MartinAustin
Active Member
That's the same as Tesla owners. 100A cable is legally required when you want 80A going to the device. (only difference is, my Tesla has an 85kWh battery and charges at 58mph, hmmm)
-
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
thesmokingman
Active Member
Yea, Tesla has been crushing it on the production side with delivery windows shrinking fast.
That happened to me back in December when I got my MY LR, my window went from June 2022 to the first week of December 2021. Turns out someone who had the same configuration as me cancelled close to delivery so they shipped my car from another state to PA for me.
Same thing might have happened for you, congrats!
LOL thanks for that (your warning about the current roadtrip charging experience for non-Teslas)
I had a neighbor who kept coming up with a BEV he wanted more than Tesla because bla bla, I had to keep saying “Looks good for around town. Are you gonna take it on road trips? A: Sure, that‘s what I want it for most. Me: if so your only good choice for now is a Tesla”.
He bought a Model Y, still complains that he wished it had more range. Yet he is so glad that he didn’t buy a Jaguar i-Pace like his neighbor, who has been stranded multiple times, unable to charge at stations that mysteriously close or disappear.
Changed from August to late march
So, model Y on order, expected August 22 delivery. Long range, FSD. Read somehting online about delivery dates changing so checked out, now expected in a couple weeks. I need advice or information. Are there things missing on delivery Ys that should be there? Wasn't some drive or cable...
teslamotorsclub.com
Trade in advice sought.
How soon might we get FSD again?
As expected, we replicated last week to a tee. Outperformance on Mon/Tues, and then underperformance Wed/Thurs. Most of TSLA's strength for the week is now gone and TSLA well below it's 200 day average again. It's very clear to see what they did too. First 30 mins of trading TSLA started at 1 to 1 with macro's and was immediately pushed down intentionally. TSLA now trading worse than it's beta and progressively getting weaker as trading goes today.
This in the face of reports of weekly orders for Tesla surging 100%
So back in 3 month downtrend.....again
Edit: Now really underperforming by factor of 3X. And if it closes here, it's broken the uptrend it set two weeks ago.........really bearish movement
This in the face of reports of weekly orders for Tesla surging 100%
So back in 3 month downtrend.....again
Edit: Now really underperforming by factor of 3X. And if it closes here, it's broken the uptrend it set two weeks ago.........really bearish movement
Last edited:
I think we're witnessing new Supply Chain controls and leverage when the demand is this high and this far out in time. (Demand for vehicles that is, but Energy and Solar soon). Tesla's ability to move dates and offer new options, combined with ability to shift batteries supply between ground backup vs vehicles, this is new stuff. It allows them to offer incentives or technologies that intersects their pathfinding in the future. That's ideal supply chain management and Tesla's is demonstrating superior flexibility - Ready to withstand and adapt to the wild dynamics around it in the world today.
Take with a grain of salt just like yesterday since we normally don't get any insight into Tesla's monthly US numbers. Not sure why/how all of sudden but I'm assuming it's registration data. This does seem to line up with the Experian numbers and also what that one analyst who checks Fremont often was saying about Fremont production
But this source is saying Tesla sold 42,742 vehicles in the US in Feb, with a total of 82,907 sold year to date. If these numbers are in the correct ballpark, we can start to figure out Q1's Delivery number -
Shanghai - Local Sales/Exports
Jan - 59,845
Feb - 56,515
March - 80,000 (still about 7,000 surplus left over from Jan production)
Fremont - US sales
Jan -40,165
Feb - 42,742
March - 50,000
Fremont Export number (anyone have a good idea of this?) - 7,000
Fremont Canada number for Q1 - 8,000
Add them all up, and we're looking at a 344,267 delivery number for Q1. I don't think any analyst is even remotely this high. It's technically possible that Tesla could hit the 350,000 number. March is by far the heaviest delivery month for both Fremont and Shanghai due to logistics (they send/export vehicles to the farther regions in the 1st/2nd month of each quarter while focusing on deliveries close to the factory in the final month of the quarter).
We also have no clue as to what to expect for Berlin/Austin deliveries by end of March. Maybe they get to 1,000-1,500 between the two of them.
Incredibly bullish numbers if the US sales numbers are correct. Honestly seems a bit too good to be true lol. Tesla would already be at a 1.4 million run rate for the year......in the first quarter of the year....before Shanghai does it's production increase in April and Berlin/Austin start contributing. It would mean 1.75-1.80 million is on the table for 2022.
But this source is saying Tesla sold 42,742 vehicles in the US in Feb, with a total of 82,907 sold year to date. If these numbers are in the correct ballpark, we can start to figure out Q1's Delivery number -
Shanghai - Local Sales/Exports
Jan - 59,845
Feb - 56,515
March - 80,000 (still about 7,000 surplus left over from Jan production)
Fremont - US sales
Jan -40,165
Feb - 42,742
March - 50,000
Fremont Export number (anyone have a good idea of this?) - 7,000
Fremont Canada number for Q1 - 8,000
Add them all up, and we're looking at a 344,267 delivery number for Q1. I don't think any analyst is even remotely this high. It's technically possible that Tesla could hit the 350,000 number. March is by far the heaviest delivery month for both Fremont and Shanghai due to logistics (they send/export vehicles to the farther regions in the 1st/2nd month of each quarter while focusing on deliveries close to the factory in the final month of the quarter).
We also have no clue as to what to expect for Berlin/Austin deliveries by end of March. Maybe they get to 1,000-1,500 between the two of them.
Incredibly bullish numbers if the US sales numbers are correct. Honestly seems a bit too good to be true lol. Tesla would already be at a 1.4 million run rate for the year......in the first quarter of the year....before Shanghai does it's production increase in April and Berlin/Austin start contributing. It would mean 1.75-1.80 million is on the table for 2022.
Last edited:
Isn't this part of the wave they're trying to eliminate? Quarterly numbers game aside, why should domestic customers have to wait longer, that's not a balanced system of distribution. Or is this not part of the wave issue?
Are you talking about Fremont?
Fremont exports two ships worth of vehicles to South Korea. It's very small compared to the total production of Fremont every quarter. As for logistics, in the first month, they send the majority of their cars to the east coast of north america. 2nd month to middle north america and 3rd month goes to west coast/Vancouver. This is smart delivery logistics, not really a wave.
Austin will help with some of this because Austin will be production for east coast of north america.
I think they want to eliminate extra expenses associated with trying to really smash the numbers. Still there is a natural lets work hard to squeeze in extra deliveries. Just not do things that really cost extra.
May I suggest a post of merit designation?Just for a tiny clarification: "...the rules are written by the owners of this casino" is not exactly correct. Casinos are regulated in nearly every jurisdiction, nearly all have minimum payout rules for applicable games and maximum takes for others. The securities rules, in the US, are written by the participants and are deeply obscured and undisclosed, mostly. Thus the securities game is far riskier than casino poker, say, o even slot machines. In the securities game the actual fees are NEVER disclosed to retail purchasers. In casinos they always are disclosed.
FWIW, by bizarre coincidence one of my colleagues worked with me on the operating system integration of a huge Wall Street firm forced takeover in the 2008 affair. He subsequently led an operating system update for a major US Casino operator. From my discussions with him it was obvious that casino systems were clear, fairly simple, fully disclosed and reported to regulators through exacting audits by multiple parties. By contrast the major securities firms have no reporting required in multiple areas, and long time delays in others. There are always substantial areas undisclosed which include multiple fees and operating payments.
It is only through my associate's dual experiences that the scope of all this became clear. Clear because the securities version is deeply opaque. Further, the term 'owners' itself is a bit too specific, since even that has some significant ambiguities. The wiki explains DTCC without explaining anything, NOT an accident:
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation - Wikipedia. Among the cleverest non-informational information is found here:
To be clear: my personal experience dated from the 1973 establishment of DTC, which obviated the courier industry. Multilateral meeting was the largest challenge then so the NSSC in 1976. It was those two and their implementation that ended out facilitating much of the nefarious activity because almost every State regulation was eliminated when these two central organizations were created. They now gradually has grown to encompass most global securities trading. In turn two products: Global Custody and Global Master Trust acted to further insulate securities transactions from much significant regulatory oversight. I worked very naively on both of those, at one time visiting more than 100 countries within a four month period to help establish comprehensive coverage.Compliance at DTCC
DTCC is firmly committed to preserving the safety and soundness of its operations and protecting its reputation in the global financial community.www.dtcc.com
Nearly everyone I ever encountered was very well informed operationally and totally ignorant of the implications. That applied to me. Bluntly, I finally connected the dots in 2008, when I worked on a number of the major deals. I felt angered and ashamed because it was so entirely obvious that very, very few people had any idea what the were doing. As I have said repeatedly that included Nobel Prize winners.
People who play in the securities market on buy and hold unless a major defect happens to the issuer of the securities usually do well.
Mutual funds, derivatives regardless of type, or dealing with non-member brokers nearly always lose, often after a short period of huge gains. Common stocks that have high volatility are guaranteed to harm anyone who does not buy and hold. The system has been carefully designed to strip active traders from their wealth as soon as possible. Mutual funds are designed to do that with a slightly higher degree of finesse.
Diversification is a good thing, but I only works when the investor knows exactly what each portfolio item represents. Warren Buffet, vilified by some because he avoided technology because he did not understand it, has had a wise and durable policy never to buy something he did not understand. That is always wise.
Buying TSLA for many, perhaps most, of us I very prudent because we all know the company, its' warts and risks. In my own portfolio I do have multiple investments. Every one I watch closely. One major one I sold last year when top management changed. If material negative events happen to TSLA I would sell also. As always the major problem is to know what is material and what is a transitory setback. Sound investment si hard work. Ben Graham was really correct. The fact is that the knowledge one needs to do value investing today is different than it was for him. Today information access makes value investing much harder work because it is so much easier to find both value and anti-value and so much more difficult to understand which is which.
In our parochial terms:
Tesla vs Fisker, Workhorse or Rivian. CATL vs LG, Panasonic, Northvolt or SK. How about BYD? There are so many others, but most of our time and effort is spent on legacy ICE, nearly all of which will gradually or quickly diminish in relevance. So , short the sure losers? No, not a chance for me, anyway. Those legacy ones have deep and lucrative ties to the same people who 'own' the securities industry. Thus, they'll worker continuing government bailouts with soft landings because that si what they always, always do. They aren't about to lose their profits. They will let the stopped shells fail, or those who don't play by their 'rules'.
For reference look at Lehman Brothers; Bear, Stearns; AIG, LTCM. Those were all highly profitable, highly visible and too arrogant to the wrong people so that were annihilated. That pattern repeats with every crisis. They'll not be too upset to see Stellantis go, although Italy and France may win the day for them. Ford and GM will have the Bank of America, Wachovia, or Merrill Lynch solution in one version or another.
As investors we really need to avoid becoming collateral damage. Never, ever engage in leveraged transactions in a rising interest rate environment. NEVER.
OK, my disclosure: That's what I do. It is not advice because I have no license to offer advice. To be explicit: I now have exactly zero debt. Thus, I resemble pretty much the Tesla posture, maintain positive cash flow, as positive as possible. Take no new debt that is not easily paid by current assets. Each or my personal equity investments has a similar policy.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Great post!Just for a tiny clarification: "...the rules are written by the owners of this casino" is not exactly correct. Casinos are regulated in nearly every jurisdiction, nearly all have minimum payout rules for applicable games and maximum takes for others. The securities rules, in the US, are written by the participants and are deeply obscured and undisclosed, mostly. Thus the securities game is far riskier than casino poker, say, o even slot machines. In the securities game the actual fees are NEVER disclosed to retail purchasers. In casinos they always are disclosed.
FWIW, by bizarre coincidence one of my colleagues worked with me on the operating system integration of a huge Wall Street firm forced takeover in the 2008 affair. He subsequently led an operating system update for a major US Casino operator. From my discussions with him it was obvious that casino systems were clear, fairly simple, fully disclosed and reported to regulators through exacting audits by multiple parties. By contrast the major securities firms have no reporting required in multiple areas, and long time delays in others. There are always substantial areas undisclosed which include multiple fees and operating payments.
It is only through my associate's dual experiences that the scope of all this became clear. Clear because the securities version is deeply opaque. Further, the term 'owners' itself is a bit too specific, since even that has some significant ambiguities. The wiki explains DTCC without explaining anything, NOT an accident:
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation - Wikipedia. Among the cleverest non-informational information is found here:
To be clear: my personal experience dated from the 1973 establishment of DTC, which obviated the courier industry. Multilateral meeting was the largest challenge then so the NSSC in 1976. It was those two and their implementation that ended out facilitating much of the nefarious activity because almost every State regulation was eliminated when these two central organizations were created. They now gradually has grown to encompass most global securities trading. In turn two products: Global Custody and Global Master Trust acted to further insulate securities transactions from much significant regulatory oversight. I worked very naively on both of those, at one time visiting more than 100 countries within a four month period to help establish comprehensive coverage.Compliance at DTCC
DTCC is firmly committed to preserving the safety and soundness of its operations and protecting its reputation in the global financial community.
Nearly everyone I ever encountered was very well informed operationally and totally ignorant of the implications. That applied to me. Bluntly, I finally connected the dots in 2008, when I worked on a number of the major deals. I felt angered and ashamed because it was so entirely obvious that very, very few people had any idea what the were doing. As I have said repeatedly that included Nobel Prize winners.
People who play in the securities market on buy and hold unless a major defect happens to the issuer of the securities usually do well.
Mutual funds, derivatives regardless of type, or dealing with non-member brokers nearly always lose, often after a short period of huge gains. Common stocks that have high volatility are guaranteed to harm anyone who does not buy and hold. The system has been carefully designed to strip active traders from their wealth as soon as possible. Mutual funds are designed to do that with a slightly higher degree of finesse.
Diversification is a good thing, but I only works when the investor knows exactly what each portfolio item represents. Warren Buffet, vilified by some because he avoided technology because he did not understand it, has had a wise and durable policy never to buy something he did not understand. That is always wise.
Buying TSLA for many, perhaps most, of us I very prudent because we all know the company, its' warts and risks. In my own portfolio I do have multiple investments. Every one I watch closely. One major one I sold last year when top management changed. If material negative events happen to TSLA I would sell also. As always the major problem is to know what is material and what is a transitory setback. Sound investment si hard work. Ben Graham was really correct. The fact is that the knowledge one needs to do value investing today is different than it was for him. Today information access makes value investing much harder work because it is so much easier to find both value and anti-value and so much more difficult to understand which is which.
In our parochial terms:
Tesla vs Fisker, Workhorse or Rivian. CATL vs LG, Panasonic, Northvolt or SK. How about BYD? There are so many others, but most of our time and effort is spent on legacy ICE, nearly all of which will gradually or quickly diminish in relevance. So , short the sure losers? No, not a chance for me, anyway. Those legacy ones have deep and lucrative ties to the same people who 'own' the securities industry. Thus, they'll worker continuing government bailouts with soft landings because that si what they always, always do. They aren't about to lose their profits. They will let the stopped shells fail, or those who don't play by their 'rules'.
For reference look at Lehman Brothers; Bear, Stearns; AIG, LTCM. Those were all highly profitable, highly visible and too arrogant to the wrong people so that were annihilated. That pattern repeats with every crisis. They'll not be too upset to see Stellantis go, although Italy and France may win the day for them. Ford and GM will have the Bank of America, Wachovia, or Merrill Lynch solution in one version or another.
As investors we really need to avoid becoming collateral damage. Never, ever engage in leveraged transactions in a rising interest rate environment. NEVER.
OK, my disclosure: That's what I do. It is not advice because I have no license to offer advice. To be explicit: I now have exactly zero debt. Thus, I resemble pretty much the Tesla posture, maintain positive cash flow, as positive as possible. Take no new debt that is not easily paid by current assets. Each or my personal equity investments has a similar policy.
Having just been in Las Vegas casinos last weekend, I can say at least that my investment brokerage doesn't hand me unlimited free alcohol and distract me with bright colors and pretty women while I'm making trades. I think the overall odds are better fighting Wall Street than casinos. At least I can win with an information advantage.
Last edited:
It's Taiwan and South Korea. I forget the reason, but there's a specific reason Fremont production goes to South Korea and from Shanghai
Is this true? Do you have a copy of the settlement plan? Every accounting of ownership to prove qualification for inclusion in such a distribution that I have ever seen has required, in order, number of shares acquired, date, number of shares sold, date. The purchase date has to come before the sales date. Shorts don't do it that way. This relief for short sellers, if true, is a disaster for investors.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Inventory reduction rather than direct logistics expenses is the main advantage to reducing the quarterly wave. I only realized this recently.
As I've been harping on lately, Tesla's amazingly low inventory these days is accelerating their speed of innovation by shortening the lag time between design and real world testing. The sooner a car with a new feature arrives to the customer, the sooner Tesla gets data from the car on how well the new design is performing. This helps increase the rate of design iterations per unit time.
The delivery wave strategy pushes some volume further back in time, meaning less usage data in the earlier months.
For this earnings call I'll be submitting a say.com question about this because I don't understand why they're still doing the wave at all. It seems incongruent with Elon's precept that "pace of innovation is all that matters in the long run".
More Autopilot FUD by Senator Blumenthal.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
