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

[StealthP3D]

I think you're missing the overall purpose of Battery Day, and the 4680 development program. That is, to force Tesla's existing battery suppliers to get off the dime!

Panasonics geriatric management in Japan was unwilling to make further capital investments at Giga Nevada because they had 'demand concerns'. Faaq. So Elon said, right we'll do it ourselves. You want to compete?

That's a good point. And transferring the idea of competing in batteries to competing in the car market, it's good to realize that Tesla doesn't need cheap batteries right now to sell all the cars they can make. But looking down the line (since the media and naysayers want us to believe Tesla sales are going to hit a wall when "real" competition arrives), the cheap batteries, amongst other cost to produce advantages, will prevent that from happening.

Said another way, Tesla started 4680 development at the proper time to ensure continued dominance as everyone else struggles with costs and volume and they don't yet need that advantage. It's more important to ramp 4680 cells in an orderly fashion than it is to get as many as possible into the market ASAP at any cost.

 

[Singuy]

Short or Long FUD? Max pain 240.

Hedgies sold bunch of PUTS expecting Elon to unload this morning. (Seems Mr. Market knows this too ... and hedgies are short, short puts etc with less monies than Elon ... so who would blink 1st )
Now MM are after Elon or the Hedgies

All Elon needs to do is not sell till like next Thurs we will see mini-rally

I want to see Elon buy tomorrow, effing everyone not loyal to Tesla but just want to gain from this acquisition. Dues X Machina for Tesla longs.

 

[AndrewZ]

Where in the law does it say anything about costs having to be onerous to qualify for the credits? (The IRS can't make up conditions like that on their own.)

It doesn't say anything about onerous, but the analyses I've found (looking for the exact wording now) say these credits can be scaled based on things like consumer cost and production cost. If we think about this logically -- although I was previously told in here to disregard logic when it comes to the IRA -- it seems unlikely this should be included as some massive profit generator on the back of taxpayer dollars.

Incentivizing adoption and reducing additional costs sure, but I wouldn't expect what's being suggested by many in here. If the IRS does decide to make this a taxpayer-funded profit center, I think that will be somewhat shocking for prudent analysts.

 

[bballshinobi]

LOL is this deja vu of 2018? Everybody wants to know if funding is secured!

 

[capster]

Very good reminder for everyone

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582984673235697664

Maybe you’ve heard the saying about "being p*ssed upon from a great height." Journalists appear to be middlemen (and middling persons) in that process.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Well if FSD/Robotaxis actually materialize, the cars can transport themselves to the destination. That sounds like a first principals solution to the problem if you believe the premise. I wonder if people would have any issues to increased mileage on their brand new car? Maybe they'd be given the choice of FSD delivery that costs $100 to $200 (just having to wash and prep closer to final destination) with a hundred or so miles on the odometer, or traditional transport for $1,200 to $1,500?

Dude! It would be a freaking autonomous car!

 

[Curt Renz]

Oppenheimer's Colin Rusch raises TSLA target from $432 to $436.

CNBC - today:

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Have we taken a poll here on how low everyone thinks Wall St will take TSLA before Oct 28th when the Twitter deal goes through?

200/share is destined to be broken......would put my money (and my margin to use) at 175/share.

 

[bkp_duke]

Have we taken a poll here on how low everyone thinks Wall St will take TSLA before Oct 28th when the Twitter deal goes through?

200/share is destined to be broken by then, would put my money (and my margin to use) at 175/share.

The more appropriate question is will they let the stock climb after that.

 

[Drumheller]

Have we taken a poll here on how low everyone thinks Wall St will take TSLA before Oct 28th when the Twitter deal goes through?

200/share is destined to be broken......would put my money (and my margin to use) at 175/share.

A few months ago, I was mostly joking when I said TSLA needs to fill the gap between $1 and $2 because technical analysis.

But who knows. We're already out of reasonable range, in my opinion, and wall street seems to have proven that they own TSLA, so why not some other irrational number? Maybe next year it can target the square root of -1

I don't intend to play with margin. Some people fear the call late at night coming from inside their own home. Others fear that call late at night from their broker

 

[30seconds]

The more appropriate question is will they let the stock climb after that.

At some point they will take their winnings and wait for the next opportunity to do it again

 

[dhanson865]

OK so 1 year ago today I said

"I'm not going to predict when 100% BEV worldwide happens (too hard to predict), but I'm going to say the next significant clue will be evident next year when the Model Y takes over the top selling US slot beating out the F150 and all the other gas/diesel vehicles.

Set a reminder, this time next year the top selling US vehicle of any kind will be a Tesla."

and today the reminder hit and someone called me on it.

2022 US Vehicle Sales Figures By Model says it's 9th place for Sep 2022. (Note the default sort order is not by sales for the month, you have to change the sort to see Model Y in 9th place for Sep 2022)

But it's only 1/3 of the sales of a Ford F series and 1/2 the sales of a Rav4 so it's got a way to go still.

I was wrong about how quickly Giga Texas would ramp up.

 

[Curt Renz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1583132341878128643

 

[MikeC]

I want to see Elon buy tomorrow, effing everyone not loyal to Tesla but just want to gain from this acquisition. Dues X Machina for Tesla longs.

I'm with you on this. Bears were predicting a bullish Elon on the call because he needed to sell - and they did get a bullish Elon. But it would be a very Elon move to talk up the stock before he was going to buy so that later no one can accuse him of tanking the stock on purpose.

 

[BornToFly]

Sorry if this has been discussed (I haven't caught up yet).

Above average trading volume just half way through the day and SP near the open. Any ideas what that means for tomorrow?

 

[elasalle]

Sorry if this has been discussed (I haven't caught up yet).

Above average trading volume just half way through the day and SP near the open. Any ideas what that means for tomorrow?

if it is Elon selling and we are still above 200, then we are good

 

[InTheMiddle]

The rumor started by CNBC this morning that Elon is frantically sending out emails to request more investors wreaks of an orchestrated short FUD scheme.

Why does that seem like “an orchestrated short FUD scheme”? I would certainly like it to be, but it strikes me as not just plausible, but likely.

* Musk’s individual financial situation for his portion of the investment is almost certainly in a lesser place than when funding was originally put together for it.
* The general financial situation / investing environment overall for his co-investors is also almost certainly in a far lesser place than months ago.
* The only upside funding-wise is likely from loans, where higher rates may make additional borrowing funds available to close the deal.

It seems highly likely that additional funding parters would be sought to get this deal closed, especially if it avoids the need for additional TSLA share sales or pushing the limits of share-backed-loan facilities. Hopefully either the deal falls apart completely (my “hoped for but not expected” scenario) or additional investors are found to avoid additional TSLA sales (my “expected” scenario), and additional sales are unnecessary. But I don’t see why that particular reporting would be considered “an orchestrated FUD scheme” so firmly, unless you disagree with one of my first two bullet points or you have some strong reason to believe the opposite of that likely-true (IMHO) reporting.

 

[wipster]

Temporary production facility for Semis at GigaNevada (courtesy of Drive Tesla Canada)

Good article too!

Tesla aiming to become one of the biggest class 8 truck manufacturers in North America in 2024

50,000 units might not sound like much but it is a figure that would make Tesla one of the largest class 8 truck manufacturers in North America.

driveteslacanada.ca

 

[bkp_duke]

Why does that seem like “an orchestrated short FUD scheme”? I would certainly like it to be, but it strikes me as not just plausible, but likely.

* Musk’s individual financial situation for his portion of the investment is almost certainly in a lesser place than when funding was originally put together for it.
* The general financial situation / investing environment overall for his co-investors is also almost certainly in a far lesser place than months ago.
* The only upside funding-wise is likely from loans, where higher rates may make additional borrowing funds available to close the deal.

It seems highly likely that additional funding parters would be sought to get this deal closed, especially if it avoids the need for additional TSLA share sales or pushing the limits of share-backed-loan facilities. Hopefully either the deal falls apart completely (my “hoped for but not expected” scenario) or additional investors are found to avoid additional TSLA sales (my “expected” scenario), and additional sales are unnecessary. But I don’t see why that particular reporting would be considered “an orchestrated FUD scheme” so firmly, unless you disagree with one of my first two bullet points or you have some strong reason to believe the opposite of that likely-true (IMHO) reporting.

Posted in Twitter thread, but bears repeating here because people are making a lot of assumptions and really don't know where Elon's cash balance sits:

And I've said this before, but it bears repeating - he MAY NOT need to sell any TSLA to buy TWTR. The key is this: if he picked his share lots carefully when he sold the last two times, he should have zero tax burden. I'm specifically referring to the shares he bought when he exercised options late last year. Tax was paid on those options exercises, and his basis on those new shares would be higher than the price he sold at (actually generating him a tax loss to claim).

Now, if he was stupid and sold old old old share lots with a basis of like $10 or something, well, he's screwed and will pay > 50% tax on those.

Again, the devil is in the details. And only Elon and his brokerage know what lots were picked for those share sales.


But the difference is literally billions of dollars, possibly as much at $10B.

 

[traxila]

I thought it would get uglier today based on the hysterics that were taking place in the media after the CC. Based on the earnings deck I thought that it was a wash, but after the CC, as great as it truly was, the reaction to EM admitting that EOQ waves were no longer possible due to logistics involved was extreme, I guess exactly what bears were looking for.

I was looking for high 180s. Guess there is always tomorrow but volume is high, already above average so the take away here is that there are buyers out there in the low 200s. If we hold today we would be looking at a triple bottom. You could argue for lower lows but 200 was never hit on all three journeys over the past week and today was the day for a breakthrough.

EM the wild card here. If he starts dumping tens of millions of shares, 200 will be shredded.

What's the good word, EM?