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

[Twooz]

(Live) Warren Redlich vs John Engle if anyone wants to be entertained...

 

[MikeAtkinson]

One data point. I'm a TSLA shareholder but

1. I live very frugally (I almost never buy new stuff, reuse as much as possible, recycle when possible etc)
2. The only vehicle I have ever owned is a cheap bicycle... and my shoes. I commute by bike or by feet. I take trains to go on vacation and, at most, get in a car at most 7 days in a year (in EV as much as possible, otherwise I ride-share with whom I live with)
3. I live in a <500 sq. ft. apartment with my partner. Our energy provider guarantees that they source 100% of my use from renewables. Even if can't reach that, we'd get our electricity from nuke plants, anyway. I consume half the energy as similar households around us, according to their stats.
4. We're vegetarian and I buy all our food from community-supported farmers (100% organic, local, fresh, and prepaid annually)

I'm trying to live even more frugally and as carbon free as possible, but it's getting difficult at this point. I'd be happy to get some recommendations if you can help @Nocturnal, but rest assured that some shareholders are only here to support the mission (accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy, not mining bitcoins).

Don't try and be more frugal, it will make very little difference to your ecological footprint. Most of your remaining carbon/ecological footprint is caused simply by living in France. Perhaps go into local politics or influence civil society in other ways to make the greatest difference.

 

[saniflash]

so BH has 10 hours to go to reveal their mystery holding?

 

[adiggs]

One data point. I'm a TSLA shareholder but

1. I live very frugally (I almost never buy new stuff, reuse as much as possible, recycle when possible etc)
2. The only vehicle I have ever owned is a cheap bicycle... and my shoes. I commute by bike or by feet. I take trains to go on vacation and, at most, get in a car at most 7 days in a year (in EV as much as possible, otherwise I ride-share with whom I live with)
3. I live in a <500 sq. ft. apartment with my partner. Our energy provider guarantees that they source 100% of my use from renewables. Even if can't reach that, we'd get our electricity from nuke plants, anyway. I consume half the energy as similar households around us, according to their stats.
4. We're vegetarian and I buy all our food from community-supported farmers (100% organic, local, fresh, and prepaid annually)

I'm trying to live even more frugally and as carbon free as possible, but it's getting difficult at this point. I'd be happy to get some recommendations if you can help @Nocturnal, but rest assured that some shareholders are only here to support the mission (accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy, not mining bitcoins).

To be clear right up front - I don't see you as trying to tell people what to do / how to do, etc... I am happy to hear about some of the steps that people choose to make as they lower their own carbon footprint; some of which are more extreme than others. I salute your particular efforts and situation. I also strongly suspect, though you didn't say one way or the other, is that you don't live your daily life feeling like you're living a highly non-desirable lifestyle; this is something you value and enjoy (but that's my guess, and I know I could be wrong).

I'm just using your post as a starting point.


The thing that I've found brilliant about Elon, from the very beginning when I started following the company seriously (2012 for sure - maybe 2011 or 2010) is that he doesn't invest his effort into telling people how they should live or what they should do. Nor does he invest energy into trying to tell them what they should drive. One of the historical problems I've seen in the EV industry are car makers deciding that people that want to own and drive EVs necessarily want small econo-boxes with as few frills as possible in order to maximize efficiency (or whatever they're thinking). I guess we could shorten that down to being green.

Elon doesn't and hasn't invested energy into trying to move people to where he thinks they should be. Instead he's busy building products that meet people where they are at, or want to be. One consequence is that there are any number of Tesla owners and drivers that don't care beans about their transportation carbon footprint or how green they are - they just want to drive a great driver's car, and for their purposes, they have discovered that a Tesla fits that bill.

Another consequence is that as new EVs are being designed and announced (and in a few cases so far, produced and delivered), the other car manufacturers are increasingly building cars that meet people where they are at instead of trying to tell them where they should be.


Which leads me to a larger point. Whether we agree with this reality or not, and whether we think that individuals are making good choices for the planet or not, the reality is that the only way to handle this mess is to go through it. If we can't get new and better technologies (and their adoption) into broad adoption then we're doomed using the technologies as currently deployed.

We don't solve our energy problem by consuming less energy (and therefore fossil fuels) - we solve our energy problem with massive scale renewable energy sources. In fact - I think we actually need to INCREASE our available energy budgets and energy consumption via renewable energy. Larger energy resources, drawn from renewable energy sources, can be used to address some of the problems we are otherwise facing. There are also good economic opportunities that become available when/if the cost of marginal energy consumption becomes approximately free.


None of this comes from trying to force people to be a particular way. It arises from meeting people where they are at, and want to be, using resources (energy, technology, etc..) that aren't destructive to our planet.


Interesting to me - the modern ICE vehicle is itself a solution to a previous environment crisis:
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

From the article:

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

The solution to the Great Horse Manure Crisis was to remove horses from the streets via ICE vehicles. Or in modern terms - the solution was a new technology representing a significantly larger energy budget and technology that was also less polluting.

It didn't come from demolishing large concentrations of people (cities) and forcing everybody that survived back to subsistence farming.

 

[Singuy]

so BH has 10 hours to go to reveal their mystery holding?

I banking on a company with a relative small market cap. Did they do this before adding apple?

 

[ZeApelido]

One data point. I'm a TSLA shareholder but

1. I live very frugally

You might want to splurge on a few letters in your username though.

 

[ZeApelido]

so BH has 10 hours to go to reveal their mystery holding?

45 days from start of quarter probably includes the day of the 15th. So could be until 9 PM tomorrow Best Coast time?

 

[UnknownSoldier]

I'll laugh when the BH mystery holding ends up being ExxonMobil or something.

 

[Singuy]

I'll laugh when the BH mystery holding ends up being ExxonMobil or something.

Nah, the real answer is Etsy as fate has it.

 

[lklundin]

3) Russia may be covered for free as a part of this by product.

I have no idea how much the Russian government controls the internet, but incremental cost is just the hardware.

Tesla wins hearts and minds if they put it Elon Net in all the schools.

While true, totalitarian countries can be expected to only allow possession of the Starlink terminal along with a government issued permit. (They would never completely outlaw it, because the party officials themselves would want one).

 

[MXWing]

I'll laugh when the BH mystery holding ends up being ExxonMobil or something.

Hope I am wrong but I am going to guess Nio.

Buffett not gong to admit he has to follow Cathie Wood around for investment advice.

 

[UnknownSoldier]

While true, totalitarian countries can be expected to only allow possession of the Starlink terminal along with a government issued permit. (They would never completely outlaw it, because the party officials themselves would want one).

Really? Because I'm 100% sure that Starlink will be completely banned inside China.

On an unrelated note, what's the deal with the blatant CCP propaganda posting the last couple of days? I was under the impression that politics was already defined as off topic to begin with.

 

[2daMoon]

To be clear right up front - I don't see you as trying to tell people what to do / how to do, etc... I am happy to hear about some of the steps that people choose to make as they lower their own carbon footprint; some of which are more extreme than others. I salute your particular efforts and situation. I also strongly suspect, though you didn't say one way or the other, is that you don't live your daily life feeling like you're living a highly non-desirable lifestyle; this is something you value and enjoy (but that's my guess, and I know I could be wrong).

I'm just using your post as a starting point.


The thing that I've found brilliant about Elon, from the very beginning when I started following the company seriously (2012 for sure - maybe 2011 or 2010) is that he doesn't invest his effort into telling people how they should live or what they should do. Nor does he invest energy into trying to tell them what they should drive. One of the historical problems I've seen in the EV industry are car makers deciding that people that want to own and drive EVs necessarily want small econo-boxes with as few frills as possible in order to maximize efficiency (or whatever they're thinking). I guess we could shorten that down to being green.

Elon doesn't and hasn't invested energy into trying to move people to where he thinks they should be. Instead he's busy building products that meet people where they are at, or want to be. One consequence is that there are any number of Tesla owners and drivers that don't care beans about their transportation carbon footprint or how green they are - they just want to drive a great driver's car, and for their purposes, they have discovered that a Tesla fits that bill.

Another consequence is that as new EVs are being designed and announced (and in a few cases so far, produced and delivered), the other car manufacturers are increasingly building cars that meet people where they are at instead of trying to tell them where they should be.


Which leads me to a larger point. Whether we agree with this reality or not, and whether we think that individuals are making good choices for the planet or not, the reality is that the only way to handle this mess is to go through it. If we can't get new and better technologies (and their adoption) into broad adoption then we're doomed using the technologies as currently deployed.

We don't solve our energy problem by consuming less energy (and therefore fossil fuels) - we solve our energy problem with massive scale renewable energy sources. In fact - I think we actually need to INCREASE our available energy budgets and energy consumption via renewable energy. Larger energy resources, drawn from renewable energy sources, can be used to address some of the problems we are otherwise facing. There are also good economic opportunities that become available when/if the cost of marginal energy consumption becomes approximately free.


None of this comes from trying to force people to be a particular way. It arises from meeting people where they are at, and want to be, using resources (energy, technology, etc..) that aren't destructive to our planet.


Interesting to me - the modern ICE vehicle is itself a solution to a previous environment crisis:
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

From the article:


The solution to the Great Horse Manure Crisis was to remove horses from the streets via ICE vehicles. Or in modern terms - the solution was a new technology representing a significantly larger energy budget and technology that was also less polluting.

It didn't come from demolishing large concentrations of people (cities) and forcing everybody that survived back to subsistence farming.

That was a good read with great points.

I see Elon as a clever man (or alien) with a clearly stated personal agenda that requires other people to participate in order to get the result he wants. You know, saving the planet and the human race.

He understands how folks will be more likely to help achieve this when their doing so comes with loads of more immediate, easily realized benefits for them without asking a prospective customer to take a side on some PC matter.

When what he offers works better, costs less, is safer, more fun, trendy, and so much more than what they are using now it is an easy sell for all those reasons that nearly everyone can see.

Those customers so inclined can also feel great about being "Green" and saving the planet, and saving all the monkeys with car keys too.

Elon offers the qualities in his creations that will appeal to the broadest set of customers' desires, knowing that any successful product will have to offer a better value to get the largest cross-section to buy in. Offer this, and all the rest falls into place on its own without polarizing prospective customers with any agenda (regardless of how important it may be). By focusing on giving them what they want, without hammering on customers about what he wants for the planet, he gets both and does it faster than any other approach could achieve the goal.

... and, we all get to watch our chairs grow up to be wealthy couches.

 

[ByeByeJohnny]

Hope I am wrong but I am going to guess Nio.

Buffett not gong to admit he has to follow Cathie Wood around for investment advice.

Wasn't there something that indicated that it could only be a company of a certain size so only like 15 companies in the world were big enough? Or was that a mistake by some analyst? I haven't really followed since I don't think it makes much difference to Tesla either way.

 

[lklundin]

Really? Because I'm 100% sure that Starlink will be completely banned inside China.

On an unrelated note, what's the deal with the blatant CCP propaganda posting the last couple of days? I was under the impression that politics was already defined as off topic to begin with.

yes, it will be banned for normal people - but in order to determine exactly how this Western decadence subverts the superior and pure Chinese mind, trusted high-ranking officials will need to "evaluate" these dangerous gadgets - all for the benefit of the State.

If the above makes no sense, you need to read George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

 

[aubreymcfato]

To be clear right up front - I don't see you as trying to tell people what to do / how to do, etc... I am happy to hear about some of the steps that people choose to make as they lower their own carbon footprint; some of which are more extreme than others. I salute your particular efforts and situation. I also strongly suspect, though you didn't say one way or the other, is that you don't live your daily life feeling like you're living a highly non-desirable lifestyle; this is something you value and enjoy (but that's my guess, and I know I could be wrong).

I'm just using your post as a starting point.


The thing that I've found brilliant about Elon, from the very beginning when I started following the company seriously (2012 for sure - maybe 2011 or 2010) is that he doesn't invest his effort into telling people how they should live or what they should do. Nor does he invest energy into trying to tell them what they should drive. One of the historical problems I've seen in the EV industry are car makers deciding that people that want to own and drive EVs necessarily want small econo-boxes with as few frills as possible in order to maximize efficiency (or whatever they're thinking). I guess we could shorten that down to being green.

Elon doesn't and hasn't invested energy into trying to move people to where he thinks they should be. Instead he's busy building products that meet people where they are at, or want to be. One consequence is that there are any number of Tesla owners and drivers that don't care beans about their transportation carbon footprint or how green they are - they just want to drive a great driver's car, and for their purposes, they have discovered that a Tesla fits that bill.

Another consequence is that as new EVs are being designed and announced (and in a few cases so far, produced and delivered), the other car manufacturers are increasingly building cars that meet people where they are at instead of trying to tell them where they should be.


Which leads me to a larger point. Whether we agree with this reality or not, and whether we think that individuals are making good choices for the planet or not, the reality is that the only way to handle this mess is to go through it. If we can't get new and better technologies (and their adoption) into broad adoption then we're doomed using the technologies as currently deployed.

We don't solve our energy problem by consuming less energy (and therefore fossil fuels) - we solve our energy problem with massive scale renewable energy sources. In fact - I think we actually need to INCREASE our available energy budgets and energy consumption via renewable energy. Larger energy resources, drawn from renewable energy sources, can be used to address some of the problems we are otherwise facing. There are also good economic opportunities that become available when/if the cost of marginal energy consumption becomes approximately free.


None of this comes from trying to force people to be a particular way. It arises from meeting people where they are at, and want to be, using resources (energy, technology, etc..) that aren't destructive to our planet.


Interesting to me - the modern ICE vehicle is itself a solution to a previous environment crisis:
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

From the article:


The solution to the Great Horse Manure Crisis was to remove horses from the streets via ICE vehicles. Or in modern terms - the solution was a new technology representing a significantly larger energy budget and technology that was also less polluting.

It didn't come from demolishing large concentrations of people (cities) and forcing everybody that survived back to subsistence farming.

I kinda agree.
Tesla is replacing things that people want (cars) with similar products that do pollute much less (EVs). He's doing that for normal people with cars, solar roofs, and residential batteries, and also at higher levels for companies, or even utilities (powerpacks, Megapack). He's trying to change logistics with Semis. Even replacing some of the most polluting worker vehicles with Cybertrucks.

I'm ok with all that.
But we were talking about btc, which is vastly different: it's something that *right now* consumes a huge amount of resources and doesn't provide any service, just accumulates value, and a volatile one. Financially, it's a good bet.
But, as much as I'd love to be optimist like @Nocturnal, we are not in an age of cheap energy abundance. And won't be for decades. Every year counts, and every CO2 ton counts, right now.

 

[JRP3]

I'll laugh when the BH mystery holding ends up being ExxonMobil or something.

Dodgecoin

 

[2daMoon]

I kinda agree.
Tesla is replacing things that people want (cars) with similar products that do pollute much less (EVs). He's doing that for normal people with cars, solar roofs, and residential batteries, and also at higher levels for companies, or even utilities (powerpacks, Megapack). He's trying to change logistics with Semis. Even replacing some of the most polluting worker vehicles with Cybertrucks.

I'm ok with all that.
But we were talking about btc, which is vastly different: it's something that *right now* consumes a huge amount of resources and doesn't provide any service, just accumulates value, and a volatile one. Financially, it's a good bet.
But, as much as I'd love to be optimist like @Nocturnal, we are not in an age of cheap energy abundance. And won't be for decades. Every year counts, and every CO2 ton counts, right now.

The BTC conversation moved to another thread, didn't it?

 

[EVWatcher]

yes, it will be banned for normal people - but in order to determine exactly how this Western decadence subverts the superior and pure Chinese mind, trusted high-ranking officials will need to "evaluate" these dangerous gadgets - all for the benefit of the State.

If the above makes no sense, you need to read George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

China is a complex country with a complex political and economic situation. Animal farm is absurdly reductive. I could use Animal farm as a commentary on America as well as I could on China. I'm American with European heritage. China does a lot wrong. But it is also incredibly good at many things America sucks at

I think discussing China is important to understanding the benefits and risks of Tesla being heavily invested in the Chinese market. But this discussion of china has started to go towards a very unintellectual and unhelpful direction.

 

[zach_]

so BH has 10 hours to go to reveal their mystery holding?

For anyone who is particularly optimistic (or just curious) and is eagerly awaiting this, the 14th has been mentioned as the date because it's been the 14th the last few years. But from the filing history it seems clear that it's the first day the market is open after the 13th. I suspect that means we'll get it premarket on Tuesday.

Personally...