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

TheTalkingMule

Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2012
6,816
24,611
Philadelphia, PA
If they could do this it would obliterate/Osborne their ICE business, leaving them with a bloated workforce that they cannot downsize and untold billions in stranded assets. This is the dilemma the traditional OEMs face, whether they recognize it or not.
That's right, I always forget you can't just pivot since the workforce requirement is about half. They already have twice as many people as needed in these German plants, just make it 4x!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustMe

StealthP3D

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2018
8,983
68,027
Maple Falls, WA
Perhaps there is much more truth to this than I ever would have thought. It's still worth trying a little to drag things out to over 366 days for US long term capital gains purposes.

And yes, most of my TSLA is in my Roth.

I don't invest capital that I'm not planning on leaving invested for years. That said, if I make a mistake, if the picture changes, I will sell instantly, capital gains taxes be damned. Traders will trade and a few will beat me. Most will not.
 

Hock1

Member
Jan 21, 2017
679
6,362
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
I don't see it that way. It's much better to learn from the entire body of evidence vs. one's painful experiences. The fact that a painful experience tends to drive a learning home in a very effective manner does not change this because the learning might not be a valid one just because it turned out that way one time.

Investors have a tendency to put more weight on learning events that have large impacts on their own finances but, from a first principles perspective, this is not wise. Considering all the evidence equally will result in better performance than weighing personal experiences disproportionally.

That said, I do think the conclusion that tax considerations tend to be given too much weight is true. Tax consequences do need to be considered but they shouldn't be given more weight than they deserve. The reason investors tend to break this rule is because the tax consequences of a decision tends to be very visible (and sometimes a certainty) while the result of an investment decision tend to be unknowable until some time has passed. This leads investors to put too much weight on the tax considerations. It's often better to make the investment and pay the taxes. It really depends upon the level of conviction. This is where investors tend to over-estimate their ability in the short-term. Short-term price movements are largely unknowable (at least with a high level of certainty) and so tax considerations should rightly prevail. But longer-term decisions need to give less weight to the tax considerations.

Summed up and generalized, a trader should trade, taxes be damned, and a an investor should hold. Because holding automatically minimizes taxes. Taken to the final conclusion: Don't trade, hold! :)
I wouldn't think you would. You took a lot of words to (actually) agree with me.
 

capster

Supporting Member
Aug 11, 2018
891
6,758
An island planet
Will it really be the end though. Germany is the economic motor of the EU. Is it really possible to imagine VAG, Mercedes, BMW, Audi going out of business? "Too big to fail"?
tl;dr: No one can recapture lost time — not even governments.

Part of me wants to agree with you. I’ve noticed that there’s always another chapter for the legacy OEM’s not matter how badly they screw up even if it’s chapter 11. ;)

On the other hand, it’s also hard to believe that even strong governments can save all of their legacy automakers.

Certainly some brands will die, perhaps those with the most diehard ICE fans for customers, when the ocean of oil "suddenly" dries up due to the economics of the energy transformation (look at coal for comparison).

Some of the laggard legacy automakers with marquee brands, yes I’m looking at you BMW, could well merge, likely on unfavorable terms, with something else — most likely a Chinese entity — if they’re to survive at all.

As I recall, Ford borrowed against its ’Blue Oval.’ Not sure if that loan was paid off. If not, maybe that’ll get repossessed and auctioned off. /s
 

woodisgood

All your cell are belong to us
Jul 26, 2018
2,365
11,230
San Francisco
Sooner or later, there will be a serious or fatal crash involving FSD. No matter the circumstances, be prepared for an onslaught of FUD and SP drop for a bit.

That is also likely to be the point in time that there will be a public debate about autonomous driving. It would be wonderful if this debate was somehow forced to precede inevitable tragedy.

The problem will be that when autonomous vehicles crash, they will do in a completely different manner that will seem senseless and completely avoidable to laypeople (“How could it not see the fire truck???”), overshadowing the lack of crashes humans get into all the time but robots will not (eg didn’t check blind spot). The data will obviously plainly favor autonomy, but the subjective feel of the individual tragedies will be a sticking point that the public will need to get over.

EDIT: Put another way, we are wired and conditioned to accept the risk we pose to one another and forgive, because mistakes and lapses in judgment feel familiar.
We do not yet have that subconscious relationship with robots, and I do wonder whether we in the US are enough of a data-driven society at the moment to make the right choice.

From the investor standpoint, it will be prudent to prepare for times when the market may bounce TSLA’s valuation between FSD becoming savior and public enemy #1.
 
Last edited:

jerry33

(S85-3/2/13 traded in) X LR: F2611##-3/27/20
Mar 8, 2012
19,637
22,303
Texas
Agreed priced way too low, but have been wondering since the announcement of the cybertruck, how is it possible to get the wedged shaped brick through the air with 500+ mile range and still have sports car acceleration and towing, with a price of 70-80k? What am i missing here? Is it just that they will have soo many batteries being made by the time the truck comes out, that the price of the batteries drops significantly-- 25 to 50%?
Actually, the line is the same as one of the Ferraris (I forget the model name). The comparison was posted a short time after the reveal. The Cybertruck is actually very aerodynamic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capster

insaneoctane

Active Member
Apr 6, 2016
3,485
6,173
Southern California
If VW is almost at cost parity with Tesla, except for batteries...
Didn’t Tesla have a battery day event where they showed how with their vertical integration they have a plan to reduce battery costs over 50%? While the rest of the battery industry makes painfully slow advances and price reductions in the fraction of a percent. For this innovation alone was like a scene from the Matrix...where Neo fights with an agent with one hand behind his back. Only Tesla isn’t putting any hands behind their back. I don’t fully appreciate how much cost reduction other battery manufacturers or auto companies will benefit from Tesla‘s sharing of their approach. Certainly some, but it’s not even close.
 

TheTalkingMule

Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2012
6,816
24,611
Philadelphia, PA
Boy. The the manipulation seems extra blatant today. I hope it's expensive.
I think today is a bit of an overstep by the MMs. Yes volume is not too crazy so the rulebook says to pushdown with a big MMD preserving tomorrow's $700 calls, but it feels dangerous to me. Unwinding all this pushdown early next week just as stimulus checks start going out the door is a recipe for disaster. IMO they'd be better off letting it notch up to $720ish and not have the spring so coiled heading into next week. Maybe they'll give up after lunch....
 

Drezil

Member
Jan 14, 2021
94
1,064
Germany
To add to the "what will become of legacy OEMs?"-discussion, many assume that EU/Germany won't let their brands go bankrupt and therefore bail them out.

Thing is, the EU is quite strict regarding ensuring a fair market, in which illegal competition is - well - illegal, just like monopolies, price agreements between competitors, etc.

A nation (e.g. Germany) cannot simply state: all German car manufacturers get let's say tax advantages, a stimulus package, or whatever without giving it to (foreign) competitors in that same space. That would be discriminatory and against the principles of the (in theory fair) EU market.

Same goes for EV credits for example. I would find it hard to believe they grant an EV subsidy for purchase of brand A and B, but not brand C (Tesla). They must distinguish on objective metrics, for example price point. (Or income of the buyer).

Given the above, I'm not too worried about Tesla being pushed away from their lead in the EU. In China, that's another story.
One handle at the moment is: They could only subsidize corporate leasing.
Nearly all corporations have Leasing-Providers & Tesla only offers direct leasing - meaning many people CANNOT choose a Tesla anyway as their company-car.

That is how it is usually done. We even have a "Segway-Law" in Germany. It is for all companies .. as long as the weight, wattage & usage is that of a Segway (+- some % leeway)... ;)
Segway is never stated anywhere in the law - but tho only thing that this exceptions applies to... :D

You can always find a way. But competition is then free to game that system of subsidies.. :D
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top