic items, clothes for instance. That got more efficient. We aren't running out of problems to tackle. I look forward to the day when today's jobs are automated and we are working on interstellar spacecraft, coral reef rehab, pure science, whatever.

Pick up Peter F Hamilton's "commonwealth" books (Pandora's star to start). They lay out a future with high automation but there is still lots to do. It is a fairly optimistic vision with some real texture.

Real solution is early retirement, higher taxes. There's no way around it.

 

[Vitold]

I work in tech and programming. It's a great place to be right now. In a few years strong AI will likely dry up much of the work in this area and I'll be forced to retrain (already am in fact). It's a fact of life.

I'm curious - what are you training to be and how much time and money are you spending on it?

 

[madodel]

.

Two posts in a row from tanner that I have actually liked. What is happening?

Can't wait for that waterpark.

Maybe they can build it here in the Poconos. All our ski resorts are in trouble thanks to warming winters and everyone is building water parks to save all those low wage resort jobs. Will it be indoor with a roof full of solar panels?

 

[Paracelsus]

Yes, one of the underappreciated virtues of renewable energy, DERs and EVs is that they source local energy and reduce the need to import fossil fuels. This is particularly critical for developing economies.

For example, India has been struggling with a trade deficit that has been devaluing the Rupee. A big chunk of this deficit was for importing coal. They have found within the last year that developing solar is cheaper than adding new coal plants and importing coal. The solar PPAs are in Rupees so there is no devaluation stemming from this local energy. Moreover they are able to reduce their trade deficit by $3B/yr by not importing so much coal. Within two years they will be a net exporter of coal with practically no imports. This will strengthen the Rupee and the Indian economy as a whole. EVs will further this trend and enable India to reduce its petroleum imports as well.

The thing about renewables displacing fossil fuels is that it will impact international trade rapidly as net importers find that domestic sources suffice. Indeed net importers like the US could become net exporters and further saturate seaborne markets. The US, a net exporter of coal, is on its way to becoming a net exporter of natural gas and finished petroleum products. LNG export is the market of last resort for surplus gas. So what happen as the global trade in fossil fuels declines and all countries are more energy self-sufficient. Shipping declines double. First shipping of the fuels declines, but second shipping of counter-trade, export goods that balance the importation of fuels, also declines. This transition will send enormous shock waves through the global economy. A lot less global trade will be required. It will look like a recession even as the standard of living generally improves. Economies that depend on energy exports will suffer the most. China will need to export fewer goods because it will need to import less energy to grow its economy.

I would submit that Musk is not looking to electrify shipping at this time in part because shipping will be in decline. LNG in the midst of a global glut will have plenty of challenges replacing a fleet of vessels that is in decline. Likewise electrifying air transport may not be so attractive if hyperloop starts to displace air travel. How about trains? They mostly transport coal and crude. So Tesla can't do everything. There are markets that will go into decline over the next 10 to 20 years, and Tesla does well to avoid these markets.

" ...It will look like a recession even as the standard of living generally improves"..........that is a very insightful comment. Few may understand that even when that time arrives............and back to DER's/SMP2/and your fleet truck charging/grid comments - I have pushed DER's as more efficient and effective alternatives to aging infrastructure upgrades through my work in the Northwest, but until the SMP2 was released and I read some of today's comments on this board, I had never thought about how successful fleet charging stations swapping huge batteries could be in an effort to create off-peak demand DER's that will develop new green-hydro produced revenue streams for utilities in the Northwest. Battery swapping stations for trucks could be located near the huge Columbia Basin hydro dams along major shipping routes (i.e. I-84/Hwy 14 for example), thus providing new opportunities for additional loads at night while hydro is of course still able to produce, minimizing distance/ line loss to those stations in that effort, and creating opportunities for DER's and stationary storage in the process. It might even be possible to eliminate the last of the fossil fuel peaker plants in the Columbia Basin simply by charging fleet trucking batteries from strategically placed existing green hydro sources............................

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I think this is true for the 55 year old segment of the population. Would it be naive to assume this segment would/should have saved enough to retire just 5 years until retirement? In any industrial revolution, there would be a segment of society that will be disenfranchised, sure. The vast majority of the working segment will still have a chance to learn the new in demand skills brought about by this new technological upheaval. They might not like it but in all facets of life, you adapt else you don't survive. Government too will play a huge role in building this safety net to ensure minimalising a welfare state.

So in short, everyone will have to do their part to ensure their relevance is ensured.

First, I'd say expecting an average American to have 5 years of savings until retirement is unrealistic, and Social Security kicks in at age 62. A 55 year old would have to deal with 7 years of bills, which would be tough for many:

The typical American couple has only $5,000 saved for retirement

Even those on the cusp of retirement — the median couple in their late 50s or early 60s — has saved only $17,000 in a retirement savings account, such as a defined-contribution 401(k), individual retirement account, Keogh or similar savings account.​

About Half of U.S. Families Would Have a Tough Time with a Surprise $400 Expense

Nearly half of U.S. families would find it difficult to deal with an unexpected $400 expense, according to the Federal Reserve in a new study. Those findings were part of the “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. households in 2015,”​

$400 wouldn't even buy 2 shares of TSLA. I try not to lose perspective on what it's like for most people.

Second, it is contradictory to say that Government will have a "huge role" building social safety nets to ensure less of a welfare state. Government taking a big role in building social safety nets is the very definition of a welfare state.

To your point on the 50-55 truck driver. Yeah, I expect they will retrain. This shift will actually improve their lives by allowing them to find a livelihood that doesn't keep them away from their families constantly, badly damage their physical health by forcing then to sit still constantly, and requires almost no legitimate skills aside from being able to put up with the above. They will be able to be healthier, have healthier relationships, and do something more fulfilling that moving stuff for other people simply because we didn't have a better way of doing it yet.
Many will buy several trucks and start their own autonomous fleet, making money while freeing themselves up to work on other things, things that create jobs for others rather than just sucking away at the time they have on earth.

And who would pay for retraining? Or buying into a truck fleet? The American middle class is already under severe financial strain and government debt is at historic highs.

As for "no legitimate skill", that is kind of demeaning. I wouldn't presume to tell working people what is best for them. I am 2 generations removed from working class, (my grandparents had little formal education and worked with their hands to give their children a chance at something better), but I remember that for them, work was more than about money. There was value in pride and dignity of work.

 

[GBleck]

Siemens has been developing a smart solution for electric trucks, and is currently testing the design: eHighway - Electromobility - Siemens

Basically, the majority of trucking is done on a minority of roads. Electrifying these minority roadways and sharing this infrastructure between all trucks is much more cost effective than building all trucks with huge batteries. A smaller battery powers the truck for the off highway portions at the beginning and end of the journey. This also removes charge time / battery swap from the equation. Of course, this tech requires investment from government, which presents a lot of challenges that in the short term may be overcome by the self sufficiency of a large battery which requires no public infrastructure. Perhaps a large battery truck has a place in the mean time before roads become electrified like this, but long term I think it makes more sense to follow the siemens philosophy.

Thoughts?

At this point are you not just building a trackless electric train?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

TSLA now down $6.72, or just under 3%.

To get a sense of what the broader tech-oriented community is saying, check out the comments: Musk: Tesla to become a sustainable energy company

The running debate between Tesla fans and Tesla skeptics continues. If technology enthusiasts are still divided, I think it's likely that the investment community is even more skeptical. I see a possible buying opportunity ahead of the Gigafactory party, though tempered by what is likely to be a tepid response to the Q2 conference call in August.

 

[winfield100]

I'm terrified.

Not for Tesla or TSLA, but for what this means to the economy and workers. This is going to put millions of human drivers out of business very quickly, including Taxicab drivers, bus drivers, Uber drivers, Long distance tractor-trailer drivers, and local delivery drivers.

Once self-driving and coordinated fleet movements are perfected, the technology will spread rapidly. The chips and sensors to make this happen are already dirt cheap. It's the software and algos that are the barrier. I do not believe that the global economy can grow new jobs as quickly as the old ones will be eliminated, and that has implications for social stability.

perhaps to assuage your fears, (or amplify them) you should read any number of science fiction stories about the near or not so near future that take premise's and say "what if this happens" think upon "?really, why do i work? what do i gain?" (avoid Jack Williamson's "with folded hands") (what if autofactories start poaching materials from other autofactories and vigorously defend themselves? Many futures have been explored already. Perhaps be inspired by the 3 minute movie "Wanderers" keep your "sense of wonder"(and dude, im almost 70) (apologies for OT), back to lurk mode)

 

[jhm]

I agree that we will necessarily have energy storage powering the grid, the same grid trucks are drawing from. However, as a counter argument I would say it is not full duplicity because you will need far more batteries if they are installed on each truck (reduced efficiency of transport due to battery weight, reduced utilization of batteries since they are isolated from the grid when on the trucks). Also, it may be optimistic to think truck batteries will be stabilizing the grid when not installed. A truck doesn't want to pull in to a swap station to receive a 65% full battery. I would suggest transport is a very predictable and stable load. Helping reduce the battery requirements, transport consumption will be higher during business (daylight) hours, which promotes tying into the grid also.

Imagine a skateboard frame semi that has a small cab plus a rack for 1 to 6 200kWh battery packs that are easily loaded and unloaded like intermodal shipping containers. I truck pull into a swap station and loads as many fully charged packs as needed for the next leg of its trip. The swapping is all automated and takes less time than filling a tank of diesel.

So there is a large inventory of battery packs and a network of swap stations. Each battery pack is used in transit a few hours per day, the rest of the time it sits at a swap station charging and balancing the grid. So at any point in time 10% to 20% of this inventory is in transit. Another 5% is fully charged and ready to be deployed for transit. The remaining 75% or so is charging and discharging to balance the grid and to maintain the 5% inventory fully charged and available for swap.

While it may be true that the electrical load of truck could be predictable and stable, that load curve through the day is not likely to match solar or wind power generation. Particularly with autonomous ESemis it makes sense to ship things mostly at night when the highways are least utilized. So matching trucking load to solar entails use of batteries.

The way to think here is to fast forward to a time when there are no fossil fuels used to generate electricity. There is no baseload power. It's almost all intermittent power, say 60% solar, 30% wind, 10% dispatachable renewables like hydro. Globally average power consumption is about 5 TW now. In this fossil free world, you need say 10 TW of power (includes transportation) and 50 to 100 hours of storage, i.e, 500 to 1000 TWh of batteries. The fleet of semi power packs would be on order of 10% of power consumption. So if trucking had enough power packs to handle its power demand, it would need say 20 hours of storage. There is no need to have that much storage sit permanently on tractors. So the average trucking power pack spends most of its time just sitting at fixed location. The question then becomes how to make that battery pack most economically productive while it is parked. Buying power when it is cheapest is obvious. If there is an oversupply of solar power at midday, then batteries can charge at nearly zero wholesale cost per kWh. They can also discharge surplus stored energy when the wholesale price is at a peak. So this inventory also serves as a peaker plant. Thus, the energy arbitrage comes close to paying for all the energy used by the trucking industry, nearly zero net OpEx. Left is for trucking to pay is the CapEx on its battery and swap station fleet. So once you have an end state like this in mind, you can work backwards to a business model that is profitable in the present. This is what Musk does best as an entrepreneur. The shorter the path to the end state, the less capital is wasted along the way.

So the challenge for Siemens is to envision this sort of end state for the grid where there is 50 to 100 hours of battery storage smoothing out 90% intermittent solar and wind. They need to have a compelling reason to add highway electrification AFTER batteries are ubiquitous. I do not believe it is. Rather they are using the present grid and fossil generation as their starting point and asking how to electrify trucking without massive batteries. It is fine for them to bridge forward, but the risk is developing infrastructure that will outlive its usefulness. It certainly may be the best thing in some regions where hydro and geothermal can provide the vast majority of energy needed. So the thing to think about is what 100% renewable would look like in a region and how much battery storage would be needed to balance the local power market.

I'd also point out the obvious that the trucking power pack model above is not at all incompatible with Siemens system. Trucks are only loading the packs they need for the next leg. If that leg includes an electric highway, it minimizes the number of packs needed for that leg, assuming that the tractor is fitted to use the electric highway. So this means the cost of using the electric highway power must be cheaper than using battery pack power. So if it bright and sunny at the moment then the electric highway could be cheaper. Otherwise, stored surplus solar energy in battery packs could be cheaper. So trucking companies could easily switch between the two on a moment by moment basis. What this means for Siemens is that their infrastructure is only competitive whenever there is surplus renewable energy. This undermines utilization. If an infrastructure is only used about 6 hours a day will it really pay for itself? Can they convince taxpayers to foot the bill? How can they get truckers to pay a high enough rate to cover the infrastructure, when the battery option is cheaper? So a key issue here is just how much capex can be recovered from truckers over a multi-decade timeframe. The investment issues for battery packs are different. We are talking about 2000 lifecycles which create value in and out of trucking. The size of the battery fleet adjusts to demand and depletion of the battery packs. Local surplus inventory can be moved to other locations. So the full utilization of each pack is pretty much assured. But if one stretch of electric highway becomes underutilized, it is pretty much a stranded asset, and investors take a loss. The problem here is very much like the challenge that railroads have in competing with truckers. If a railway is underutilized, not much can be done. But if there are too many trucks in a given market, they truckers will just take them to another area where they can get work, and truckers are much more nimble about hauling stuff exactly where it needs to go. Especially, when the pace of change is rapid, it makes sense to bet on the most nimble technologies and flexible investments.

 

[yesla]

We will get a hammer doji today. this is the come back day.

 

[TMSE]

We will get a hammer doji today. this is the come back day.

What does it mean? Hammer doji? Come back?

 

[MitchJi]

GM is actually focusing on margins and profits, not volume. Volume is down YOY. GM sent 88,500 fewer cars in the 1H to rental agencies. But your point stands- two different companies. Once is a growth is everything, grow at all costs company. The other is a mature, margins and net profits are everything company(especially given their history). GM in 2016 may double their record net income of last year considering 1H net income of $4.9B is more than double 1H 2015 net income of $2B. Tesla's net income in 2016 may double too, to the wrong side, but that is expected at this point.

Tesla's income is going to increase big time. MS-MX plus TE and GF coming on line. M3 Factory expenses are mostly covered. When the market realizes this Boom! I've read several times since the SMP2 that Tesla loses money on every car they sell!

We are almost certainly within 100 years of a time when we have either destroyed all human life or improved medicine to the point where we are effectively immortal. People will need to adapt to that, you will have many, many careers. You will have and use many skills that become utterly useless.

That's a pipe dream. In 1905 the CDC Survey estimated that 5% of Americans had chronic illnesses. In 2005, the last year that they did the survey the percentage was 53%! Partly it's due to diet. The USDA compared the Vitamin C content of peaches. In 2000 they had 1/50 as compared to 1950. I'm surprised that in 2000 they could find an edible peach. It's almost impossible to obtain the vitamins and minerals required for optimum health from our food. How many people even try to do that, vs eating junk foods? You think that modern medicine which consists largely of taking small amounts of chemicals and expensive surgeries can help with making up for basic nutritional deficiencies, plus being couch patatoes?

Real solution is early retirement, higher taxes. There's no way around it.

Higher taxes as in corporations and the wealthy pay their share, so that Buffet pays an equal rate compared to his secretary?

 

[sunhelm]

Second, it is contradictory to say that Government will have a "huge role" building social safety nets to ensure less of a welfare state. Government taking a big role in building social safety nets is the very definition of a welfare state.

I disagree with this. Presence of a safety net per se does not make welfare state. The structure in Denmark I think is a good example and we do not consider that country a welfare state do we? It is the abuse of the safety net that contributes to the perception that government encourages individuals to go on welfare.

I totally understand and share your concern. I think it is up to the individual to adapt and make the necessary changes to ensure not only their survival but their happiness as well. In SMP2, the cost of energy as a utility will approach zero (nod to @kenliles). There has got to be an opportunity there to take advantage of that to make a living as opposed to waiting for a handout.