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

[thesmokingman]

Damn that's a lot of black MYPs!

 

[CorneliusXX]

@Gigapress’s post immediately prior to yours is an excellent example of an appropriate response to a likely scurrilous post. On the other hand, every single “response” to the aforesaid post that was, in entirety, a “Disagree”, could justifiably be considered as nothing more elucidating than a potential “Oh! That does not fit with my perfect vision of the world of Tesla, so I’m going to downvote it!”.
Is that fair? No, it probably is not. But without Discourse, without a reasoned counter, such posts are either as meaningless, as useless, as damaging to the mission, or more so, than the objected post itself.

If someone else has already provided a similar reason for a disagree I assume you wouldn't want other disagreers making another comment?

 

[CorneliusXX]

There's some discussion on twitter that Tesla is blocking drone flights over GigaBerlin. Hopefully just an administrative issue. It would be a shame not to be able to follow the progress.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530507439195439105

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530512889244696577

 

[CLK350]

The best explanation about global warming Elon did was IMHO at this 2015 talk* -(or search YouTube for "Elon Musk talk at the Sorbonne") -with this graphic explanation Elon aptly calls "the turd in the punchbowl", how introducing huge amounts of carbon extracted from underground completely upset the CO2 balance that had existed for millenia on earth. And what governments need to do in order to facilitate the transition to sustainable energy. What of course no government has done so far (correct me if I am wrong), which is to price the externality, put a proper price on carbon. Thus removing the hidden Trillion $ subsidy for fossil fuels.

Elon Musk talk at the Sorbonne 2015 - Conversation avec Elon Musk à Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

View attachment 809699
Elon Musk talk at the Sorbonne 2015 Conversation avec Elon Musk à Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne


(*) altho now that I think about it, it may not be understood by some (considering my experience talkgin with run of the mill folks, some, like literary types do have a problem understanding concepts however obvious they seem to more science aware folks).

I think many countries have high taxes on fossil fuels, In Norway 1 litre diesel is about 2.2 euros now, maybe 10% more for gasoline.

ICE cars have 25% tax, EVs have 0%.

If there is a frustration on my part with that talk, it is that we knew precisely everything presented therein during early 1980s graduate school, and all of the concepts plus much of the details in undergrad in the late 1970s. That was a dozen - or even more! - years ago.

How anyone could provide a “Disagree” to your post is mind-boggling, unless it is because someone sensed condescension toward “literary types”, or calling others “run of the mill”. Eggshell-walking in this forum sometimes is good advice. But it also shows why I am strident in my calls NOT TO USE that downward thumb icon! Without a real post, no one knows why another finds disagreement with his posting.

Methink Brn2Run is trolling (came from the Twitter and Elon thread where I first noticed his downvotes and stopped playing as it was clearly useless)
Not sure why he also restricts anyone but people he follows (or maybe nobody for all I know or care) - viewing his profile or messaging him directly.

In this case I was going to ignore his downvote and subsequent not-too-honest response. A tax on gasoline is NOT the same at all as "pricing the externality" as Elon calls the true cost to our standard of living* due to dumping more carbon in the atmosphere ( -> oceans rising, changing weather patterns, western states running out of water, wildfires and tornados, loss of nature sites like the Great Barrier Reef dying, ... ).

Various estimates have been given, dwarfing the cost of taxes on gasoline. To get some idea, these are estimated at about 6% of GDP, with the GDP of Norway is about $300B ..I'll let you figure out the details

Not all fossil fuel subsidies are created equal, all are bad for the planet

This is part two of a five-part series exploring “Policy Design for the Anthropocene,” based on a recent Nature Sustainability Perspective. The first post explored the intersection of policy and politics in the development of instruments to help humans and systems adapt to the changing planet. A

blogs.edf.org

The Hidden Subsidy of Fossil Fuels

A new report says that the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion in just one year. But that calculation is less tidy than it seems.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[15Peter20]

I’m not going to explain each disagree. That’s a ridiculous idea. I think most disagrees will be for obvious reasons. If you disagree with this, then I disagree with you, for disagreeing with this.

Couldn’t help myself…

 

[mongo]

There's some discussion on twitter that Tesla is blocking drone flights over GigaBerlin. Hopefully just an administrative issue. It would be a shame not to be able to follow the progress.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530507439195439105

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530512889244696577

As I recall, Elon mentioned something recently about curtailing drones once the factories were operational.
Probably safety and IP concerns.

 

[Krugerrand]

Regulators dont care about numbers and statistics coming FROM Tesla, about Tesla.

That disagree is because you’re wrong and you’re participation on this forum is suspect, imo.

 

[jkirkwood001]

I hope I have earned from all participants their respect, confidence and the reliability of my own posts over the many years I have molded and massaged this thread and forum that my statements can be taken at face value. I certainly am not going to abuse others’ trust in giving the evidence you request; particularly because I have not read any kind of answer to my question: “To what non-prurient interest, to what good use would amassing these data go?”.

I do respect your opinion, @AudubonB, more than most, less than some others - many thanks for coordinating and shepherding this thread.

But what's great about this social media forum is the democracy of opinion, and that we each get to see where we add value, and that the members who get the highest % of positive votes and are - again, according to the data - the most respected for their opinions.

Neither poll put any anonymous source at risk IMO. It was optional, "democratic", and - yes - trusted the majority wouldn't lie if they completed it. It sacrificed some accuracy to preserve the anonymity of the members.

Furthermore, you asked why have a poll. Who amongst us investors thinks it's worthless to learn:

• Over 65% of us (okay, "those who responded") have over 50% of their total assets - including home and other property - in TSLA
• Almost half of us trade options, and almost 30% trade on margin
• Only 17% of us bought a Tesla at least 1 year before we bought TSLA (we're investors and believers first, car enthusiasts second)
• 30% have never sold any of their TSLA shares
• We have at least 10 specialists participating in each of (in order)
  • "Professional, Scientific and Technical Services" (108 members)
  • "Information Technology" (69)
  • "Healthcare and Social Assistance" (36)
  • Manufacturing (27)
  • "Finance and Insurance" (20)
  • "Transportation and Warehousing" aka the Supply Chain (19)
  • "Arts, Entertainment and Recreation" (18)
  • We even have several members able in utility industries plus one mining specialist - good to know

All of this is context that supports and informs the knowledge base that contributes to our forum. I don't think any single person's anecdotes nor hunches can provide that broad perspective about our membership profile. That's why we seek to know: to make us better investors (and, like @Gigapress said, "it's fun" ).

Errata:

• The chart in my first post in this thread was no longer "exponential scale"
• I meant to say I asked for ranges of number of shares owned so as to preserve anonymity

 

[jbcarioca]

On the “How Much Invested” polls:
I will guarantee all that the larger the amount owned, the more reticent the holder is in divulging his or her position, and this is irrespective of any anonymity of the pool…
.

This is basic. I strongly believe it to be true. It is rare, not unheard of, but rare that anyone with substantial investments is unlikely to disclose specifics, barring legal requirement to disclose. Divorce is a traditional occasion for discovery.

Of course we both are making the assertion and are offering no proofs. I

 

[jbcarioca]

I do respect your opinion, @AudubonB, more than most, less than some others - many thanks for coordinating and shepherding this thread.

But what's great about this social media forum is the democracy of opinion, and that we each get to see where we add value, and that the members who get the highest % of positive votes and are - again, according to the data - the most respected for their opinions.

Neither poll put any anonymous source at risk IMO. It was optional, "democratic", and - yes - trusted the majority wouldn't lie if they completed it. It sacrificed some accuracy to preserve the anonymity of the members.

Furthermore, you asked why have a poll. Who amongst us investors thinks it's worthless to learn:

• Over 65% of us (okay, "those who responded") …-

Pollsters tend to know that internet fan polls have precisely zero validity. They are fun sometimes but have no information value. Certainly there are many of us who’ve done very well with TSLA if they started in 2020 or before.

I dug up some old data from a former large US brokerage firm. Over a 10 year period about 90% of retail options traders lost 50% or more of their total investment. That data included several famous TA intellectual leaders and one of them was a Nobel Prize winner. Technically the NDA has expired but my duty has not. My clue won’t help because there have been a large number of people who trusted their analytics but ignored that the tools are stochastic.

Só, “those who respond” are reporting, sometimes, things they wish had happened.
Any single investment exceeding in value the aggregate value of all else is in an unwise position, unless they’re excercising options due to employment or were pre-IPO investors.

Such antics do happen. OTOH, not too many of us have disclosed the losses that they had in the recent drops. They, like most gamblers, report wins but less commonly report losses.

Due to the self regulating base of the US securities industry you’ll find little public disclosure about that. The clues are in market maker profits.

 

[Tim S]

What if pressing the Thumb's Down icon immediately opened up a Reply to the post?

If the disagree-er doesn't offer a reply, their disagree goes away.

In a perfect world ...

I will explain my disagree... there are already way too many responses to darkandstormy's recent post. I have them on ignore but obviously not everyone does. I don't need to read everyone's responses to their bs post. Just ignore or disagree. They should have been banned already imo.

Edit: Now that I have caught up with the thread, same with brn2run. They are clearly not a Tesla investor. They have ulterior motives. I am now ignoring them. They should also be banned imo.

 

[Gigapress]

Why FSD Regulatory FUD is Overblown

I’m not a lawyer but I have worked professionally with the Federal Aviation Regulations compliance for 6 years and I’ve read all of 49 USC 301 and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There has been far too much speculation about FSD level 4 or 5 approval in the USA on both the bear and bull sides, but far too little first principles review of the actual law and structure of the United States Department of Transportation. Here’s my best effort to do so.

NHTSA

Spoiler

The National Highway Transportation and Safety Agency is a bureau within the United States Department of Transportation. NHTSA regulates motor vehicle safety in accordance with US Code Title 49 Subtitle B Chapter V.

49 § 30101
Purpose and Policy

​

The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—​

​

(1)​

to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment​

…​

49 § 30111
Standards

​

(a)General Requirements.—​

The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Each standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety,and be stated in objective terms.​

(b)Considerations and Consultation.—When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter, the Secretary shall—​

​

(1)​

consider relevant available motor vehicle safety information;​

(2)​

consult with the agency established under the Act of August 20, 1958 (Public Law 85–684, 72 Stat. 635), and other appropriateState or interstate authorities (including legislative committees);​

(3)​

consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and​

(4)​

consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.​

49 § 30102 (a) (9)​

Definitions

motor vehicle safety​

(9) “motor vehicle safety” means the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.​

(underline emphasis mine)

49 § 30161​

Judicial Review of Standards

​

(a)Filing and Venue.—​

A person adversely affected by an order prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business.​

…​

​

(e)Finality of Judgment and Supreme Court Review.—​

A judgment of a court under this section is final and may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court​

So, the explicit purpose of the law is to reduce traffic accidents, injuries and deaths and it provides for judicial review via a US Court of Appeals if a person (corporations are legal “persons”) is adversely affected by an order for a motor vehicle safety standard. The court will consider the purpose of the law and the demonstrated safety record will be what matters in court if Tesla has to litigate. If the data conclusively proves that allowing FSD level 4/5 will reduce traffic injuries, accidents and deaths, then in any reasonable court the NHTSA prohibition would be struck down as not serving a legitimate motor vehicle safety per the criteria listed in 30111, and so Tesla would be allowed to deploy. There is no realistic way in my opinion that NHTSA lawyers could successfully argue that their anti-FSD standard “protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents…and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident” if there’s clear evidence that it’s actually doing the exact opposite. The government can be slow but it’s not as poorly designed as many people think.

NHTSA could in theory delay Tesla’s rollout in the USA by making a ruling forcing Tesla to lose time appealing, but imagine them doing that and Canada does let Tesla have FSD level 4/5 a few months later. American voters would be furious. It seems extremely unlikely they would do that. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the President who has a strong vested interest in immediate sources of economic growth because that’s the biggest factor in popularity amongst voters. America being the first country in the world to roll out robotaxis using homegrown technology is an easy win for the President to give patriotic speeches and post on Twitter about American innovation, saving lives, driving the economy to new heights, saving the planet and making transportation more inclusive and equitable for everybody. It’s a political slam dunk. Americans generally do not like the USA being second place at something big like this, especially if we were winning until the Feds stopped us right in front of the finish line and let Canada beat us to the prize. (No offense to Canadians )

NTSB Does Not Regulate

Spoiler

Please try to remember the difference between NTSB and NHTSA the next time FUD is spewed by malicious actors.

NTSB is like a yappy little dog with all bark and no bite, although they do perform an important role in independent accident investigation, especially in aviation. However, NTSB makes plenty of recommendations that end up never being implemented.

That makes them a great source of FUD for Tesla bears to disseminate.

“BREAKING NEWS!!! National Transportation Safety Board Launches Probe into Tesla Autopilot Accident from 2016!! Tesla has had recalls for Autopilot and FSD Beta before, did you know that?! By the way, Elon Musk once called someone a pedo guy on Twitter, what a jerk.” Who cares?

NHTSA is the well-trained, disciplined guard dog who actually makes the rules at the dog park. Sometimes they have to cover their butts in ways that are unreasonable, like when they made Tesla change FSD Beta behavior to come to a full halt at every stop sign out of an extreme abundance of caution. However, as shown in the law citations earlier in this post, the Secretary of Transportation is legally required to approve only standards that reasonably advance motor vehicle safety. They have no authority to make arbitrary and capricious rules, especially ones targeted at a single company.

You haven’t heard much nonsensical pearl-clutching from NTSB about FSD Beta because there have been zero accidents to investigate. Expect them to make a big show of the investigation whenever the first one actually happens.

NHTSA Autonomous Driving Stance

Spoiler

As stated in my prior post, NHTSA has ordered, as per their legitimate authority, that all OEMs testing level 2 autonomous driving systems must report any accidents with a standardized form and process. One of NHTSA’s official purposes is to help with research and development of new safety technologies and to request reasonable reporting from companies about relevant safety data. Demanding data from Tesla, Waymo, Cruise and others is NHTSA doing their job and helping speed up industry progress while building public trust that they’re doing their due diligence.

NHTSA's stated position from the beginning has been that the arrival of autonomous driving systems will be enormously beneficial for American road safety and American society in general. In their own words:

"NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic costs of roadway crashes through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. Advanced vehicle technologies hold the promise not only to change the way we drive but to save lives.

The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits than earlier technologies. One day, automated driving systems, which some refer to as automated vehicles, may be able to handle the whole task of driving when we don't want to or can't do it ourselves.

NHTSA demonstrates its dedication to saving lives on our nation's roads and highways through its approach to the safe development, testing and deployment of new and advanced vehicle technologies that have enormous potential for improving safety and mobility for all Americans."

American Autonomous Driving Regulations

Spoiler

A few of the motor vehicle safety standards are defined in Subpart II (STANDARDS & COMPLIANCE) but most of the rules approved by the Secretary of Transportation are in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in Part 571.

If you read the FMVSS (or even just look at the table of contents), you can see that the FMVSS does not currently have any rules for autonomous control software. The FVMSS does have many requirements that will be obsolete for autonomous vehicles, such as Std 101: Controls and Displays. NHTSA has been actively planning for this transition as described in this giant April 2020 report entitled FMVSS Considerations for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems: Volume 1 which extensively covered research recommendations on “identifying possible options to address unnecessary/unintended regulatory barriers for the compliance verification of Autonomous Driving System dedicated vehicles (ADS-DVs) that lack manually operated driving controls”. Note that this research began during the last Presidential administration and was completed and published during the current administration, which suggests bipartisan support.

All told, if NHTSA is doing anything nefarious with respect to Tesla, they’re doing a great job of hiding it from me because it looks like they’re genuinely trying to improve road safety and making all the right moves to support this from a public policy standpoint. In March they officially deleted the requirement for manual controls like steering wheels and pedals for autonomous cars.

In theory, Federal law leaves the opportunity for States to enact stricter safety regulations that exceed the FMVSS but none have done that. As a matter of fact, most states have already enacted laws explicitly authorizing autonomous vehicles and establishing rules.

As Elon said recently, a big reason the FSD program is so far ahead in the US and Canada—besides data volume and the fact that the AI team and company leaders all live in the US—is that things are legal in North America by default without needing explicit legal authorization, while the EU notably doesn’t operate like this.

Conclusion
I think that it’s clear that FSD rollout across America is not going to be stopped or significantly slowed down by regulatory holdup, because:

1. Autonomous driving is literally already legal and NHTSA cleared robotaxi-style designs two months ago
2. Accelerating the arrival has had clear bipartisan support for years from State and Federal leaders across the nation if you look at what’s actually happening within the executive and legislative branches instead of being distracted by headlines and mudslinging

I believe Elon has been correct all along in saying that regulators will just want to see clear data that FSD will enhance road safety.

There is a canyon between perception and reality on this issue, even among bulls who are informed about Tesla and FSD, and I hope this post can be a bridge across.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Not sure why he also restricts anyone but people he follows

Comments history visible via UserID: Search Results | brn2run

After a year's absence from TMC, he came back on May 11th to say "Musk should leave the CEO job at Tesla". Repeated in another thread on May 22nd. Total post count: 37 since May 2020.

Yeah, alrighty then ...

Cheers to the longs!

 

[2daMoon]

I will explain my disagree... there are already way too many responses to darkandstormy's recent post. I have them on ignore but obviously not everyone does. I don't need to read everyone's responses to their bs post. Just ignore or disagree. They should have been banned already imo.

Edit: Now that I have caught up with the thread, same with brn2run. They are clearly not a Tesla investor. They have ulterior motives. I am now ignoring them. They should also be banned imo.

Thanks for the insight. I'm right there with you. D&S was on my ignore list months ago, along with many others who routinely post unproductive content. (I should have put a smiley on that post, as it was a half-hearted suggestion at best on my part)

The "Disagree" choice to label a post, IMHO, is also unproductive. Without some rational content to support it, its use seems to be more about allowing people to vote against an idea, rather than offering an alternative one. Or, to some, more about lashing out when someone holds a point of view counter to their own beliefs. Either way, it doesn't enrich the conversation simply by clicking on it.

Seems to be more of a grown-up way of covering ones ears and yelling nyah nyah nyah after being exposed to an alternate perspective.

I'd rather just see something like a Rolleyes replace the Thumbs Down button if something must be there instead. This comes closer to saying, "I'm not buying what you're selling" to the person posting this sort of stuff. Maybe there is a "Joe Isuzu" button?

Someone passionately defending their point of view is something I like to see, even if I think they are mistaken. At least the door to seeing things from another point of view remains open. Even if their or my view isn't swayed, at least the interaction is conducted in a respectful manner.

If a post or behavior can be clearly defined as one that violates the terms of this site's use, banning should be a valid option. For the ones who never quite cross that line, but repeatedly spout nonsense, we still have the ignore button.

 

[The Accountant]

If this report is true, the ID.3 is not doing well in China. No orders in May and only 6 units sold so far in 2022.
Can this be correct?

 

[Singuy]

If this report is true, the ID.3 is not doing well in China. No orders in May and only 6 units sold so far in 2022.
Can this be correct?

View attachment 810060

Perhaps for that one specific store.

 

[lascavarian]

Who amongst us investors thinks it's worthless to learn:

That would be me. All completely worthless imaginings.

This is a discussion forum. I value the discussion and ideas considered. Divergent, yes. Divisive, not so much.

We benefit from moderation and standards of conduct.

IMO discussion is degraded by rating systems generally because of human nature. Rating systems, particularly durable accumulated ones, in small ways corrupt honest discussion. This is the corruption of the audience working on the ego.

If a comment adds value then great. Build on that. Where that comment comes from is not of value in the online structure we have today IMO.

On the internet no one knows you’re a dog…. Still true.

 

[thesmokingman]

Perhaps for that one specific store.

The recent amount of articles suggesting legacy auto is looking at impending death in the Chinese market suggests otherwise.

 

[AudubonB]

If someone else has already provided a similar reason for a disagree I assume you wouldn't want other disagreers making another comment?

I don’t like or respect ANY “Me too”-ers. Adding something to a discussion, however, is what discourse is all about.

 

[Krugerrand]

I don’t like or respect ANY “Me too”-ers.

Me too!