-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
That was partially my rationale for taking it. Actual FSD would be great, but I'm not banking on that happening in the next couple of years.
Rather, I bought it because I want HW3--partially because I think it'll make the 'normal' AP function better, but mostly because I've followed Tesla long enough to know what's going to happen to HW2.5 development effort once HW3 is shipping on all new vehicles.
Hint: within about 6 months of HW3 shipping in all new cars, HW2.5 development will be the sole responsibility of two part-time guys and their adorable dog.
must have missed it but what evidence did the article offer for “surge in demand «
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
1. I agree with most of what you said (I think) though I just skimmed it. Reason is in #2
2. Your volume and detail of contribution (in general) is not welcome from my point of view. One reason, I don't have time to digest it, please also see #3. I am also sure many people enjoy it, so this is not an ask for a change, just a single reference point, FYI. Most likely it's of no interest to you, and that's ok if you enjoy doing it. If it's useful feedback, great, if it's not, please disregard.
3. You argue many and broad subjects, most often with lots of good info and good insights. However, you don't indicate ever your level of confidence in your statement, and what is a fact, thought or conjecture. Everything comes off as if you're very confident (expert even), and I've found few significant errors in the past, in areas I know very well. Since there is no indication from you what do you know very well, this makes me consider all of your contribution low confidence. This, combined with the volume, made me mostly stop reading your posts. Unless it's marked with Like, or better, from one of the people whose opinion I value greatly (from my 'News Feed')
4. If you go back to my original post, you will see that I made the same assertion you made: it was a known fact, hence doesn't need pre-approval. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you, exact sentence is:
"I think we will need to rely on the fact that those numbers were mentioned in a conference call, more than anything else."
i.e. that is one defence that stands.
Though that was a confusing call, as they guided for 360K-400K, and then Elon mentioned higher range, which replayed on the twitter, just in reverse order.
To clarify, I don't think other defences stand, emphasize on think, I am not an expert. See, confidence level indication, so everyone understand I'm theorizing, not claiming expertise...
If there are points you want to make, feel free, but please know that I will not respond any further.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
If you click on the article it references a poll of ~500 self-selecting, non-representative sample of (purported) Tesla owners.
Not the strongest pieces of evidence - although I'd expect such a poll to be trolled by TSLAQ types as well, so who knows.
Some additional datapoints, both my brother and I previously planned to wait until FSD was real before upgrading, but are now seriously considering upgrading our M3s to FSD. Likely going to wait until after the Y reveal and if they have reservations for the Y, we'd likely both be putting one in as well. In my family alone, my parents are on the verge of ordering the SR+ (possibly on Sunday) and would be interested in putting additional reservations for the Y as well. I think those that understand the tech and have available cashflow would be inclined to take up this current offer.
I think this AP and FSD sale will generate a nice little surprise. Y reservations if available might be another possible surprise.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
Gerber going to bat for Tesla. My man!!
Investor: Have to take 'good and bad' with Elon Musk - CNN Video
Investor: Have to take 'good and bad' with Elon Musk - CNN Video
Have you ever said this to a teacher? "Mrs. Johnson, your volume and detail of contribution is not welcome because I don't have time to digest it".
jhm
Well-Known Member
Lemelson v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 17-1620 (1st Cir. 2018)
Here's the opinion of the Appeals Court on this case. The defamation suit was dismiss by both courts on ground that the plaintiff did not prove malice. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that malice is hard to prove. So the Bloomberg reporter and edit dodges this because there was no apparent malice.
This may be something to keep in mind about potential defamation cases that might be brought against reporters with an anti-Tesla bias. I do wonder if careless Twitter behavior may provide evidence of malice. We have definitely seen cases of journalists casually mocking Musk or Tesla. Any journalist tweets that suggest malice should be preserved as potential evidence.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Yeah, so I primarily disagreed with this opening statement you made:
"Tesla policy, or agreement with SEC (or both) calls for pre-approval of material information, or what could be material information (I've seen it somewhere in documents I read)."
Sorry, but what you state here as a fact is no a fact but only one of the two hotly disputed interpretations of the settlement.
Tesla's disclosure policy, acknowledged by Tesla's counsel (who are separate from Elon's counsel) does not call for pre-approval of every piece of information that "could" be material.
It calls for Elon to review and decide whether a tweet "could" contain material information, and seek pre-approval if he thinks that this is the case. It's a two-step process with discretion given to Elon to pre-filter tweets without going through pre-approval. (Responsibility of course is on Elon for getting it right, and his tweets are being monitored real-time by Tesla counsel and he's getting feedback.)
The two interpretations are different, and the differences are not just semantics, as the SEC's motion to hold Elon in contempt and the prospect of (unspecified) sanctions amply demonstrates...
The reading you offer is (IMHO) basically a very short summary of the SEC interpretation of the agreement, and the interpretation I offer is from Elon's filing, as can be seen from both the SEC's and Elon's filings:
The other statement of yours I disagreed with is the following:
"That this tweet didn't turn out to be material is a fact proven by market reaction, but it could have been material."
Again, Elon's lawyers are citing case-law that already public information known to the market is immaterial by definition:
Such a requirement would make no sense, because “information already known on the market is . . . immaterial.”
Gissin, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 502.
Gissin, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 502.
I.e. a price reaction at the time of a disclosure is indicative but not probative of materialness. This too is an important detail I believe.
Very little of what I present in a descriptive/factual form is intended to be conjecture, and generally everything else I write is opinion, speculation, conjecture and not advice. Subject to a significant error rate and colored/biased by my general optimism about Tesla!
If you'd like to know my level of confidence in percentage of any particular probabilistic statement then please ask, but it's never 100%.
Last edited:
100,000 seems too high to me — isn’t that approximately 20% of all Teslas sold - ever? A significant portion of those already had EAP/FSD enabled previously.
Do we know what revenue has been derived from these purchases in the past? If so, you could take that number and divide it by the average price of EAP/FSD to arrive at an estimated total number of purchases through Q4’18, then take a plausible percentage of the remaining customers that seem likely to upgrade based on polling data. Unscientific as hell, but has a veneer of plausibility.
Okay, challenge accepted:
'HDW3 is shipping now. Order FSD by Sunday and get the sale price! Schedule an appt online for a Tesla Ranger to come upgrade your computer.'
How's that?
Fred: oh, now you've done it. You just promised me you'd right your wrongs and stop FSD sales. Now you're advertising FSD sale again? I will return your 2 Roadsters-2 and close Elektrek in response!
Also, not all is pure profit, since need HW3 installed(chip+labor+?loaner).
Yeah, so I primarily disagreed with this opening statement you made:
"Tesla policy, or agreement with SEC (or both) calls for pre-approval of material information, or what could be material information (I've seen it somewhere in documents I read)."
Sorry, but what you state here as a fact is no a fact but only one of the two hotly disputed interpretations of the settlement.
Tesla's disclosure policy, acknowledged by Tesla's counsel (who are separate from Elon's counsel) does not call for pre-approval of every piece of information that "could" be material.
It calls for Elon to review and decide whether a tweet "could" contain material information, and seek pre-approval if he thinks that this is the case. It's a two-step process with discretion given to Elon to pre-filter tweets without going through pre-approval. (Responsibility of course is on Elon for getting it right, and his tweets are being monitored real-time by Tesla counsel and he's getting feedback.)
The two interpretations are different, and the differences are not just semantics, as the SEC's motion to hold Elon in contempt and the prospect of (unspecified) sanctions amply demonstrates...
The reading you offer is (IMHO) basically a very short summary of the SEC interpretation of the agreement, and the interpretation I offer is from Elon's filing, as can be seen from both the SEC's and Elon's filings:
The other statement of yours I disagreed with is the following:
"That this tweet didn't turn out to be material is a fact proven by market reaction, but it could have been material."
Again, Elon's lawyers are citing case-law that already public information known to the market is immaterial by definition:
Such a requirement would make no sense, because “information already known on the market is . . . immaterial.”
Gissin, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 502.
I.e. a price reaction at the time of a disclosure is indicative but not probative of materialness. This too is an important detail I believe.
Very little of what I present in a descriptive/factual form is intended to be conjecture, and generally everything else I write is opinion, speculation, conjecture and not advice. Subject to a significant error rate and colored/biased by my general optimism about Tesla!
If you'd like to know my level of confidence in percentage of any particular probabilistic statement then please ask, but it's never 100%.
The grey area is the second tweet. Elon determined what he tweeted wasn't material. The second tweet is where the SEC is saying Elon's first tweet COULD be material because his team or himself thought so therefore the clarification.
In dutch: Controverse over de elektrische auto: nieuwe cijfers gepubliceerd (RTBF - 2019) - AutoGids
A Wallonian professor last week claimed on national TV (french part of Belgium) that electric cars had to be driven for 700K km before they became cleaner than an ICE car. That (understandably) created a big media controversy, with lots of people debunking his calculations. That professor has now updated his calculations, and his beeak-even point is now at less than 35K km. (Yes! 20x less).
Unfortunately lots of people will only remember the 700K km number (because that ‘s what they want to remember)
A Wallonian professor last week claimed on national TV (french part of Belgium) that electric cars had to be driven for 700K km before they became cleaner than an ICE car. That (understandably) created a big media controversy, with lots of people debunking his calculations. That professor has now updated his calculations, and his beeak-even point is now at less than 35K km. (Yes! 20x less).
Unfortunately lots of people will only remember the 700K km number (because that ‘s what they want to remember)
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The second tweet was sent with pre-approval and I don't think there's any grey area there:
The fact that Tesla's team thought that out of abundance of caution they'd further clarify the first tweet is not proof of materialness.
But it is proof of other things:
- It's proof that Elon intended to comply and complied with the settlement both actively and in good faith,
- it's also proof of the "chilling effects" of the SEC's zealous enforcement efforts: Elon was worried about entirely legal communication not covered by the settlement and protected by the First Amendment. Perfect evidence of "chilling effects" and "prior restraint" against Elon's lawful speech.
Instead their argument is that the first tweet, and in fact all tweets about Tesla listed in the settlement as potential topics that could be material require pre-approval. Even if the tweet is based on already public, immaterial information...
That interpretation of the SEC is a serious overreach and misreading of the settlement, and I hope the judge agrees.
It sounds high. Tesla has produced around 520k vehicles up to the end of last year. around 140k were produced with hardware v1 - leaving 380k capable of FSD. If we assume half the vehicles (wild guess) had already purchased the autopilot products then just under half of all people that could have upgraded would have had to have done so in a week.
These numbers ignore natural attrition of the vehicles which is probably in the multiple thousands by now too.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
@Fact Checking Does Elon get a chance to reply (if needed) to the SEC reply? I don't recall seeing that on the judge's order, but it would seem only fair.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
So that leaves say 190k that could have upgraded. Assume half of those actually did it: ~100,000. So could be 100-500M cash flow. Still seems high by what others have posted in response, some of whom said the initial Autopilot/FSD take rate was already very high (much greater than 50%), which I did not realize.
Also, how many Tesla customers are actually aware of this current discount? Has Tesla pushed an in car / in app advert to these customers regarding the sale? It would seem the savvy thing to do, unless Tesla really does not want to give it away that cheap.
Out of interest, what is your level of experience with the law and legal matters? You arrived at a strikingly similar opinion to many of the arguments made in Elon's response in a short period of time. If you worked that out just from googling then you should get some sort of award.Yeah, so I primarily disagreed with this opening statement you made:
"Tesla policy, or agreement with SEC (or both) calls for pre-approval of material information, or what could be material information (I've seen it somewhere in documents I read)."
Sorry, but what you state here as a fact is no a fact but only one of the two hotly disputed interpretations of the settlement.
Tesla's disclosure policy, acknowledged by Tesla's counsel (who are separate from Elon's counsel) does not call for pre-approval of every piece of information that "could" be material.
It calls for Elon to review and decide whether a tweet "could" contain material information, and seek pre-approval if he thinks that this is the case. It's a two-step process with discretion given to Elon to pre-filter tweets without going through pre-approval. (Responsibility of course is on Elon for getting it right, and his tweets are being monitored real-time by Tesla counsel and he's getting feedback.)
The two interpretations are different, and the differences are not just semantics, as the SEC's motion to hold Elon in contempt and the prospect of (unspecified) sanctions amply demonstrates...
The reading you offer is (IMHO) basically a very short summary of the SEC interpretation of the agreement, and the interpretation I offer is from Elon's filing, as can be seen from both the SEC's and Elon's filings:
The other statement of yours I disagreed with is the following:
"That this tweet didn't turn out to be material is a fact proven by market reaction, but it could have been material."
Again, Elon's lawyers are citing case-law that already public information known to the market is immaterial by definition:
Such a requirement would make no sense, because “information already known on the market is . . . immaterial.”
Gissin, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 502.
I.e. a price reaction at the time of a disclosure is indicative but not probative of materialness. This too is an important detail I believe.
Very little of what I present in a descriptive/factual form is intended to be conjecture, and generally everything else I write is opinion, speculation, conjecture and not advice. Subject to a significant error rate and colored/biased by my general optimism about Tesla!
If you'd like to know my level of confidence in percentage of any particular probabilistic statement then please ask, but it's never 100%.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
Peeps, I got me some 300 and 310 calls for tomorrow's party, along with some horse tranquilizers -- cause I just won't be able to contain my excitement!!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
