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

[traxila]

The Saudis could have owned Tesla for a song and instead they bought LUCID.

They also have the cash and resources to have built gigantic and lucrative solar farms the past couple of years and be supplying untold areas with cheap electricity at profit. A new future for them and everyone in the area. They could actually have solar panel factories there churning out big Volume to either sell or put into service for themselves. Instead….

I Zippa My lip got a lot of bad things to say.

Market about to open!

 

[bkp_duke]

The Saudis could have owned Tesla for a song and instead they bought LUCID.

Rest of us dodged a bullet on this one. I can't imagine their ownership would have been beneficial to the mission.

 

[ZeApelido]

Rest of us dodged a bullet bone saw on this one.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Rest of us dodged a bullet on this one. I can't imagine their ownership would have been beneficial to the mission.

Exactly. The Saudis burn about 1% of global crude oil demand on summer days just to run domestic air conditioning. And they've got nothing but perfect solar desert everywhere.

They would've run Tesla into the ground, consciously or not.

 

[petit_bateau]

A big question of some relation to Tesla and the mission: How much of the egregious per capita emissions shown for Americans and Australians is related to driving cars? One look at the wide, low density population of a lot of car-loving America, and that same sort of distribution "on steroids" for giant and sparsely-populated Australia certainly gives a believable rationale for a lot of the height of those curves.
This makes me hopeful that the coming EV fleet conversion can really make a significant dent, quickly.
Related: Greatly appreciated the pictures of the ships bring Model Y to Australia earlier this week. Beachhead being established in a place where it could do a LOT! Cheers and gratitude to you Teals(?) (surely intended as a stealth anagram for Tesla ) Down Under for getting things rolling.

*edited for matching parentheses

The most convenient dataset to examine for an answer to this is the CO₂ emissions per capita vs GDP per capita, which produces a nice graphic. This demonstrates that even other industrialised advanced economy countries comparable to the USA in GDP/capita terms (such as UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany) and with fairly similar economy mixes to the USA, manage to create their wealth in a far more energy-efficient manner than the USA, or Australia or Canada.

On the graph if you hover your mouse over the Oceania part of the key it will show you where NZ and Australia are, otherwise it is difficult to find Australia. This helpfully shows how much more energy-efficent NZ is in emissions terms.

My personal opinion, which a lot of data tends to support, is that the development of USA (etc) over the last few centuries to become what we see today is to a very great extent entirely because of cheap access to energy, plus a sufficiency of people/land/water. If the cheap energy had been absent then the economic (and other) development of these countries would have been very different, and the flyover belts would be even more sparsely occupied than they are. So it is a somewhat circular debate.

One can pick holes in such an opinion, but that tends to be a very marginal holepicking in my experience. However it is irrefutable that these particular countries are profligate consumers of energy and the resultant emissions. Wasteful is a word that some people get emotional about.

The trick is to get all countries (and all people) onto a different trajectory whilst there is still time to avoid the worst consequences of our (and my) historical actions.

COâ emissions per capita vs. GDP per capita

This measures COâ emissions from fossil fuels and industry only â land-use change is not included. GDP per capita is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Artful Dodger]

I don’t recall any U.S. shareholders not having correct account numbers by Monday morning after the split for shares.

Paging @Prunesquallor

 

[JRP3]

EV's could invade NASCAR soon, sounds like Plaid specs:

Each vehicle would be using a tri-motor all-wheel-drive setup, capable of over 1000 horsepower, and 200kW of regen.

NASCAR contemplates an all-electric racing series

Leaked power point slides indicate that NASCAR could introduce a new electrified racing series as soon as next year.

www.teslarati.com

 

[hobbes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1555164861755187202

Haha, gotta love it:

Since 2020, its stock has rallied and in October Tesla became the first junk-rated company to have a market value of more than $1 trillion.

Also, note the quote from the S&P guy this is based on is already from June 16, so before Q2 earnings.

 

[jeewee3000]

Haha, gotta love it:


Also, note the quote from the S&P guy this is based on is already from June 16, so before Q2 earnings.

I'd actually like for TSLA to become the largest company in the world (by market cap) and stay junk-rated.

That will truly expose these credit ratings for what they are: junk.

 

[jkirkwood001]

Wow.

This is a very lovely chart of the last 35 days - up 39% from $656 to $937.

Almost makes all our bitter May/June infighting worth it, eh?

This one's for you, JBC.

 

[Mengy]

Very sleepy trading day for TSLA so far. I'm not sure why I expected more action this morning, but I did.

 

[ThisStockGood]

Very sleepy trading day for TSLA so far. I'm not sure why I expected more action this morning, but I did.

There is your action /s

 

[Artful Dodger]

Very sleepy trading day for TSLA so far. I'm not sure why I expected more action this morning, but I did.

2b expected given macros:

Nasdaq 100

13,212.92

-40.34

(-0.30%)

Tesla Inc

TSLA

2.209733

926.07

3.88

(0.42%)

Only other top-10 equity in the S&P 500 that's green atm is AMZN (0.82%)

 

[henchman24]

The market is just trying to find footing at this level. IE Nasdaq: The level between 12,300 and 13k was pretty wide open and is a large gap where support and resistance need to be found. Looks like 12,700 became resistance and 12,600 became support. Both look rather weak at the moment, but this is what happens when you've had large breakdowns and large increases creating these gaps. IMO both of these levels will break and we will re-test both sides of the wider gap. More likely that we will hit the 13k level first and then draw down to 12.3k than the other way around, but a lot probably depends on econ data over the next week.

 

[growler23]

The most convenient dataset to examine for an answer to this is the CO₂ emissions per capita vs GDP per capita, which produces a nice graphic. This demonstrates that even other industrialised advanced economy countries comparable to the USA in GDP/capita terms (such as UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany) and with fairly similar economy mixes to the USA, manage to create their wealth in a far more energy-efficient manner than the USA, or Australia or Canada.

On the graph if you hover your mouse over the Oceania part of the key it will show you where NZ and Australia are, otherwise it is difficult to find Australia. This helpfully shows how much more energy-efficent NZ is in emissions terms.

My personal opinion, which a lot of data tends to support, is that the development of USA (etc) over the last few centuries to become what we see today is to a very great extent entirely because of cheap access to energy, plus a sufficiency of people/land/water. If the cheap energy had been absent then the economic (and other) development of these countries would have been very different, and the flyover belts would be even more sparsely occupied than they are. So it is a somewhat circular debate.

One can pick holes in such an opinion, but that tends to be a very marginal holepicking in my experience. However it is irrefutable that these particular countries are profligate consumers of energy and the resultant emissions. Wasteful is a word that some people get emotional about.

The trick is to get all countries (and all people) onto a different trajectory whilst there is still time to avoid the worst consequences of our (and my) historical actions.

COâ emissions per capita vs. GDP per capita

This measures COâ emissions from fossil fuels and industry only â land-use change is not included. GDP per capita is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.

ourworldindata.org

A few surprises in that graph for me (Canada almost as high up as USA for example. Guessing it is due to heating in the cold climate). And huzzah to Trinidad and Tobago for making the rest of us look good - I'm guessing island economies get by however they can, a wide range of solutions there.
I see Norway is in the "sweet spot" - far to the right (high income) and not high up (low emissions). But is that fair, when to an extent their products are why the rest of us are so high up in emissions? I guess no single graph ever captures the full picture. But very useful nevertheless. Thank you!

 

[StealthP3D]

Overstock did something that is a bit simpler and not entirely without merit. It paid a dividend on the blockchain. Typically when someone shorts a stock and cash dividends are paid, the party that is short, owes the dividend cash. Not a big deal to pay it out. When a dividend on the blockchain is paid out, the shorts cannot do that in lieu, as only the issuer is able to pay the dividends on whatever blockchain. Even if they can its a logistical nightmare.

This creates a situation where shorts are forcibly unwound and there will be all sorts of pandemonium. I think the volatility will ultimately not be good for the stakeholders in general, but the little corner of me that wants to see short edifice burn down occasionally roots for things like this.

Also it need not just be a dividend on the blockchain. It could be Starlink warrants (which I would prefer). Technically while these too could be borrowed and delivered by shorts, the logistics wont be easy.

The mess will be though with the tens of millions of shares that are indirectly owned via options / Leaps. These ppl will be shortchanged I think. I will be in this camp in fact as a portion of my exposure is via options.

All in all, these sort of things have relatively small likelihood of happening, nevertheless a fun exercise to think through.

You compared a blockchain dividend to a cash dividend but you didn't compare a blockchain dividend to a share dividend like Tesla will be doing.

From a practical perspective, naked shorts can cover a blockchain dividend in the same manner they can cover a share dividend, by buying legitimate shares and retiring them. In other words, by covering their short sale. These two dividend forms are handled in the same way by naked shorts so there is no difference. Either method forces the retirement of synthetic shares.

Why else do you think Tesla has seen such steady buying pressure as the split nears? This is the methodical and patient covering of shares that have been sold short to put a lid on the price of TSLA all year long. Many forces are at work here, and I don't pretend to understand them all, just know that time is the great equalizer.

The official published number of shares sold short is fictitious because it doesn't include the shares sold naked short, the synthetic shares. And guess who provides the data for the published statistics. That's right, the market makers. Everything comes back to them, the system is setup to be non-transparent, so of course we are not getting the correct data, that would impair their ability to profit from it.

 

[SmokyPeat]

I see the classic thermos full of tannerite pattern forming. Just need a little impact to blow the lid off.

 

[EnzoXYZ]

Haha, gotta love it:


Also, note the quote from the S&P guy this is based on is already from June 16, so before Q2 earnings.

I'd actually like for TSLA to become the largest company in the world (by market cap) and stay junk-rated.

That will truly expose these credit ratings for what they are: junk.

Few weeks back I had a dinner conversation with a stock exchange executive. Its not U.S. exchange but still top ~25 by GDP. The conversation was specifically on ESG and Moody's/S&P's debt ratings regarding Tesla. I asked why he thinks Tesla isn't on the list of top ESG companies but oil company like BP is. He said the reason is the G in ESG- Governance is what took Tesla off the list. One man, the CEO, is preventing Tesla from making the list. Company like BP lobby their way into the list. By 'lobby' you will have to use your imagination and read between the lines. In his words BP kisses ass and Tesla doesn't. He said this is also the reason Tesla doesn't have a higher debt rating. He said this is very unfortunate since major index funds will not include TSLA as the company does not meet criteria.

Our SEC isn't asleep at the wheel but in bed with Wall Street. This is crazy to me as BP and the likes can get better terms for borrowing money and have their market cap inflated as these blind index funds will hold stock based on these corrupt rating agencies. There you go folks your suspicions supported.

 

[EnzoXYZ]

Haha, gotta love it:


Also, note the quote from the S&P guy this is based on is already from June 16, so before Q2 earnings.

I'd actually like for TSLA to become the largest company in the world (by market cap) and stay junk-rated.

That will truly expose these credit ratings for what they are: junk.

Few weeks back I had a dinner conversation with a stock exchange executive. Its not U.S. exchange but still top ~25 by GDP. The conversation was specifically on ESG and Moody's/S&P's debt ratings regarding Tesla. I asked why he thinks Tesla isn't on the list of top ESG companies but oil company like BP is. He said the reason is the G in ESG- Governance is what took Tesla off the list. One man, the CEO, is preventing Tesla from making the list. Company like BP lobby their way into the list. By 'lobby' you will have to use your imagination and read between the lines. In his words BP kisses ass and Tesla doesn't. He said this is also the reason Tesla doesn't have a higher debt rating. He said this is very unfortunate since major index funds will not include TSLA as the company does not meet criteria.

Our SEC isn't asleep at the wheel but in bed with Wall Street. This is crazy to me as BP and the likes can get better terms for borrowing money and have their market cap inflated as these blind index funds will hold stock based on these corrupt rating agencies. There you go folks your suspicions supported.

 

[Chenkers]

A big question of some relation to Tesla and the mission: How much of the egregious per capita emissions shown for Americans and Australians is related to driving cars? One look at the wide, low density population of a lot of car-loving America, and that same sort of distribution "on steroids" for giant and sparsely-populated Australia certainly gives a believable rationale for a lot of the height of those curves.
This makes me hopeful that the coming EV fleet conversion can really make a significant dent, quickly.
Related: Greatly appreciated the pictures of the ships bring Model Y to Australia earlier this week. Beachhead being established in a place where it could do a LOT! Cheers and gratitude to you Teals(?) (surely intended as a stealth anagram for Tesla ) Down Under for getting things rolling.

*edited for matching parentheses

In Australia transport accounts for about 16% of emissions with light vehicles being responsible for about 10%. So while EV's can and will make a big difference there is a lot more work to be done in other areas. Australia is doing a lot in renewable energy to bring down our electricity emissions but needs to a lot more to reduce emissions from natural gas combustion, industrial processes, fugitive emissions and agriculture.

On a more positive note, the new Australian Federal Government passed legislation in the lower house today to lift our 2030 emissions reduction target from the previous 26% to 43%. Still a long way from the 75% needed but a step in the right direction.