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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Doubtful Chinese government would allow a foreign company to build housing.
What's a number these days. GF3 or GF1. Actually any other GF for that matter.

In Nevada the factory had to stop at 30% because not enough people lived close enough to work there. In Fremont the housing needs are among the worst in the US. Could have bought the land right next to it to build apartments. They didn't.

Living costs may be rising in Austin but it's nowhere near as bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireMedic
Mercedes owned a significant portion of Tesla shares at one point and sold around 2015 I believe. I read somewhere that had they held those shares until Tesla reached $500 ($2500), they would've made more money on Tesla stock than they did manufacturing cars. Not sure if it's true or not. Either way, selling their shares was an incredibly bad decision.

They had a 5 million shares pre-spilt.

Over $10B if my calculations are correct. 15% of their current $65B market cap.

200x their original investment as this was pre-IPO.

How Much Would the Shares that Mercedes Bought from Tesla be Worth Today? - The Next Avenue
 
This seems quite mistaken to me. When I look at the chart I see the holdings are measured in dollars, not in number of shares. The stock split made no difference in the size of the holdings when they are measured in dollars.

But ask yourself how they get the $ data? Presumably, they have an algorithm that:
  1. Scrapes SEC website for 13Fs
  2. Notes down the change in # of shares held by each investor
  3. Multiplies this by the stock price, hopefully the average stock price during Q3, but potentially taken from a less accurate point in time, such as EoQ3, or when the 13F was filed.
The stock split does make a difference because it influences #2, and therefore the numbers their algorithm spits out.
 
We can't deduce too much from the fact that Tesla has not started operating a driverless system, or applied for regulatory approval where they need it.

We can deduce they don't have a working one yet by the fact it's already "approved" in many states but not avaialble.


The system needs to be "ready" from the videos we can see good progress, but it isn't yet "ready". It is wise to wait until the software is "ready", and in any case there are other ducks to line up.

100% agree- it's not ready- Teslas approach is very different from almost everyone else and will be light years ahead if/when it IS ready, but that's not today.


IMO as Tesla will not be cell constrained they will keep selling private cars when Robo-taxis are ready. My reasoning is they can easily spin up 2-3 factories to make Model 2.

Say a Model 2 Robo-taxi can make 30K per year and a Model S Robo-taxi running a premium service can make 35K per year. Most of the time most customers will not pay more for the premium service. So most Rob-taxi's will be Model 2 and Model 3.

Let's say I am exceeding dubious about almost any idea that assumes there's massive, massive, massive demand for robotaxis.

All taxis in the country are like 0.1% of all vehicles in the US.

Even adding all the uber drivers (ALL of em, not just ones running at same time) it's like 1% of vehicles in the US.

RTs can easily replace all those (assuming charging support especially) and probably take the place of some households 2nd or 3rd vehicles... but the idea some huge % of households would just not own cars anymore is fantasy.



I've been wondering for sometime if they will make Model 3 at Austin and FSD progress is a good reason to do that.

...maybe?

They've got Y and Cybertruck at least ahead of it though.... and Semi still needs to get built too... I dunno if there's enough Model 3 demand JUST in the US (since Berlin and Shanghai will be making M3s for Europe and Asia) that they need more than Fremont though.


We also need to keep in mind the Robo-taxi roll out will be exponential, but will not be a big bang. Very few places will allow the service without regulatory approval and paperwork.

Again, it's legal right now in like half a dozen states.

If it legit works using the Tesla methodology (where it's NOT heavily geofenced and "works everywhere" then they should be able to roll it out in all those states on day 1 of being confident it's reliable and safe.

And working well in 5 or 6 states, with tens of thousands (or more) of cars, should quickly accelerate other states to allow operation.


So as dubious as I am of RTs being a thing anytime "soon" I'm even more dubious that "regulations" will be much of a barrier to them.


But a key consideration is Tesla has a rough idea of the timeline, that means they know when extra vehicle production will be needed and will want that production to be mostly Model 2 and Model 3.

Do they though?

Elon himself has said if he gives a date for a thing he hasn't ever done- don't' believe him.

He's missed plenty already regarding self driving.


The terrific thing about Tesla and Elon is, unlike others, when they realize they've gone down a dead end, they admit it and start over (see the recent re-write for example) rather than spend 10 years going down the unscalable LIDAR/HD Maps/GEOFENCE path

But until they get there they have no legit idea of the timeline.

See Elon quote below- now sub in "L5 driving" for "mass-produced"


elontime.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johann Koeber
Fun video. My only complaint is the one shot they have of a car display charging it says “30 minutes remaining”. Most of my supercharging is only 15 minutes and I wish they would have shown a lower time remaining.

If Tesla isn’t building housing in the Bay Area why would they be concerned about Austin housing prices? That land around GigaTexas may be needed in the future for expansion

That would be worse, as it would show 15 mins remaining when it's mostly full. It's bad optics, because people aren't used to the mindset change.
 
After-action Report: Thu, Nov 12, 2020: (Full-Day's Trading)

Headline: "TSLA -2x Macros on Light Volume"

Traded: $8,283,585,860.24 ($8.23B)
Volume: 19,940,904
VWAP: $415.41

Close: $411.76 / VWAP: 99.11%
TSLA closed BELOW today's Avg SP
TSLA MaxPain: $417.50

Mkt Cap: TSLA / TM $390.308B / $195.46B = 199.70%
Note: Yahoo Finance updated TSLA Mkt Cap for shares issued Sep 9th (per 10-Q)
CEO Comp. Status:

TSLA 1-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $398.76
TSLA 6-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $305.92
Nota Bene: Mkt Cap for 5th tranche ($300B) likely achieved Nov 09, 2020

'Short' Report:

FINRA Volume / Total NASDAQ Vol = 51.1% (51st Percentile rank FINRA Reporting)
FINRA Short / Total Volume = 55.1% (54th Percentile rank Shorting)
FINRA Short Exempt Volume was 0.64% of Short Volume (46th Percentile Rank)​

TSLA - SUMMARY TABLE - 2020-11-12.png


Comment: "So TSLA is a 'Tech' when NDX↑; is 'Automaker' when NDX↓" :p

QOTD: @Krugerrand "Tesla doesn’t need money and soon OEMs aren’t going to have any of it.

View all Lodger's After-Action Reports

Cheers!
 
I'm increasingly thinking about this. How I perceive Teslas edge, and how I perceive this forums to also see it, sometimes feels very too good to be true. But the stuff tslaq tends to say is always completely without merit. I'd really like someone who can actually make a strong argument against Teslas dominance to get a chance to speak. It's unsettling how unhinged teslaq is.

The one thing that my confidence wavers on is FSD. I'm less impressed with the first beta release than I was hoping. But I'm also pretty impressed with the improvement since then. So who knows.

I am rubbing my hands exactly for this reasons. There is a huge understanding arbitrage existing for all of us to benefit from.
Even the biggest Tesla bulls don't have faith that Tesla would be solving FSD problem. rather quickly.
 
Let's say I am exceeding dubious about almost any idea that assumes there's massive, massive, massive demand for robotaxis.

IMO most of the demand is from people who have never owned a car, and people without young children, people too old or young to drive and people who catch inconvenient public transport because they can't afford a taxi. And the most obvious cases, people who uses, taxis, Uber and similar services.

Then there will be plenty of people who own a car, but choose to have their car drive them so they can relax or do work. In this case many families with 2 or more cars, might decide to drop down to 1 car.

I don't think we could predict the demand for cars and parking spots from horses and horse troughs, Robo-taxis are sufficiently different and economic to rewrite a lot of the rules.

I see progress differently to you, Tesla has a likely path to success and a rough timeline... they might be out by 6-24 months, but they have sufficient confidence and capital to begin to put some of the other building blocks in place. As long as they are right about the date within 24 months that is sufficient.

We are seeing progress, they are seeing the same progress, but they know what it means, and what else they need to do.,
 
Cute little rig! I bet MB is kicking themselves in private about severing that relationship, it could have developed into something; however the two completely different management styles of the companies would have probably forced them to work together at arm's length.

I also bought a MB B Class Electric drive in 2014. Great car, but only 90 miles of range. Put 65k local miles on it. Tesla motor and battery worked perfectly with no service issues. Unfortunately, MB was only interested in a temporary emissions compliance fix and built very few of these before abandoning it - unlike Tesla with an entirely different mission. It was not a partnership that was meant to last.
 
I also bought a MB B Class Electric drive in 2014. Great car, but only 90 miles of range. Put 65k local miles on it. Tesla motor and battery worked perfectly with no service issues. Unfortunately, MB was only interested in a temporary emissions compliance fix and built very few of these before abandoning it - unlike Tesla with an entirely different mission. It was not a partnership that was meant to last.
Thanks for the info. Sure seemed that way, no foresight at all on MB's part and I bet they are regretting now. Was surprised to see how small the battery was in it... pretty obvious it was just there for compliance purposes. Oh well, helped Tesla out when they needed it!
 
IMO most of the demand is from people who have never owned a car, and people without young children,

There was a theory going around a few years back "Dem young millenials don't want to own cars anymore!"

and as support folks pointed to census data showing that for the first time in generations the % of households with 0 cars had gone up a couple of percent from 2010-2015.


Well, it's 5 years later now- and it turns out what actually was going on was "dem young millenials couldn't afford cars right after the great recession but still really wanted to own them"

Because that census figure has not only gone back to where it was, the % who don't own a car is even lower than it was before the recession began now, and millennials make up a larger % of new car buyers than even the boomers do today.


As has been mentioned before- even in NYC where there's massive amounts of public transit (and honestly a pretty walkable city for any short distance), and owning a car is INSANELY expensive and impractical, still nearly half of households own one anyway.

People REALLY like owning their own car.


people too old or young to drive and people who catch inconvenient public transport because they can't afford a taxi. And the most obvious cases, people who uses, taxis, Uber and similar services.

Sure.

But those folks TODAY are already not owning a car and are using uber or whatever else is available.

And as I mentioned ALL taxis and uber cars and whatnot, combined, are only about 1% of the vehicles on US roads today.

Robotaxis can certainly replace ALL of them, and you'd still have 99% of vehicles on the road NOT being robotaxis, but instead privately owned cars.

It's also why the idea "everyone who owns a tesla will make $30,000 a year letting it be a taxi when they don't drive it" is a fantasy.

There's gonna be 20 million Teslas per year made by or before 2030 according to Elon.

That's, in just 1 year of production, like 10x the TOTAL number of all vehicles used in the US today for taxis AND rideshare combined.


I have zero doubt there's demand for 20 million Tesla vehicles in a year.

I have massive doubt there's demand for 20 million robotaxis a year. Or even 2 million a year.



Then there will be plenty of people who own a car, but choose to have their car drive them so they can relax or do work. In this case many families with 2 or more cars, might decide to drop down to 1 car.

Sure- I believe I specifically mentioned things like families getting rid of a 2nd or 3rd car is absolutely a likely outcome of easy, cheap, RT access.

(doubly so if post pandemic the % of work from home remains high, though that remains to be seen).

But there again those are usually older, hand-me-down type cars... not new vehicles.


This is good for Teslas mission though- it'll get more older ICE vehicles out of service faster.



I don't think we could predict the demand for cars and parking spots from horses and horse troughs, Robo-taxis are sufficiently different and economic to rewrite a lot of the rules.

I know folks like the horse->car comparison... but the last few times it came up it had to be pointed out that while cars were invented in 1886 horses remained a dominant form of transport in not just much of the rest of the world, but even in much of the US, for another HALF CENTURY.

Despite that one dude going on about the two parades in NYC separated by like 10 years, the transition was WAY slower broadly speaking.




I see progress differently to you, Tesla has a likely path to success and a rough timeline... they might be out by 6-24 months, but they have sufficient confidence and capital to begin to put some of the other building blocks in place. As long as they are right about the date within 24 months that is sufficient.

To be fair... they're already approaching 36 months late on the self-driving cross country drive prediction which was originally suppose to happen by end of 2017...

When Elon tells you don't trust any timeline he gives you for a thing he's never done before- you should probably believe him.

He'll get it done when it's done, and nobody including him knows when that actually is.


In contrast- he's built a mass produced car now- and a car factory.... when he tells you when the next one will be ready, believe it

And indeed he's usually bettered his stated dates for stuff he's already done at least once- not just in getting it done ahead of schedule, but usually producing a better version while doing it.

So I have tremendous confidence in Berlin and Austin producing cars ahead of schedule and even better than the ones being made today.

Having RTs in the near future not so much.



We are seeing progress, they are seeing the same progress, but they know what it means, and what else they need to do.,


Maybe.

No doubt they thought that in 2016 too when they made that original cross country by 2017 prediction (then repeated it for end of 2018). And the system kept getting noticeably better over time from then too.

Then it turned out they were going down a blind alley into a local maximum.

Again it's very much to their credit they:

Recognized this
Admitted this
Decided to do a fundamental rethink/rewrite down another path

Hopefully it's the correct one this time. But they don't know it is until they either actually get there (or hit an obvious dead end like they did previously).


But this is why a lot of investors aren't pricing RTs into their financial forecasts.

It's POSSIBLE they'll be ready in 18 months.

It's also possible they still won't be ready in 5 years.
 
But ask yourself how they get the $ data? Presumably, they have an algorithm that:
  1. Scrapes SEC website for 13Fs
  2. Notes down the change in # of shares held by each investor
  3. Multiplies this by the stock price, hopefully the average stock price during Q3, but potentially taken from a less accurate point in time, such as EoQ3, or when the 13F was filed.
The stock split does make a difference because it influences #2, and therefore the numbers their algorithm spits out.


The change in # of shares held by each investor is a rather meaningless number unless it's clear whether the number is counting pre- or post- split shares. I doubt that 13Fs would leave the share type unspecified.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FrankSG
The change in # of shares held by each investor is a rather meaningless number unless it's clear whether the number is counting pre- or post- split shares. I doubt that 13Fs would leave the share type unspecified.

This is what a 13F looks like:

13F.jpg


It lists holdings either by "SH" (# of shares) or "PRN (principal amount). No distinction is made between pre- and post-split shares. It simply states the number of shares held as of the reporting date (end of 3rd quarter in this case).

You can check out this 13F from EoQ3 from Baillie Gifford yourself here.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AZRI11