Shortsville times:
Elon Musk, CEO of an underground drilling company, leaves LA hours before 6.4 magnitude earthquake.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shortsville times:
@RobStarkIt is a non trading day.
We always go a bit O.T. on non trading days.
And that is not what the "Disagree" button is for.
uptick in Tesla Energy income perhaps, due to them reducing their PowerWall/PowerPack backlog : Possible, but low margin.
plus 'stock compensation', which is usually a $100m-$200m GAAP expense, might have been significantly lower in Q2 due to the very low TSLA price levels. (Note the irony here...) : Shows no correlation to SP. Possibly because a lot of companies give stock comp based on $ value, that gets converted to # of shares depending on SP.
I believe most rental car companies only keep their cars for 5 years max, so they don't care. When fully autonomous cars are actually *working*, they'll buy them.So they should start buying Model 3s, Model Ss and Model Xs shouldn't they? They have a ton of new inventory that will be totally obsolete in 2-3 years.
Trump was inspired by France's Bastille Day
This is part of reason why Elon wants to terraform Mars. The elites of the world are going to kill humanity, all because of greed. Harvard Presidents Have Long Opposed Fossil Fuel Divestment. Bacow Offers A New Reason Why. | News | The Harvard Crimson
Yeah. I've been telling people this for years. My own alma mater is run by idiots who won't divest, too. Gave them a 14-page fully citationed paper on the topic, they still have fossil fuel investments.Harvard are both hypocritical and stupid. Fossil fuels are about the worst investment you could have right now, divesting to renewables would net them a lot more gains.
Good observation. Luckily there are other indicators too.There is some ambiguity about whether TSLA broke above the downtrend line; depends on normal or log scale. See my post:
Possible - but difficult to estimate changes with confidence.This means that consistently low SP during Q2 might have dropped stock comp from ~$200m to ~$150m.
OT
Yeah. I've been telling people this for years. My own alma mater is run by idiots who won't divest, too. Gave them a 14-page fully citationed paper on the topic, they still have fossil fuel investments.
Don't give money to colleges which squander the endowment. Frankly, at any college which is still "invested" in fossil fuel companies, the Trustees should be removed for mismanagement of the endowment, and sued to recover endowment losses out of their personal pockets. But in most states only the state Attorney General has standing to do that, and they're doing other things.
It would be worth it IMO for the Massachusetts Attorney General to sue Harvard's "President and Fellows" over this and force them to return the money which was lost in dud fossil fuel "investments", as well as other money-losing schemes. (Harvard's endowment has performed *extremely* poorly, with *extremely* high extraction of endowment wealth to management fees, in the post-2008 period.) But it won't happen.
This is a super interesting article for long term investors. One thing I noticed in the historical S-curve adoption is that over time the rate of adoption is higher. Older technologies used to take 50-70 years to go from 10% to 90%. Now you can expect them to take about 20 years.
In one of Clean Technica's charts they show it happening in about 10 years, which I don't think is possible given the constraints on battery production. It takes additional time to set up mines/battery plants/auto plants. Building a car is much harder than building an iPhone, and cars are more expensive and less essential than many of the other technologies on the chart.
I think 15-25 years is appropriate for EVs (to go from 10% market share in 2023 to 90% in 2043), which means that by about 2035 half the market will be EVs and by 2045 90% will be EVs. Probably there will even be a hard cutoff where EVs are banned around 2040 in many countries.
Probably there will even be a hard cutoff where EVs are banned around 2040 in many countries.
They should do a chart based on expected life of the item. Avg feature phone lasted 2 to 3 years and cost <~$100. TV about 5 years and costed ~1k. Car lasts ~7 years and costs ~35k.This is a super interesting article for long term investors. One thing I noticed in the historical S-curve adoption is that over time the rate of adoption is higher. Older technologies used to take 50-70 years to go from 10% to 90%. Now you can expect them to take about 20 years.
In one of Clean Technica's charts they show it happening in about 10 years, which I don't think is possible given the constraints on battery production. It takes additional time to set up mines/battery plants/auto plants. Building a car is much harder than building an iPhone, and cars are more expensive and less essential than many of the other technologies on the chart.
I think 15-25 years is appropriate for EVs (to go from 10% market share in 2023 to 90% in 2043), which means that by about 2033 half the market will be EVs. Probably there will even be a hard cutoff where EVs are banned around 2040 in many countries.
I'm still confident in EVs reaching 90%+ of new car sales somewhere between 2025 and 2030 driven by simple consumer demand for a far superior and cheaper product. However, traditional auto companies, the media and many politicians are doing all they can to slow this down.
A million thanks, good points made, but why the male version of the little Theranos-scammer girl's voice? It's so off the charts nerdy I can't share on Facebook when I point out the sublime patriotism of buying an American made Tesla.
One confusion here is that technology adoption S curves are typically measured in total market penetration - for EVs this would be equivalent to EVs as a % of the total car fleet. EV adoption is typically talked about as a % of annual production. New technology reaches 90%+ of annual production far quicker than it reaches 90%+ total market penetration.
I'm still confident in EVs reaching 90%+ of new car sales somewhere between 2025 and 2030 driven by simple consumer demand for a far superior and cheaper product. However, traditional auto companies, the media and many politicians are doing all they can to slow this down.