Every main panel that I've seen has a removable strap that bonds the ground and neutral bus bars together. So you'd just remove that strap and they're no longer bonded in that panel.
-
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
Every main panel that I've seen has a removable strap that bonds the ground and neutral bus bars together. So you'd just remove that strap and they're no longer bonded in that panel.
Tweet of thread including a screen cap of WSJ summary. Included:
I hadn’t seen the “wildly higher” quote before. Looks like Elon has had someone do some detective work. If he has forensic data that shows this, it would seem to be a big deal.
So back to the 4680 Model Y from Austin.
I've been thinking about the reduction in parts and reduction in humans required to build it. Plus, there is the reduction in complexity and the blinding speed the assembly line will eventually ramp up to. And don't forget Tesla will make its own batteries, so it won't be sharing the cost with anyone else.
Could it be that the Austin Model Y will have the lowest production cost of any car made in the US?
(It appears that the lowest retail price for a US made vehicle is the Subaru Impreza at $19,790)
I've been thinking about the reduction in parts and reduction in humans required to build it. Plus, there is the reduction in complexity and the blinding speed the assembly line will eventually ramp up to. And don't forget Tesla will make its own batteries, so it won't be sharing the cost with anyone else.
Could it be that the Austin Model Y will have the lowest production cost of any car made in the US?
(It appears that the lowest retail price for a US made vehicle is the Subaru Impreza at $19,790)
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Overall battery costs are still too high for something like that, and we are talking US labor rates (not say . . . Vietnam). I would put total "cost" if I had to pull an "out of the air" guess for the TX 4680 MY in the ballpark of $35-40k currently (not counting amortized costs of the factories, etc - just materials, labor, and other direct inputs).
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
You're right, investing in stocks cannot really be modelled in the way blackjack can. But, neither can poker since the human element plays into it so much. And modern casino blackjack is still profitable for those few who can count cards, play every hand perfectly and avoid getting banned from all casinos. It's perfectly legal to count cards and it's perfectly legal for the casino to ban you because you are too good of a player!
But I would suggest it's not the optimal strategy to sell 25% every time a stock doubles. Had I done that through my entire investing career, I can guarantee you I would not have been able to retire at 37 and my brokerage account would be a small fraction of its worth today. Yet the advice you give is common, almost as if it's common sense. But selling 25% simply because your investment doubled is a terrible thing to do. Worse than you can imagine, especially if your style of investing is long-term in nature and your goal is to select companies that will be long-term winners. There are other styles of investing, but this is what most individual investors should probably be doing.
The reason it's so bad to sell 25% simply because it doubled is because winners tend to keep winning. A better rule would be to buy more if it doubles and sell all of a stock that drops 25% over a multi-year period. But I wouldn't do that either because the idea with investing is to put your capital into companies that have the best chances for growth, looking far forward, no matter what the share price is. Don't base whether you want to buy or sell a company on the share price, that is mostly noise. Sure, avoid buying wildly over-valued companies at what seems like a local maximum and buy those same companies when the excess has been wrung out, but don't sell because they doubled from your purchase! Base it on the long-term prospects and constantly re-appraise as you go. If you are already retired, and you know you will need money in a couple of years, then it makes sense to take some out of the market early if prices are good. But don't sell some simply because it doubles in price - pretty soon you would have almost no shares at all (even if they are still worth considerably more than you paid for them).
The number one mistake individual stock investors make is to sell their winners too soon. That's the difference between becoming fabulously wealthy and still wondering where your next $50K is going to come from. That is why dead investors outperform living investors, because they never sell. However, the financial media constantly misleads and misdirects small investors by writing their stories as if it's just common sense that you should sell when the price seems high and buy when the price seems low. It's a false narrative. But we need bad investors, we can't all make millions in the market, there would be no one left to do the hard work. So do it however it seems most reasonable to you! Anyone who wants to become more profitable has to take lessons on not selling any of a great company unless you need the money, regardless of price.
I had a bunch of 6 dollar shares that I sold after they tripled, with the intent to buy back cheaper cause yeah, this is good discipline on my part for once. In fairness to me, had never had a stock like TSLA before. Every other time this would have been a great move, and I was punished for NOT selling (think me stock picking not so hot either lol).
I have this board and people like you to thank for setting me straight. Never got the six dollar shares back, but I cannot complain. Especially after finally using LEAPs properly… or with the right stock I should say.
Do wish I had hung onto some of those six dollar shares just for brags.
Edit: They were actually less than six dollars.
Last edited:
I'd rather discuss in the Elon and Twitter thread and maybe for the weekend it is ok to be here, but I found this article very helpful in understanding where things could stand (and no, I'm not an attorney or stayed in a Holiday Inn).
TL;DR - It would also seem that if Twitter does not produce compelling technical evidence to fully support the <5% bot claim, then Elon would have sufficient MAE grounds.
MAE = Material Adverse Effect
"Showing that a target has suffered a MAE is an arduous task that places the burden of proof on the buyer."
So, Elon has this burden to prove and convince the judge and it appears it has only happened once.
Delaware Chancery Court Finally Finds an MAE
The court found that a target company has suffered a material adverse effect, allowing the would-be buyer to abandon an announced merger.
"While Akorn represents the first time a Delaware court has found a MAE to have occurred, the decision itself is not inconsistent with prior case law. Instead, Akorn provides a clear example that a MAE can result from a "dramatic, unexpected and company-specific downturn," which continues to be a high threshold."
tow hooks at the ready. good to see.
I'm talking about cars made in the USA. So US labor rates apply to all. The Austin 4680 Model Y should require fewer workers to assemble than any other car. And I'm talking about the cost when both the battery line and assembly line are fully ramped.
So the question is, will Austin 4680 Model Y eventually have the lowest cost of production in the US?
Y
Yeah, but geez - 9000 lbs! Better have a Semi standing by.
I disagreed because you are factually wrong. Check your facts please. There is TMC posted evidence proving the errors in your statements.
Slow delivery or backlogs does NOT equal "...never a serious attempt...", but you might know the facts anyway .
Apple couldn’t pick up Rivian at this price, it’s very likely they would pay double current SP to get Rivian. There would be at least a 30% premium, likely more.
On top of that, Apple doesn’t acquire to get customers and Rivians manufacturing is not particularly impressive. What exactly does Rivian have skills wise Apple would want to acquire?
I think it’s more likely Apple would acquire Kia or some other company which is actually good at manufacturing electric cars than Rivian. I just don’t see anything Rivian owns which would fit into Apple’s needs.
MODERATOR: Ground Rules for THIS Weekend
I'm not going to be excising Twitter posts from this thread, subject to their passing the "ridiculous" bar.
In a pique of evil, I have left UNdeleted a number of posts that demonstrate (1) why political discussion is not permitted on TMC, and (2) how inappropriate, solecistic writing reveals more about you than it does about what you think you are trying to say...poor you.
NONE of the latter will besmirch the thread after the weekend; Twitter discussion will, if it overwhelms the real purpose of the thread, be trammeled.
Other-soon-to-be-ex-again-mod: I just got caught up to this point and have marked 48 posts for (a) twitter, (b) politics, or (c) plain old stupidity. Since Audie has granted an indulgence, I won't actually delete them. Plus I deleted a couple for bickering. No-one has to have the last word, but if the bickering continues, it will be the last word for while. --ggr
I'm not going to be excising Twitter posts from this thread, subject to their passing the "ridiculous" bar.
In a pique of evil, I have left UNdeleted a number of posts that demonstrate (1) why political discussion is not permitted on TMC, and (2) how inappropriate, solecistic writing reveals more about you than it does about what you think you are trying to say...poor you.
NONE of the latter will besmirch the thread after the weekend; Twitter discussion will, if it overwhelms the real purpose of the thread, be trammeled.
Other-soon-to-be-ex-again-mod: I just got caught up to this point and have marked 48 posts for (a) twitter, (b) politics, or (c) plain old stupidity. Since Audie has granted an indulgence, I won't actually delete them. Plus I deleted a couple for bickering. No-one has to have the last word, but if the bickering continues, it will be the last word for while. --ggr
Last edited by a moderator:
petit_bateau
Active Member
petit_bateau
Active Member
May I ask if anyone has reviewed the stance(s) of the main Twitter shareholders, and the exent to which they might be motivated against Musk as an individual, or against Tesla (etc) as companies, i.e. they may have motivations beyond the obvious financial ones. If so could anyone point a link to such an analysis as Twiiter really is not my thing.
No sport I like better than watching lawyers bicker, especially when it's not costing me $500 an hour!Can you cite those?
Specifically where:
it was decided in Delaware chancery court (since other courts would have been under different rules than this case)
and
There was an explicit specific performance clause in the contract, as there is here, that was attempted to be enforced as twitter plans to do- and the court did NOT enforce it
It's entirely possible such cases exist and I'd be very curious to see em since you seem to suggest you know of such.
In the merger agreement financing is called out as:
Elon personally has to provide 21 billion in actual cash (which he was planning to get in part from other investors- but an inability to do so is not a listed reason for cancelling the merger if he has any other way to get the $- which he does of course). Then he was to provide another 13 billion from a debt financed loan, then another 12.5 billion from a margin loan- both of which he had letters supporting the existence of. The fact he can no longer find folks who want to SHARE that obligation with him doesn't remove it. If TSLA crashed so hard the margin loan couldn't fund, THAT would be a valid reason to kill the deal (but he'd owe the 1 billion failure to execute money).... but otherwise if he has the $, he's on the hook for it- regardless of if others outside that merger agreement he planned to share equity and debt with aren't interested anymore.
Since we don't know deeper details on the financing it's hard to speak definitively, but "other people not in the agreement don't want to help me buy anymore" isn't, necessarily, a get out of specific performance jail card.
If the court determines that mDAU being wrong (which Twitter explicitly says it might be in their SEC filings going back 10 years) is not an MAE, then there'd be no discovery permitted in relation to it.
That's kind of the crux at this point.
Is a made-up measurement, that doesn't have anything to do with GAAP accounting or rules, and which twitter has spent a decade saying might be way off-- is that actually being off an MAE?
Why that's not relevant has been explained, in detail, here for anyone interested:
Elon & Twitter
Not exactly true, there is a very famous acquisition made by HP that turned out to be fraudulent. HP sued, and won, and clawed by billions after the deal was over. There's a few problems with this analogy: 1) They sued under UK law, not US- which is substantially different. 2) They...teslamotorsclub.com
(tl;dr- it wasn't even in the US and was a civil suit against a billionare who profited from vast outright GAAP accounting fraud)
Also might make the mods happy if further discussion in general went to that thread.
RT
With all of the instability going on in the world, does anyone think this current macro situation feels like (with the transition towards sustainability) we're living through an infusion (of EV and Renewables) as an upgrade on the "biological"/energy system we call society?
There's a lot going on and a lot of uncertainty, but there's an absolute ton of money supply, communication systems, and people on the planet too that seems to feel like a lot of positive course corrections are happening on the fly. Directionally, things seem great! Operationally, in a macro sense, things seem disturbingly off.
For someone like myself (and many on this forum) as heavy staunch advocate of sustainability to my family and friends for many years, I find myself having a radically different view than people that haven't been paying attention to climate change, renewables, and sustainability efforts.
There's a lot going on and a lot of uncertainty, but there's an absolute ton of money supply, communication systems, and people on the planet too that seems to feel like a lot of positive course corrections are happening on the fly. Directionally, things seem great! Operationally, in a macro sense, things seem disturbingly off.
For someone like myself (and many on this forum) as heavy staunch advocate of sustainability to my family and friends for many years, I find myself having a radically different view than people that haven't been paying attention to climate change, renewables, and sustainability efforts.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
A good sign to see Volvo leaving the legacy lobbyist group. I assume these guys just push for oil profits and the more complex manufacturing process for ICE vehicles.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/H4EYCHFYOZOGBELEXSU6EKQLAQ.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Volvo Cars to leave ACEA car lobby group over climate goals
Volvo Cars said on Friday it will leave the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) by the end of 2022, citing differences between its zero-emission strategy and that of Europe's car lobby group.
www.reuters.com
A little more info on this possible future product:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
