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

[SageBrush]

The Leaf was not a Home Run. It was a bloop single; a ground rule double at best.

From Nissan's POV LEAF was a failure.
Their investment R&D was built on a presumption of selling a million LEAF a year. They never came close, and they had to heavily discount to move product, which is why R&D dried up and the LEAF changed very little over the next 10 years.

 

[ggies07]

The Leaf was not a Home Run. It was a bloop single; a ground rule double at best.

Then the runner got stranded on third base.

oddly enough, I took my first EV test drive in a LEAF in 2011. My fate was sealed from then on - I knew electric was it. Soon after I found Tesla and the rest is history!

So no sale from me, but got me hooked on EVs.

 

[Accident]

oddly enough, I took my first EV test drive in a LEAF in 2011. My fate was sealed from then on - I knew electric was it. Soon after I found Tesla and the rest is history!

So no sale from me, but got me hooked on EVs.

I bought a Leaf back in 2013. 84 miles of range before degradation, and I still put 60k miles on the car before I sold it 3 years later. Not the best car, but I got to convince a lot of people that EVs are the future and that range is not everything. A coworker bought it from me, and it's still on the road with the original battery.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Also, it highlights how important the Dojo project is to Tesla as an AI company.

Agreed. I also think that Twitter could be the first outside customer for Tesla Dojo-as-a-Service (DaaS).

#PREDICT

 

[ZeApelido]

I give GJ credit that he hasn't blocked Joe yet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1511817307504349187

 

[hitchhiker]

I bought a Leaf back in 2013. 84 miles of range before degradation, and I still put 60k miles on the car before I sold it 3 years later. Not the best car, but I got to convince a lot of people that EVs are the future and that range is not everything. A coworker bought it from me, and it's still on the road with the original battery.

Leased a 2013 leaf for 3 years. The only reason I didn't keep is was I wanted more than 100 miles of range. Oh, and by then Tesla had come along so I realized that's what I wanted.

 

[gene]

In 2015, I already had my 2013 Model S but I bought a Nissan Leaf to loan out to people. One after another, the lowly Leaf was able to convert many people to owning EV's.

 

[Tes La Ferrari]

Bank of America Raises PT on Tesla TSLA to $1,300

Bank of America has raised the price target on Tesla to $1,300 per share from $1,100. At the same time, the firm is cutting the price target on General Motors and Rivian.

www.tesmanian.com

TL: DR: "Bank of America has raised its price target on Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) to $1,300 per share from $1,100. Meanwhile, the firm is cutting its price targets for General Motors and Rivian."

 

[Zero CO2]

Don't worry about that, we have TSLAQ to cue the feds in on when to flip to the monopoly attack. TSLAQ will not see any disconnect in switching from "Tesla is structurally unprofitable" to "Tesla is abusing their monopoly power". Anti-trust enforcement is serious business and the Feds will not act without substantial ammunition that they will never have. And they are very slow to take this kind of action, even if it were misguided.

I have written in length on the fact that monopolies are not illegal - it's only when a company uses their market dominance to prevent competition from competing in that market using exclusionary tactics that it becomes illegal so I won't go over all of that now. Suffice to say that Tesla would not employ anti-competitive tactics for two reasons:

1) It runs counter to Tesla's mission statement. Tesla wants EV's to proliferate.
2) Tesla will not need to employ such tactics to continue gaining market share due to their large (and growing) cost to produce advantage.

Having said that, I still don't understand your distraction theory that you apparently think is valid. There is no way Musk could use Twitter as a distraction from anti-trust enforcement as influence over Twitter would only serve to highlight anti-trust concerns, not cover them up.

ok you are right my distraction theory is hokum ... you just could not end it ... ...i am thick but i don't see how Elon specific Twitter involvement highlights anti -trust .... for Tesla ...my only point is Elon keeps moving the focus on him away from Tesla and that is a good thing relative to the eventual market dominance ...
and while I have limited knowledge of the sherman act ... it sort of does not matter whether Tesla is following the letter of the law ..only matters how far the masses trying to bring Tesla down will be willing to go to break them

I’m no lawyer but we did learn a bit about US market power laws in my economics classes in college and here is my understanding. As far as I know, monopoly achieved solely by merit is legal.

Spoiler: Monopoly legal stuff

The primary law that could affect Tesla in the USA is the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It has a section specifying that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony”

Sounds bad for Tesla!

But not really, because, in Wikipedia’s words:

​

“Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether the conduct unreasonably restrains trade.​

​

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.”​

Courts would consider factors such as:

1) Tesla open-sourced all their patents for anyone who would use them in good faith.

2) Tesla has always actively encouraged other companies to make more EVs and batteries and solar and has historically helped companies like Toyota with making EVs and still has an open invitation to help anyone.

3) Tesla has made no attempt to collude with other companies for forming a price-fixing cartel.

4) Tesla is opening up the Supercharger network for non-Tesla EV drivers.

5) Tesla is working as hard as possible to increase quantity supplied instead of illegally restricting supply to raise prices to earn more overall revenue.

6) Tesla’s acquisitions like Hibar, Maxwell, and Grohmann have been clearly for the purpose of integration and innovation that ultimately helps the end consumer and society as a whole.

7) Tesla has not contractually forbidden competitors from using Tesla products in ways that would impede competition.

8) Tesla has not merged with or acquired any competitors.

9) Tesla has not included non-compete stipulations of exclusivity in any of their supply contracts (e.g. Panasonic is free to sell battery cells to anyone else).

10) Most importantly, Tesla achieved dominant monopoly status by vision, audacity and world-class execution. Winning fair and square is perfectly legal. It’s not Tesla’s fault that competitors voluntarily, stupidly, and haughtily decided to give them 15 years of a head start while offering mostly derision and condescension towards Tesla until they woke up to reality.

At worst perhaps Tesla could be criticized in court for bundling FSD with vehicles and powerwall with solar, or for not allowing 3rd parties to access parts and repair instructions for servicing Tesla vehicles.

I understand that monopoly law tends to be similar in other major capitalistic jurisdictions like EU, UK, China, Canada, etc. I would still keep an eye out for this however because if antitrust suits do come someday it could reduce Tesla’s long term investment value. As I’ve said before, if Tesla is forcibly dismantled like AT&T or Standard Oil that would be bad for cost, rate of innovation and the customer experience.

Homework
Competition Law
US Antitrust Law
Sherman Act
US v. AT&T
Std Oil v. US

lots of good stuff here thanks ... i still think the rule of law vs spirit may be at play ... I appreciate the strong reactions and good homework on this topic ... my point may have been off base may as simple as Elon want to fix Twitter ... Occums Razor

 

[Ogre]

Don't worry about that, we have TSLAQ to cue the feds in on when to flip to the monopoly attack. TSLAQ will not see any disconnect in switching from "Tesla is structurally unprofitable" to "Tesla is abusing their monopoly power". Anti-trust enforcement is serious business and the Feds will not act without substantial ammunition that they will never have. And they are very slow to take this kind of action, even if it were misguided.

This is right out of the Apple Hater's playbook*. With the right emphasis, they will be able to argue both that a company is irrelevant and a monopoly without batting an eye. Before too long here someone is going to claim Tesla has a monopoly in "Electric Vehicles" and want to ignore the rest of the industry just for discussions about them being a monopoly. I'm sure they are already frothing at the mouth looking for a chance to talk about how the Supercharger network is an abuse of their monopoly power.


* I only mention this because this exact thing is what happened with Apple. Even as people were quoting how Android has 80% of the market, they were also claiming Apple had a monopoly. There is no logic to hate-fans.

 

[lafrisbee]

I’ll take it. I will then reward it to the person who most entertains me. Dance, monkeys, dance!

 

[Chunky Jr.]

This is right out of the Apple Hater's playbook. With the right emphasis, they will be able to argue both that a company is irrelevant and a monopoly without batting an eye. Before too long here someone is going to claim Tesla has a monopoly in "Electric Vehicles" and want to ignore the rest of the industry just for discussions about them being a monopoly. I'm sure they are already frothing at the mouth looking for a chance to talk about how the Supercharger network is an abuse of their monopoly power.

and while they are screaming "monopoly!" they will also say the competition is going to put Tesla out of business

 

[JusRelax]

Conversation from two days ago.

Mom: Here comes $1300.

Me: *laughs* When Mom? Like soon or months from now?

So there you have it.

Bank of America Raises PT on Tesla TSLA to $1,300

Bank of America has raised the price target on Tesla to $1,300 per share from $1,100. At the same time, the firm is cutting the price target on General Motors and Rivian.

www.tesmanian.com

TL: DR: "Bank of America has raised its price target on Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) to $1,300 per share from $1,100. Meanwhile, the firm is cutting its price targets for General Motors and Rivian."

@Krugerrand Did your mom's financial advisor ask her for advice on TSLA stock investing any time recently?

 

[StealthP3D]

.i am thick but i don't see how Elon specific Twitter involvement highlights anti -trust .... for Tesla ...my only point is Elon keeps moving the focus on him away from Tesla and that is a good thing relative to the eventual market dominance ...
and while I have limited knowledge of the sherman act ... it sort of does not matter whether Tesla is following the letter of the law ..only matters how far the masses trying to bring Tesla down will be willing to go to break them

Basically, the case would be that Elon has leveraged his great success in EV's to purchase a large stake in a social media company so he could control public dialogue in a way that further strengthens Tesla's dominance in automotive sales without having to spend money (like his competitors do) on advertising. It's not a great argument because he was using Twitter before he got involved with Twitter at the management level but anti-trust concerns get bigger as power/wealth/dominance spreads across multiple large successful businesses in different sectors, they don't become less concerning.

It's pretty difficult to bring anti-trust cases because government lawyers need well-documented bad behavior to make a convincing case and the defendants are always well funded with the best legal representation money can buy. The government can only win such cases when there is clear egregious behavior on the part of the defendant so I really don't think anti-trust is something TSLA shareholders need to worry about, even if Tesla ended up with 80% market share. Because, if Tesla grows market share that large, it would probably not be because Tesla used anti-competitive tactics or other dirty tricks.

Tesla's success to date is due to superior design and engineering of both the vehicles and the factories, including the design of their supply and deliver chains and this trajectory suggests that's how Tesla will continue to dominate. Elon would have it no other way.

 

[Knightshade]

Has any anti-trust action ever been undertaken (let alone undertaken successfully) against a company with a single digit market share?

If not (and I'm fairly sure the answer is no) maybe we can table the silly OMG MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT WORRIES discussion until Tesla gets to at least 10% of vehicles sold? (Or 10% of all insurance issued, or 10% of all energy supplied, or 10% of all operating robotaxis, etc...)

(as a practical matter- a court generally won't consider a monopoly claim at less than 50% market share either- but I figure we start small)

 

[betstarship]

Basically, the case would be that Elon has levered his great success in EV's to purchase a large stake in a social media company so he could control public dialogue in a way that further strengthens Tesla's dominance in automotive sales without having to spend money (like his competitors do) on advertising. It's not a great argument because he was using Twitter before he got involved with Twitter at the management level but anti-trust concerns get bigger as power/wealth/dominance spreads across multiple large successful businesses in different sectors, they don't become less concerning.

It's pretty difficult to bring anti-trust cases because government lawyers need well-documented bad behavior to make a convincing case and the defendants are always well funded with the best legal representation money can buy. The government can only win such cases when there is clear egregious behavior on the part of the defendant so I really don't think anti-trust is something TSLA shareholders need to worry about, even if Tesla ended up with 80% market share. Because, if Tesla grows market share that large, it would probably not be because Tesla used anti-competitive tactics or other dirty tricks.

Tesla's success to date is due to superior design and engineering of both the vehicles and the factories, including the design of their supply and deliver chains and this trajectory suggests that's how Tesla will continue to dominate. Elon would have it no other way.

Our greatest applied engineer working as likely our only real option to avert climate change at scale (while the rest of the ecosystem catches up) and who has been working on it for ~2 decades (i.e. ~25%) of his life. He might be saving Twitter from falling apart from outside interests via disinformation as climate change and geopolitics gets more strained, as a result, which is another scenario no one is talking about.

Yet, all I see for the past 1-2 years is everyone talking about how much money and power he has while the world burns.

 

[Ogre]

Has any anti-trust action ever been undertaken (let alone undertaken successfully) against a company with a single digit market share?

If not (and I'm fairly sure the answer is no) maybe we can table the silly OMG MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT WORRIES discussion until Tesla gets to at least 10% of vehicles sold? (Or 10% of all insurance issued, or 10% of all energy supplied, or 10% of all operating robotaxis, etc...)

(as a practical matter- a court generally won't consider a monopoly claim at less than 50% market share either- but I figure we start small)

This is why you redefine what the "Market" is.

In this case perhaps Tesla has a monopoly in EV charging and is using that to "bundle" electric cars.

 

[Knightshade]

This is why you redefine what the "Market" is.

In this case perhaps Tesla has a monopoly in EV charging and is using that to "bundle" electric cars.

But that also wouldn't give them nearly enough market share to fall afoul of the laws. Just as Apple using the proprietary lightning connector does not. (and there's a ton of non apple chargers you can still plug the apple phone or a different phone into, with a simple adapter... just as there's a ton of non-tesla chargers you can plug a tesla into too or a non-tesla, with the right relevant adapter... But especially as they're opening it to other brands now too.

To quote Judge Hand on this, a view the US Supreme Court endorsed who observed that a market share of ninety percent

is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not

The 5th, 10th, and 3rd circuits have all issued rulings that you need 70-80% market share before you'd be have enough market share to possibly be considered a monopoly.

And remember- that's JUST to establish you MIGHT be one. It's step 1. Only after you do THAT does the process move on to if you ARE one or not (market share alone is not sufficient) as step 2... and only THEN to step 3, determining if you are an illegal one or not.


Nothing about any aspect of Teslas business, now, or in the next 5-10 years, rises to that degree of market share required for step 1 alone.

It's a nonsense concern, and we are, even if we assume Tesla hits their most wildly optimistic goals perfectly for the next 5-10 years, STILL not talking the type of market share where it would be any concern at all.*




*I'll throw one possibly exception out here- but only because of the "wildly optimistic" caveat-- if Tesla actually got reliable/working L5 robotaxis this year, it's possible they'd have monopoly share of the RT market in 10 years. But as an FSDBeta tester, I assure you, that isn't happening anytime soon.

 

[betstarship]

But that also wouldn't give them nearly enough market share to fall afoul of the laws. Just as Apple using the proprietary lightning connector does not. (and there's a ton of non apple chargers you can still plug the apple phone or a different phone into, with a simple adapter... just as there's a ton of non-tesla chargers you can plug a tesla into too or a non-tesla, with the right relevant adapter... But especially as they're opening it to other brands now too.

To quote Judge Hand on this, a view the US Supreme Court endorsed who observed that a market share of ninety percent



The 5th, 10th, and 3rd circuits have all issued rulings that you need 70-80% market share before you'd be have enough market share to possibly be considered a monopoly.

And remember- that's JUST to establish you MIGHT be one. It's step 1. Only after you do THAT does the process move on to if you ARE one or not (market share alone is not sufficient) as step 2... and only THEN to step 3, determining if you are an illegal one or not.


Nothing about any aspect of Teslas business, now, or in the next 5-10 years, rises to that degree of market share required for step 1 alone.

It's a nonsense concern, and we are, even if we assume Tesla hits their most wildly optimistic goals perfectly for the next 5-10 years, STILL not talking the type of market share where it would be any concern at all.*




*I'll throw one possibly exception out here- but only because of the "wildly optimistic" caveat-- if Tesla actually got reliable/working L5 robotaxis this year, it's possible they'd have monopoly share of the RT market in 10 years. But as an FSDBeta tester, I assure you, that isn't happening anytime soon.

If Robotaxis work, then we only need 5-10% of the total market size for vehicle sales to be EV...technically, Tesla with 5M-10M cars being produced annually could utilize 100% market share and very quickly could easily replace the current worldwide car fleet.

The question comes in what to do with billions of useless ICE vehicles.

"Cars are parked 95% of the time". Let's check!

"Most people in transportation focus on the five percent of the time that cars are moving. But the average car is parked 95 percent of the ...

www.reinventingparking.org

 

[JRP3]

If Robotaxis work, then we only need 5-10% of the total market size for vehicle sales to be EV...technically, Tesla with 5M-10M cars being produced annually could utilize 100% market share and very quickly could easily replace the current worldwide car fleet.

This seems to ignore the percentage of cars on the roads at peak times as well as the number of people who don't want to share their vehicles with others. Strangers will never be in my vehicles.