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

[SpudLime]

OT
Musk says in car browser will be upgraded to chromium.

https://electrek.co/2019/03/22/tesla-internet-browser-google-chromium-elon-musk/

Man this will greatly improve what the browser can do.

 

[humbaba]

dude, i'm over 70, i lived that stuff "in real time"

You are one well-preserved >70 yro! I had more white in my hair when I was 25!

 

[NicoV]

I expect to see the ships starting to come back to Pier 80 pretty much within the first couple of days of Q2. For Q1, they didn't start loading M3's on the ships until the 1st or 2nd week of Feb.

Model 3 is currently quoted as having a ‘May’ delivery date in Europe, so that’s definitely consistent with shipments starting begin april.

Note that Tesla still only offers the long range model 3’s for sale in Europa, so Q2 will start with high margin production.

Or maybe the cheaper models are not offered due to lack of demand

 

[mekberg]

GF3 starts installing steel roof structure:

探访上海临港特斯拉超级工厂：钢结构屋顶开始吊装_IT新闻_博客园

"On March 20th, the builders were hoisting steel roof trusses. On the same day, the Tesla Super Factory Project (Phase I) rigged the two sets of steel roof trusses successfully."

"The rigging of the grid is in the form of a three-dimensional grid and a triangular cone grid structure, measuring 24*26*8 meters and weighing 38 tons. The steel structure is mainly composed of 95 rectangular frame columns and steel mesh frame roofs. The grid frame adopts the bolt ball + welded ball joints of the forward quadrangular pyramid type."

"The completion of the smooth hoisting marked the official start of the hoisting construction of the entire super factory grid structure."

More images at the link.

Things are happening quickly. I think we'll see a covered building in a few weeks time - if that.

 

[KarenRei]

Model 3 is currently quoted as having a ‘May’ delivery date in Europe, so that’s definitely consistent with shipments starting begin april.

Note that Tesla still only offers the long range model 3’s for sale in Europa, so Q2 will start with high margin production.

Or maybe the cheaper models are not offered due to lack of demand

And the fun thing is that even if the rate of new orders of high-margin Model 3 variants drops, there's going to be a whole extra month in there to accumulate more

Still waiting for more news as to when they'll come here... strongly suspect that we're not going to be prioritized until they run through the backlog + new accumulation of LHD W. Europe + Scandinavia high-margin orders.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Well, racism is the ultimate form of FUD...

FTFY.

 

[KarenRei]

Things are happening quickly. I think we'll see a covered building in a few weeks time - if that.

And knowing Tesla, they're not going to wait for the building to be finished before they start setting up the lines. "Walls? Who needs walls...."

 

[anthonyj]

Elon’s sur-reply

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=280414670&z=bdfd0a41

 

[mekberg]

And knowing Tesla, they're not going to wait for the building to be finished before they start setting up the lines. "Walls? Who needs walls...."

Right. And since the Chinese government is, for all practical purposes, footing the bill for this project they want to see ROI ASAP.

 

[Fact Checking]

Elon's team just filed the sur-reply:

Reply to Response to Motion – #33 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com​

It starts with a bang, pointing out a major hole in the SEC's case:

"Not only is the SEC’s categorical approach inconsistent with the plain language of the
Order, it is also belied by the settlement negotiations between the parties. The SEC sought a broad pre-approval requirement with respect to Musk’s Tesla-related tweets, was told that Tesla and Musk would not agree, and conceded the point. It now seeks to achieve through a contempt hearing that which it could not through settlement."​

I don't see how the SEC's case can survive this bombshell revelation.

In fact if the same SEC lawyers handled both legal processes I don't see how this isn't prima facie evidence of bad faith.

 

[Singuy]

The reason they are pushing this quarter could also be to compensate for $900m bond payment. So they may have less buffer for cash this quarter. Second point is about more regular shipping and logistics which is pointed by a few already.

The reason why they are pushing this quarter could be that water is wet. It's a public trade company and doesn't need a reason to push for sales. In fact us shareholders need to be notified if the company decided to not push for sales.

 

[lklundin]

Theory: lawyers advise companies not to do this. Why? Suppose an idea gets submitted by person X. Engineers inside company love it. CEO greenlights it. Company builds and ships it as new feature in product. Sales explode. Stock soars. Company value quadruples. Fast forward. Person X who feels left out. Posts original idea and tells whole story on social media. Goes viral. Public outcry. Lawyers smell money, get X to sue for billions. Company put in bind. Etc, etc, etc.

Apple used to and may still, discourage people from submitting ideas. Some companies I seem to recall have IP policies that anything submitted to them from customers becomes company property.

I don't use free email, but I know some years ago a couple of the big ones had in their ToS that basically anything anyone types into their web-page becomes their intellectual property.

 

[mongo]

Elon’s sur-reply

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=280414670&z=bdfd0a41

The SEC’s position is wrong at virtually every level.

Love it.

 

[azaz]

Musk's team making a really strong case that the SEC are the ones not abiding by their settlement

 

[Lessmog]

Elon's team just filed the sur-reply:

Reply to Response to Motion – #33 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com

Major hole in SEC's case:

"Not only is the SEC’s categorical approach inconsistent with the plain language of the
Order, it is also belied by the settlement negotiations between the parties. The SEC sought a broad pre-approval requirement with respect to Musk’s Tesla-related tweets, was told that Tesla and Musk would not agree, and conceded the point. It now seeks to achieve through a contempt hearing that which it could not through settlement."​

I don't see how the SEC's case can survive this.

In fact if the same SEC lawyers handled both legal processes I don't see how this isn't prima facie evidence of bad faith.

That last bit seems to be a strong argument for those revolving doors at SEC ...

 

[JRP3]

You are one well-preserved >70 yro! I had more white in my hair when I was 25!

*cough* notarecentpicture

 

[KarenRei]

Short summary: the SEC originally wanted Musk to consent to:

"comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by [Tesla] regarding the oversight and approval of all of his public statements relating to the Company made in any format[.]”.

Musk categorically rejected this. His legal team came back with the suggestion:

“comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by [Tesla] regarding the oversight of his public statements relating to the Company made in any format[.]”

The SEC eventually agreed to:

• The phrasing “written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the Company or its shareholders[.]” They
• Added a clause “depending on its significance”
• excised a clause requiring discussion with Tesla’s counsel before publishing communications that “may be reasonably anticipated to invite controversy.”

The SEC now, however, by citing examples of completely innocuous tweets having to do with Tesla (examples here), is effectively trying to enforce a version that was categorically rejected, and not the compromise version.

An additional argument is made that the SEC agreement mandates that Musk follow Tesla's policy, and mandates things that the policy must cover. Since Tesla confirms that Musk is in compliance with the policy, and “vests discretion in its Authorized Executives . . . to make a judgment in the first instance about whether the information contained in a written communication”, the SEC has no grounds to assert that Musk is in violation, since they ceded judgement about this issue to Tesla.

 

[Artful Dodger]

RobinTrack shows No. of accts holding TSLA at an all time high today. It's the wisdom of the crowd, applied to the stock market. I tend to agree with their judgement (over some Wall St analcyst).

Cheers!

 

[Fact Checking]

Elon's team just filed the sur-reply:

Reply to Response to Motion – #33 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com​

It starts with a bang, pointing out a major hole in the SEC's case:

"Not only is the SEC’s categorical approach inconsistent with the plain language of the
Order, it is also belied by the settlement negotiations between the parties. The SEC sought a broad pre-approval requirement with respect to Musk’s Tesla-related tweets, was told that Tesla and Musk would not agree, and conceded the point. It now seeks to achieve through a contempt hearing that which it could not through settlement."​

I don't see how the SEC's case can survive this bombshell revelation.

In fact if the same SEC lawyers handled both legal processes I don't see how this isn't prima facie evidence of bad faith.

I love this part too:

"The SEC’s position is wrong at virtually every level. The Order requires Musk to “comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by Tesla . . . regarding . . . the pre-approval of any such written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the Company or its shareholders.” Dkt. 14 at 13-4. The key question is whether Musk complied with Tesla’s Policy, not whether the SEC is satisfied with Tesla’s Policy."​

This single paragraph butchers most of the SEC's reply brief already, and it's still only page #1 of 8!

 

[mekberg]

"Given that the SEC’s mission is to “protect investors” and “maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets,” the SEC should care that this tweet had no impact on investors or the market."