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.
Sorry, what does he mean by this? In what sense would a company be a parent of Tesla? Would this holding company be private or public? Is there something specific Dave Lee wrote up describing this, or does it have the intellectual depth of a tweet?

Hopefully he’s planning a clip to expand on this. I take that he’s thinking something like a holding company, that can shield from individual attacks and scrutiny on the companies that are under the holding?
 
Mr. Market does not know how to value TSLA, nor do they care. They're trading only on technicals: (mostly shorting to remove capital and increase share supply).

They'll try to keep TSLA range-bound btwn the 10-day Moving Average and the Middle-BB, as long as MMs can deny the max. no. of Options holders with a Fri SP finishing somewhere in that range:

View attachment 620224

There is significant manipulation going on right now with MMs/hedgies and in the Media (no doubt the two are related/compensated).

I expect this to continue until the P&D report on ~Mon, Jan 4th or until Tesla announces a stock dividend.
Mr. Market does not know how to value TSLA, nor do they care. They're trading only on technicals: (mostly shorting to remove capital and increase share supply).

They'll try to keep TSLA range-bound btwn the 10-day Moving Average and the Middle-BB, as long as MMs can deny the max. no. of Options holders with a Fri SP finishing somewhere in that range:

View attachment 620224

There is significant manipulation going on right now with MMs/hedgies and in the Media (no doubt the two are related/compensated).

I expect this to continue until the P&D report on ~Mon, Jan 4th or until Tesla announces a stock dividend.


Thanks for all of your contributions, you bring excellent insights to this forum.

Merry Christmas!
 
Some of you are losing your grip on a realistic valuation.

No, some of us have been paying attention for many years and we know that companies like Tesla are not typically valued at what you are referring to as a realistic valuation for many years - they grow into their valuations while remaining over-valued through that process. Wait...there are no companies like Tesla!

I rest my case.

But to clarify, I'm not one who has been calling for people to go all in at these levels. But I have in the past and my biggest fault has been to be not bullish enough. Most bulls have been far too bearish. This may, in fact, turn out to be a top. But every person who has said that in the past, and a lot have, have been wrong. Why? Because superior growth deserves superior valuations. We all know that if Tesla stumbles and falters the valuation will fall. That's a given. We also know if Tesla continues to execute on the same trajectory they are on, that high valuations will correct themselves if there are greater problems in the overall market.

We also know that even if the overall market falters and Tesla stumbles, the most likely course of action will be for Tesla to pick themselves up, blow the dust off and continue innovating. There's money in that thar innovation and we don't know how far into the future that will be reflected.
 
I think this week’s Apple car talk is manufactured from thin air but it appears it did some damage as they have hoped.

But I think people would wake up soon and realize what kind of car Apple would make if they ever make a car. Then realize it’s not going to have any negative effect on Tesla. By that time the damage of this week would be quickly reverted.

Apple is not a mass market producer, they make $2000 laptops, $1000 phones and $500 headphones. When they make a car, it’s going to be a $100k car that just works if you are in an Apple household. Apple won’t make mass market cars and even if they make a model in mass market price range, it mainly going to be a bait and not going to be competitive in the market.

That’s not what Tesla is after, Tesla had already passed that stage. $100k Teslas had done their job to fund the mass market products(3,Y,CT), and is now expendable to the mission.

I think even if Apple is going to make a car, Tesla is not going to be the competition. Instead, maybe Taycan, Lucid Air, Rivian etc should start to sweat bullets on the rumor.
 
Last edited:
I think this week’s Apple car talk is manufactured from thin air but it appears it did some damage as they have hoped.

But I think people would wake up soon and realize what kind of car Apple would make if they ever makes a car. Then realize it’s not going to have any negative effect on Tesla. By that time the damage of this week would be quickly reverted.

Apple is not a mass market producer, they make $2000 laptops, $1000 phones and $500 headphones. When they make a car, it’s going to be a $100k car that just works if you are in an Apple house hold. Apple won’t make mass market cars and even if they make a model in mass market price range, it mainly going to be a bait and not going to be competitive in the market.

That’s not Tesla is after, Tesla had already passed that stage. 100k Teslas had done their job to fund the mass market products(3,Y,CT), and is now expendable to the mission.

I think even if Apple is going to make a car, Tesla is not going to be the competition. Instead, maybe Taycan, lucid Air, Rivian etc should start to sweat bullets on the rumor.
I will have a Tesla phone (neuralink) before there is an icar. The best part will be no part, hopefully no phone to carry. Luckily for Apple Elon does not see phones as a climate threat yet.
 
Wouldn't it be great for Tesla to lobby against any further subsidies or tax credits for the EV industry other than matching the ones already taken by Tesla (out of fairness to competitors) and any typically offered by federal, state, localities to attract other new businesses and factories (fairness to Tesla)?

Elon would be totally taking the high road, putting all the legacy automakers on the spot if they ask for or take any help to build out a charging network like the one Tesla is doing quite well with mostly at it's own expense, one that works much better and, from what I've heard, more reliably than alternative charging networks. Let TSLA loudly demonstrate how to be a grownup big boy.

I'm thinking of all the subsidies legacy auto makers need to cover years of retirement/pension funding and union related costs of doing business that Tesla doesn't have. Not fair the gummint' pays for that, and who has a link to ~last week's post I can't find suggesting we contact our reps AGAINST subsidizing ICE OEM'S transitioning to EVs?


EV subsidies should only have an end date (the same for everyone). Not a count. If Tesla sells the most EVs, then they should be rewarded. And having an end date rather than a count, would force other manufacturers to move quicker into the EV sector.
 
Maybe Apple will build a car, but maybe they won’t. If Jobs was around I would be more inclined to believe the story, but Cook hasn’t really made any big investments — he did the $5bn Beats deal and rolled out a Watch.

Everything else has been incremental changes on existing product lines. Just doesn’t seem to be in the dna to do something truly big (and as someone else pointed out, move into a lower margin product line).

The Apple Watch was already in the works while Jobs was alive, AirPods is the only real new product I can think of - to be fair, they are excellent, especially the Pro's, which are so far superior to other earphones that it's embarrassing.

But back to the matter in hand. We're all laughing together at this Apple story, but I want to make clear that I'm laughing at the FUD aspect - rehashing the story with not new evidence, just to help the MM's out with their $630 target close this week.

Otherwise I totally applaud and support ANY company making an earnest effort to bring decent EV's to market. This is what The Mission is about folks. It's not about Tesla dominating the market, it's about transitioning away from fossil-fuels.

Of course the reality is that there don't appear to be any competitors on the horizon for Tesla, at all, point. Very few EV's that hold any interest, and those that do exist are pretty tame efforts, thus Tesla ARE becoming the dominant player due to the lack of vision/competence of the rest.

Unfortunately we need the rest to wake up, because Tesla cannot bring this change fast enough by themselves, we need some help. And I've no idea what these idiots are thinking of, gas cars will be banned most civilised territories over the ext 5, 10 15 years. The sentiment from the general population is changing and changing quickly. The same way that DUI became taboo, the sudden shift in attitudes to smoking - the s-curve applies here too.

I guess if FSD gets solved will be less of an issue. After an acceptance period, people will realise that car ownership is an expensive hobby, which will be relegated to a leisure pursuit by a few. We can but hope.
 
Unfortunately we need the rest to wake up, because Tesla cannot bring this change fast enough by themselves, we need some help

If the Roadrunner / Bty day roadmap goes according to plan, we CAN do this by ourselves (if necessary): 3 TWh of btys by 2030 is the current goal, but if necessary that exponential growth can be maintained for another decade (the business model supports it).

So instead of 3 TWh/yr by 2030, the new goal becomes 20 TWh/yr by 2040. BTW, that's a comfortable CAGR of just 20.9% in the 2030s. Easy-peasy.

OTOH, if Tesla can maintain it's 50% CAGR, then it only takes 3.3 yrs to go from 3 TWh/yr to 20 TWh/yr capacity (people don't 'get' exponential growth). o_O

By 2050 (target date of the Paris Agreement for Net Zero carbon emissions), we're more than half-way through the replacement of the fossil fleet, because all the vehicles Tesla builds before 2030 are steadily chipping away at the magic number. And "Robotaxi" lessens the number of total EVs that are needed to completely replace the fossil fleet.

BTW, by 'fossil fleet', I mean to include all gas and coal-fired peaker plants, baseload grid generation, ships at sea, and commercial aircraft. 2050 isn't a drop-dead timeframe, and even then there will be plenty more hard work to do on mitigation before 2100. But this gives our Grandchildren a fighting chance instead of handing them an irretrievably broken climate and the miserable future that entails.

So for the fossil fools, it's truly, "Lead, Follow, or Get the Eff outta da way!"

See the light, or be blind-sided.

Their choice.
 
Last edited:
Trump pushing $2k to the Robinhood bro's instead of $600 is A-OK with me!

So I've updated the good Dr's valuation:

SP: $664
Stimulus Check: $2,000
Fair Value: $2,664
Upside: 301%

upload_2020-12-23_11-0-48.png
 
If the Roadrunner / Bty day roadmap goes according to plan, we CAN do this by ourselves (if necessary): 3 TWh of btys by 2030 is the current goal, but if necessary that exponential growth can be maintained for another decade (the business model supports it).

So instead of 3 TWh/yr by 2030, the new goal becomes 20 TWh/yr by 2040. BTW, that's a comfortable CAGR of just 20.9% in the 2030s. Easy-peasy.

OTOH, if Tesla can maintain it's 50% CAGR, then it only takes 3.3 yrs to go from 3 TWh/yr to 20 TWh/yr capacity (people don't 'get' exponential growth). o_O

By 2050 (target date of the Paris Agreement for Net Zero carbon emissions), we're more than half-way through the replacement of the fossil fleet, because all the vehicles Tesla builds before 2030 are steadily chipping away at the magic number. And "Robotaxi" lessens the number of total EVs that are needed to completely replace the fossil fleet.

BTW, by 'fossil fleet', I mean to include all gas and coal-fired peaker plants, baseload grid generation, ships at sea, and commercial aircraft. 2050 isn't a drop-dead timeframe, and even then there will be plenty more hard work to do on mitigation before 2100. But this gives our Grandchildren a fighting chance instead of handing them an irretrievably broken climate and the miserable future that entails.

So for the fossil fools, it's truly, "Lead, Follow, or Get the Eff outta da way!"

See the light, or be blind-sided.

Their choice.

Yes, battery capacity is one thing, scaling the vehicle production another.

I still think there's a case for Tesla supplying skateboards to the rest in order to speed things up.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: UncaNed
Yes, battery capacity is one thing, scaling the vehicle production another.

I still think there's a case for Tesla supplying skateboards to the rest in order to speed things up.

We need to consider all serious players.
  • Telsa
  • China
  • VW
In that order, then there are a host of smaller startups making a vast array of vechicles.

Tesla could sell cells and components to anyone, but particularly small start ups.

Up to now Tesla has been cell constrained and probably need to mature to be launch ready.

The speed at which Austin and Berlin are being built is a promising sign and the amount of land at Austin strongly suggests multiple factories.

Then consider Tesla may be able to do 2 x the current rate of construction in 3 years.

There is no reason why they would stop building factories any time soon.
There may even be a day when we are bored with watching factory construction videos.