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

AudubonB

One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!
Mar 24, 2013
8,482
32,354
GM's revenue, at ~$120b is roughly the same at it was in 1991


Nevermind the 30 years of inflation....


Also, if you add up the last 30 years of profits and losses for GM, it essentially adds up to nothing.
Some hundreds of thousands of posts ago, I tried my hand at summing GM's reported Ps &Ls for its entire history. It used to be the case that Value Line® showed multiple decades of such data, but does VL even exist any more? At any rate, I think I was able to show that working backwards into the 1960s - and including, of course, the horrific walloping accruing from the {bankruptcy + bailout} - General Motors had, indeed, not been net profitable. That does not make it unique: I believe most airline companies show a similar vomit-inducing performance. But I hope someone with more acumen at ferreting out old data can follow through my earlier attempts.
 

jbcarioca

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Feb 3, 2015
5,820
33,557
I always assumed that others would follow Tesla and introduce gigacastings. However, there is a good chance Tesla will retain the moat. In addition to Tesla tech, Jordan mentions how ultra high strength steels are not yet being used by the industry and offer big improvements. OEMs will want to explore these benefits first. Further, OEMs cannot easily follow as there will be an Aluminium price spike.
Realistically the primary impediment might not be those, serious as they are. It might be the continuing Sandy Munro fetish; working from the old parts bin. It would be difficult to have a migration so consequential when established processes and suppliers would face upheaval.
 

ZachF

Banned
Mar 31, 2016
2,269
25,243
Park City, UT
Some hundreds of thousands of posts ago, I tried my hand at summing GM's reported Ps &Ls for its entire history. It used to be the case that Value Line® showed multiple decades of such data, but does VL even exist any more? At any rate, I think I was able to show that working backwards into the 1960s - and including, of course, the horrific walloping accruing from the {bankruptcy + bailout} - General Motors had, indeed, not been net profitable. That does not make it unique: I believe most airline companies show a similar vomit-inducing performance. But I hope someone with more acumen at ferreting out old data can follow through my earlier attempts.

The Fortune 500 link I posted earlier has data going back to 1954. Just hit the year toggle


NOTE: The data for a list year comes from the previous year. i.e. the 1960 list contains 1959 data.
 

SageBrush

REJECT Fascism
May 7, 2015
12,751
16,964
New Mexico
I have a Model Y reservation and April estimated delivery as part of a swap from my Model 3. Being that kind of person, I put the car details into a spreadsheet and listed a tax credit as unrealized but possible. It made me wonder how much of the backlog is from people speculating on the tax credit. I don't think there is any answer, just an interesting question.

Of course I do know that I will buy the car regardless, so we have one data point ;)
 

ggr

Expert in Dunning-Kruger Effect!
Supporting Member
Mar 24, 2011
7,030
28,421
San Diego, CA
If the cells have adhesive on the top and bottom, then that implies it's the honeycomb carrier that's the primary structural component, not the cells themselves At least in the traditional "honeycomb" sense of the word where the sandwich supplies torsional rigidity in addition to shear strength.

For the cell cans to really be structural members, they would need to be bonded to each neighboring cell along the vertical axis where they make contact. In the scenario above they are only bonded on the ends and would "float" in the carrier rather than being bonded along the sides.

If the cell is designed as you mention with a large end cap radius and there is no carrier, then the end cap would prevent the cell cans from being able to touch and be bonded.


This would seem to be a departure from what was described on battery day.
From a mechanical standpoint this is simply not correct. The cylinders resist shearing forces* quite well all by themselves, and so long as they are securely bonded at both ends will provide lots of structural integrity.

* by shearing forces I mean opposite forces applied at the two ends, perpendicular to the axis of the cell. Take an empty coke can, which is very easy to crush, and hold it horizontally. Now try to move the ends in opposite directions without allowing twisting, that is the ends must remain parallel. Now imagine if the can was actually full, it gets even stronger.
 

TSLA Pilot

Active Member
Mar 12, 2013
1,872
3,467
United States
As an investor and TSLA shareholder I agree, given the current demand raising prices makes sense.

As a consumer hoping to buy my first Tesla next year, a Model Y LR, I am upset because the price of my next car keeps climbing higher and higher. At this point I'll likely just keep my current 2015 Subaru Crosstrek much longer than I intended until the prices of Tesla's fall again. I don't care how wealthy I am, as a frugal individual I do not like paying more for a product than I want to, and right now the price of a LR MY is more than I'd want to spend.

Thankfully I do love my little Crosstrek, and if my TSLA shares skyrocket quicker than I expect then frack it I'll pay whatever Tesla wants for a Model Y. :D
If you were to become fully aware of the Total Cost of Ownership of your Crosstrek, and compare it to that of the supposedly "overpriced" Tesla, I think you'll find out that your Subaru costs far, far more than you think.

Older examples, using the Model 3, here:


And:


Bonus: consider how much faster the TCO drops once you add solar power to your roof. We did, and now we pocket an extra $6k per year in NOT buying gasoline, natural gas, or electricity. In ten years, that's a full $60k, plus we're "insured" on any future price increases in gasoline, natural gas, and electricity. THAT is true "independence."

Of greater concern--what IF it does cost a hair more? Oh my! How about paying more to get more, and considering what kind of planet you leave future generations:

Sorry kids. I know the planet's on fire, the reservoirs are dry, and it's a 120F in Phoenix for the 9th day in a row, but, damn it, I was sure as heck not going to spend an extra $124 a month to buy an EV! I have my priorities!
 

82bert

Member
Nov 19, 2018
290
903
Minnesota
Probably a stupid question to some here, but why doesn’t Tesla spontaneously drop the quarterly earnings report during market hours without warning? Is this not allowed? Wouldn’t this throw the MMs, institutional buyers for a loop and potentially help the stock to break through a number of walls? In other words, why is the quarterly earnings report drop telegraphed?
 

PeterJA

Active Member
Sep 26, 2013
1,106
11,948
San Diego
From a mechanical standpoint this is simply not correct. The cylinders resist shearing forces* quite well all by themselves, and so long as they are securely bonded at both ends will provide lots of structural integrity.

* by shearing forces I mean opposite forces applied at the two ends, perpendicular to the axis of the cell. Take an empty coke can, which is very easy to crush, and hold it horizontally. Now try to move the ends in opposite directions without allowing twisting, that is the ends must remain parallel. Now imagine if the can was actually full, it gets even stronger.

Back off-topic, take a box of Coke cans (single layer), each glued to the top and bottom of the box. You're right, the box has some structural integrity.

Now take another box and fill all the spaces between the cans with glue. Which box resists more shearing and torsion forces? (because of greater gluing surface)

Take a six-pack of Coke cans and fill all the spaces with glue. You don't even need the top and bottom of the box, yet that "beam" would cantilever my mom (RIP).
 

winfield100

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Feb 16, 2013
3,178
12,800
vivant non-traveler
Elon might be aware of this now, but mostly the credit must go to new Tesla Board Member Hiromichi Mizuno (joined the BoD in Apr 2020):


His years managing the largest Pension fund in the world (Japan) would have allowed him to understand the underlying dynamics of persistent naked short positions, and how to force them to cover.

That's why Telsa issued the $5B in new equity on Sep 1, 2020: to collect the fee from the shorts for their transgressions. Brilliant tactics, a One-Two Knockout punch.

Shortzes be livid. Then, S&P 500. Rince, Repeat. :p

Naked Short Selling: The Truth Is Much Worse Than You Have Been Told | OilPrice.com

Cheers!
please remind what was $5 billion in new equity
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikkoJ and AZRI11

InDaClub

Member
Aug 17, 2018
303
5,134
US
I voted ✅ 😁

Last day to proxy vote (online): You can vote online up to ‌1‌1‌:‌5‌9‌ ‌p‌.‌m‌.‌ ET on October 6, 2021.

 

Mengy

Member
Feb 18, 2020
729
6,129
PA
If you were to become fully aware of the Total Cost of Ownership of your Crosstrek, and compare it to that of the supposedly "overpriced" Tesla, I think you'll find out that your Subaru costs far, far more than you think.

I understand what you are saying but I track the costs of all of my vehicles over time religiously, so I am aware. My Crosstrek is paid for, gets 30+mpg on average using 87 octane, is super reliable (like all Subaru's are), and is very cheap to insure. It costs me very little to own.

I will buy a MY LR eventually, but I've ran the numbers, the $55,000 MY is not the more affordable option over a five year period (length of the loan). When comparing buying a new ICE car versus a new MY then sure the EV is very competitive and even beats a lot of ICE over five years regarding costs of ownership, BUT it doesn't when comparing a new MY to a paid off already owned Crosstrek. :cool:

Still, I'll be a data point for Tesla soon enough!

TSLA price action today looks like a sine wave...
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,577
15,165
NoVA
From a mechanical standpoint this is simply not correct. The cylinders resist shearing forces* quite well all by themselves, and so long as they are securely bonded at both ends will provide lots of structural integrity.

* by shearing forces I mean opposite forces applied at the two ends, perpendicular to the axis of the cell. Take an empty coke can, which is very easy to crush, and hold it horizontally. Now try to move the ends in opposite directions without allowing twisting, that is the ends must remain parallel. Now imagine if the can was actually full, it gets even stronger.
I think we may be in agreement here, actually.

I said the cells would need side bonding so "...the sandwich supplies torsional rigidity in addition to shear strength" That is, the flat pack would indeed be providing shear strength in it's "flat" plane with just the the covers adhered to the ends of the cell.

However, to provides torsional rigidity (i.e. for that pack to not "twist"), the cells need to not be able to freely move past one another along their vertical axis.
 

Discoducky

P100DL, 2021 M3, 4 CT reservations and counting
Supporting Member
Dec 25, 2011
3,898
8,975
My mountain
Concerning price increases: If you assume demand isn't an issue and no supply chain issues (aka they can make as many cars as they possibly can), then the price increases can only reflect positivism for Tesla. IMO

I think folks would rather not wait in super long lines and price raises will have the effect of reducing demand and thus shorter lines.
 

Artful Dodger

"Ducimus, lit"
Aug 9, 2018
10,509
142,339
Canada
the issuer, thus agent, didn’t release the split proceeds until wednesday 9/2,

on 9/2/20 around 11am eastern DTCC ‘credited’ their participants (those who held settled tsla shares as of 8/28 who were eligible for split) with the split proceeds.

meaning the shares from the split weren’t “settled” into each dtcc participant/firm until earliest 9/2

All my dividend shares were shown in my account by Friday, Aug 28. The price per share wasn't adjusted until Monday.

The point which you somehow seem to obsfucate is that I could have sold ALL my shares BEFORE the price tanked by 30%. Dishonest Brokers denied their clients that choice. This happened to literally a dozen member who reported that fact here on TMC in realtime during the event.

You need to acknowledge that. Revisionist history does not explain away events.
 

Artful Dodger

"Ducimus, lit"
Aug 9, 2018
10,509
142,339
Canada
@Artful Dodger from your MM exemptions POV, and what @Hock1 has shared ..then all bets are off. since it’s so opaque, it’s hard to imagine that some bs didn’t happen during that time period to drive the shares higher. that wasn’t “normal”. i’ve seen and processed ~1000 forward splits (literally) and i’ve never witnessed what happened with tesla to any of the others

Yeah. Did these other 1,000 companies have $20B bet against them? Prolly not.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

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