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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I have two accounts where I simply HODL the majority of my TSLA shares, but I also have a little brokerage account where I try my hand at day & swing trading as a personal challenge to see how high I can grow the account. These weekly swings in TSLA have been great fun, I buy a few dozen shares when it gets down below $815 and I sell them whenever it gets up to $850. It's been profitable! :cool:

Is it tax-deferred?

Either way I would suggest that, over long time periods you would be better off to just hold the same amount you have set aside for swing trading in long-term TSLA shares. The reason for this is invariably you will miss out on some big surprise moves and your capital will not be deployed or will only be partially deployed. While swing trading, it often will seem like you are making "easy money" right up until you are not. Compounding long-term gains on a company like TSLA can generally outperform swing traders. There is always an exception but it's unlikely you are that exception. Unless you happen to also be a better than average driver. ;)

The exceptions are almost non-existent if the gains are not tax deferred. That's why the proven and tested way to build real wealth is to buy and hold. Yes, I'm repeating myself, but some things deserve repeating.

I will also point out a different common characteristic of losing behavior, even for people who think of themselves as "buy and hold" investors:

After a prolonged period of pain (defined as a long period of flat to negative appreciation), followed by new all-time highs, many people can't help themselves from pushing the sell button, at least on a portion of their position, even though they don't need the money. It just "feels" like the thing to do to 'heal' after waiting up to two or even three years for the stock to appreciate again. To take profits. Because they don't want to go through those years of pain again. The fallacy here is that the seemingly high and joyous price is often just as likely to continue to appreciate, after some minor pull-backs, as it ever was.

Having said that, there are times when, in hindsight, big money can be made by selling at the top and investing in other things for a few years and buying back in later, when the stock is ready to appreciate again. The obvious fallacy here is thinking an individual can identify these points with a degree of accuracy and consistency to make it worthwhile. Do you know anyone who sold TSLA at the highs of 2014 after 10X'ing their investment, and used all that money to buy back in 5 years later near the lows of 2019 (after profitably re-deploying the capital in the interim)? Neither do I. They are out there but they are few and far between. However, the people who simply held all their shares have done phenomenal and they didn't have to figure out a profitable place to deploy that capital for 5 years in the middle. Sure, it could have been even more profitable if they had, but who could time that and do it with such confidence that they would re-deploy the full amount at the right time near the lows of 2019?

Every swing trader feels like a genius when most of their trades are going their way, a string of "bad luck" or bad decisions can turn the tables very quickly. Very few swing-traders become multi-millionaires over, say, a 30 year period, relative to those who buy and hold growth companies. And yet, people still want to try. They justify it by only using a portion of their investable capital which partially mitigates, but does not fix the problem.

Honestly, I don't care whether people swing trade or not, I've been known to have fun in a casino where the odds are even worse, but I do think people should go into it with their eyes wide open, knowing that it is just a sport that will likely cost them some appreciation over time. And the younger you are, the more difference it will make over time. Compounding over time, even at slightly higher average rates of return, can make a huge difference down the road. The obvious solution is to increase, not decrease, the chances your average rate of return will be higher.
 
Time to add 100 miles, 200 Miles, and 300 Miles from 10% remaining charge should be required added on the sticker for every EV sold. Another useful metric, average charge rate in MPH from 0-80% state of charge.

This metric of “How much you can charge in 10 minutes” is worthless because it doesn’t include any idea of the effect of tapering or battery size.

Of course… if they are mucking with what to put on stickers I’d really like to see more useful range numbers. Highway range at 65MPH and 75MPH would be much more useful than the current numbers.
I LOVE this sticker idea advertising how fast Superchargers charge a Tesla for the marketing value towards visiting non-Tesla owners.... a little something for them to compare and think about while they sit and wait and watch their not-Tesla not-charge fast while they sit and wait...

They can't miss seeing it while they wait in their slow charging Mach-E or VW-ID-4 or whatever...

...while all the Teslas come and go...
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12 and Ogre
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.

Rob Maurer of the Tesla Daily channel on Youtube lays out the terms of the proposal in this 3 min video segment:

It Took Three Years For THIS? | Tesla Daily

 
I LOVE this sticker idea advertising how fast Superchargers charge a Tesla for the marketing value towards visiting non-Tesla owners.... a little something for them to compare and think about while they sit and wait and watch their not-Tesla not-charge fast while they sit and wait...

They can't miss seeing it while they wait in their slow charging Mach-E or VW-ID-4 or whatever...

...while all the Teslas come and go...
Does it mean I should keep away from the Superchargers in my Model S from 2015? With regards to Supercharger speed it’s not the best advertising… /s
 
Rob Maurer of the Tesla Daily channel on Youtube lays out the terms of the proposal in this 3 min video segment:

It Took Three Years For THIS? | Tesla Daily

Thanks Dodger: That 3rd condition for compensation to the shorts is the disaster I'm talking about. Now I can see there is another reason (besides being lazy and incompetent) that the SEC has taken so long. This is definitely the first time I have ever seen a settlement issued to harmed investors that includes compensation to short-sellers and, by extension, equates short-sellers to investors. If anyone can point to any past case of a class settlement that included harmed short-sellers (now know as market participants), I'd love to see it.
 
Tesla told us on the Q4 earnings call they could do 50% YoY increase without berlin or austin at all this year.

That'd be just shy of 1.4 million.

So 1.75-1.80 with Berlin and Austin included doesn't seem at all out of line with what we already knew a while ago.
This is way better what we already knew.
1.4 million was the guidance for Fremont and Shanghai for all of 2022.

If Fremont and Shanghai are already at a 1.4 million run rate for Q1, and we still expect them to increase output, then cumulative 2022 production will be perhaps 1.7-1.8 million.

If we expect conservatively 0.2-0.3 million from Berlin and Texas, total expected is now 1.9-2.1 million.
 
Thanks Dodger: That 3rd condition for compensation to the shorts is the disaster I'm talking about. Now I can see there is another reason (besides being lazy and incompetent) that the SEC has taken so long. This is definitely the first time I have ever seen a settlement issued to harmed investors that includes compensation to short-sellers and, by extension, equates short-sellers to investors. If anyone can point to any past case of a class settlement that included harmed short-sellers (now know as market participants), I'd love to see it.
This is why I said I figured Tesla would fight the settlement of the funds. It is terrible.

The SEC likely got the suggestion from someone on Wall Street who stood to benefit. Maybe deliberately structured in a way that Tesla would object to it so they can say “See we knew they didn’t really want to distribute these funds”.
 
Great post!

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.
You could if you had one. You don't. That is the point. Only the insiders know and there are very few of them. nearly all 'insiders' are in operational roles so do not know enough to take advantage.
That is why buy and hold works. Then, at least, you can use all the public information.

In a casino you do know all the rules.
 
Tesla told us on the Q4 earnings call they could do 50% YoY increase without berlin or austin at all this year.

That'd be just shy of 1.4 million.

So 1.75-1.80 with Berlin and Austin included doesn't seem at all out of line with what we already knew a while ago.
Only problem with these numbers is it assumes Tesla will have the parts to produce 400k additional vehicles which might not be the case. They might end up shifting production from one facility to the other to save on shipping and tariffs but not be able to produce many additional vehicles due to shortages.

If they do get the parts, production should be fantastic.
 
This is way better what we already knew.
1.4 million was the guidance for Fremont and Shanghai for all of 2022.

If Fremont and Shanghai are already at a 1.4 million run rate for Q1, and we still expect them to increase output, then cumulative 2022 production will be perhaps 1.7-1.8 million.

If we expect conservatively 0.2-0.3 million from Berlin and Texas, total expected is now 1.9-2.1 million.
I wonder how many fewer gallons of gas is burned with each additional Tesla car on average?
 
This is way better what we already knew.
1.4 million was the guidance for Fremont and Shanghai for all of 2022.

If Fremont and Shanghai are already at a 1.4 million run rate for Q1, and we still expect them to increase output, then cumulative 2022 production will be perhaps 1.7-1.8 million.

If we expect conservatively 0.2-0.3 million from Berlin and Texas, total expected is now 1.9-2.1 million.
Correct. This would be Tesla hitting a 1.4 million run rate as of today…..just be utilizing Fremont/Shanghai closer to that max capacity.

This is before the production increase from the Shanghai expansion that will be completed in April and before Tesla has expanded Fremont by 50% like they guided for.

That’s why I say the numbers seem too good to be true. Since these monthly US numbers are not official sources, I’ll temper my expectations to 335k deliveries for Q1. But it still means 1.8 million is in play for 2022. Possibly even 1.9 million
 
Only problem with these numbers is it assumes Tesla will have the parts to produce 400k additional vehicles which might not be the case. They might end up shifting production from one facility to the other to save on shipping and tariffs but not be able to produce many additional vehicles due to shortages.

If they do get the parts, production should be fantastic.
It really comes down to chips.

Tesla has all the other supplies locked up - nickel, lithium, cells, etc….

And all commentary I’ve seen by the Asian chipmakers is that supply constraints are continuing to ease and that they don’t expect a interruption from the Ukraine situation
 
Correct. This would be Tesla hitting a 1.4 million run rate as of today…..just be utilizing Fremont/Shanghai closer to that max capacity.

This is before the production increase from the Shanghai expansion that will be completed in April and before Tesla has expanded Fremont by 50% like they guided for.

That’s why I say the numbers seem too good to be true. Since these monthly US numbers are not official sources, I’ll temper my expectations to 335k deliveries for Q1. But it still means 1.8 million is in play for 2022. Possibly even 1.9 million
I'm going to go out on a limb here based on the last 2 years.....
2020 was a couple shy of 500K
2021 was a couple shy of 1M
2022 is going to be a couple shy of 2M!
 
Just for a tiny clarification: "...the rules are written by the owners of this casino" is not exactly correct.
Haha, you're right! I really meant "brothel".

Casinos are regulated in nearly every jurisdiction
At least in Vegas, the brothels are regulated too. Wall St? Not so much... :p

Cheers!
 
I wonder how many fewer gallons of gas is burned with each additional Tesla car on average?
Sorry for the OT post... market just closed :) What you're talking about is the average number of gallons burned by cars that would be on the roads if Tesla didn't exist. That of course depends on the odometer reading of the car. 8yr old ICE cars have burned a lot more gallons than 3-month-old ICE cars.

If you want to talk about lifetime odometer readings, I believe you have to use the total odometer readings of Tesla cars - since, driving one Tesla for 400,000 miles before it is junked is the same as driving two ICE cars for 200,000 miles each before they are junked.

If every Tesla lasts 400,000 miles before it is eventually junked, then 400,000 miles driven in ICE cars that get 25mpg (another average based on various factors) would be 16,000 gallons of gas saved.
 
A fact: This morning I went to my local Tesla Service Center and store in Coral Gables, Florida intending to ask about a solar roof. The parking lot was inundated with new Teslae. In the showroom there were more than a dozen customers waiting while another larger group was milling around the parking lots.There was not enough room to even enter the lot to turn around. Another nearly lots was also stuffed full of new Teslae. Further while I was being amazed by all this I saw two trucks full o new Teslae turning near the store. I then followed one and found another large lot full of new Teslae. I have no idea who many there were but I counted five new deliveries during the ten minutes I waited. Obviously, I gave up.

I've seen a handful of quarter-end rushes. I have never seen anything quite like this. Frankly I don't know what to make of it. If this is commonplace elsewhere right now it seems to portend something new- a blowout quarter. Oh well, maybe not, Grüneheide can't possible deliver more than a few thousand, Fremont and Shanghai are quite maxed out and Austin might not even deliver this quarter. /s

Outselling BMW by nearly double in January in the US is just the beginning.
Does Tesla need to buy Nickel on the spot market?
Is Tesla unable to adapt to alternative semiconductor supplies?
Are Tesla employees motivated to change the world?
Does Elon have time left over to help Ukraine with crucial communications and logistical issues?
All that and a shiny new broomstick taking flight!

For some reason I feel irrational optimism in the midst of geopolitical disaster.

Schizophrenia, here I am.
 
So...

  • Estimates of 345k Q1 production
    • 2022 deliveries easily could be around 2 million at this rate
  • Oil prices driving massive increase in demand for Teslas, resulting in doubling of the daily order rate.
    • We already were amidst a profound awakening to the desirability of EVs before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Here were my scenarios posted on Jan 7th. If these two rumors are true the bull case prediction may be closest to accurate. I'm glad I bought 2023 call options.

BearBaseBull
Deliveries1.5M1.7M2.0M
Avg Price$57k$60k$63k
Gross Margin31%34%37%
Operating Expenses$9B$8B$7B
EBIT$18B$27B$39B
 
Last edited:
Correct. This would be Tesla hitting a 1.4 million run rate as of today…..just be utilizing Fremont/Shanghai closer to that max capacity.

This is before the production increase from the Shanghai expansion that will be completed in April and before Tesla has expanded Fremont by 50% like they guided for.

That’s why I say the numbers seem too good to be true. Since these monthly US numbers are not official sources, I’ll temper my expectations to 335k deliveries for Q1. But it still means 1.8 million is in play for 2022. Possibly even 1.9 million
So...

  • Estimates of 345k Q1 production
    • 2022 deliveries easily could be around 2 million at this rate
  • Oil prices driving massive increase in demand for Teslas resulting in doubling of the daily order rate. We already were amidst a profound awakening to the desirability of EVs before Russia invaded.
Here were my scenarios posted on Jan 7th. If these two rumors are true the bull case prediction may be closest to accurate. I'm glad I bought 2023 call options.

BearBaseBull
Deliveries1.5M1.7M2.0M
Avg Price$57k$60k$63k
Gross Margin31%34%37%
Operating Expenses$9B$8B$7B
EBIT$18B$27B$39B

Are we sure @Gigapress and @StarFoxisDown! aren't the same person?
 
Last edited: