It's only called insider trading when done by people inside corporate America do it.
When government officials do it, it's called Freedom-investing.
-
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
When government officials do it, it's called Freedom-investing.
Wait this is actually good news.
this means maybe all EVs under the price cap are eligible for the subsidy from Jan 1st until the battery sourcing rules are clarified (thats what the linked to article in the tweet says). meaning even the model 3 with LFP
Last edited:
Haha, that last 30 mins was super disappointing. Even with macro's rallying, TSLA couldn't get back above 150. I suspect we're going to be really annoyed with the stock action tomorrow
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
No rush, GM and Ford aren't going to qualify for it regardless. Why would they hurry when there is only downside for connected lobbyists?
EDIT: Imagine the frustration of all the people who delayed their orders until January or who planned purchases in the 1st quarter with the expectation this would be in place.
Gonna take something major to change it that's for sure... perhaps Elon's anointment of a new front person?Haha, that last 30 mins was super disappointing. Even with macro's rallying, TSLA couldn't get back above 150. I suspect we're going to be really annoyed with the stock action tomorrow
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Elon must have sold this morning and is now buying back, has to be the only explanation for this SP action.
Yup, especially with us now in the Blackout Period: So there's that... /s
There is a twitter thread by Dave Lee from last year at this time: (good overview, thx @DaveT )
I have no clue how to reconcile that last paragraph in that Reuter's article. "The department noted that under the law the critical mineral and battery component requirements take effect only after Treasury issues that proposed rule".
How can say for an example a Model Y that gets sold in Jan or Feb not get the full credit when the credit is not a spot-sale credit and instead a credit you get later when you file your taxes? How does that make any sense when a tax credit is based on during the entire tax year?
How can say for an example a Model Y that gets sold in Jan or Feb not get the full credit when the credit is not a spot-sale credit and instead a credit you get later when you file your taxes? How does that make any sense when a tax credit is based on during the entire tax year?
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Almost all analysts are nothing more than tools of manipulators and the sooner one realizes that the sooner they can stop wasting their time listening to their ridiculous releases. They don't work for you for free, their clients are not even retail investors, they are the marks. Anyone who doesn't understand this is naive.
True, they have to pretend to offer some value, so they don't become irrelevant, but pretending in this game is not good enough. Even if they are able to add some clarity occasionally, the overall effect of the timing of their moves is to give an edge to Wall Street insiders who are in the club. It has nothing to do with being hypnotized by the share price and everything to do with trying to hypnotize you.
When was the last time you saw a brokerage analyst that required you to be a client to read their analyses? Or that charged a subscription fee instead of broadcasting their latest call far and wide over the newswire? They do it because they have big hearts and love to help out mom and pop investors free of charge. /s
What is it about this dynamic that cause people to be outsmarted by jellyfish?
trayloader
Member
Don’t you think it’s a good sign that finally someone is lighting a fire under the boards lower back? I applaud this. Doesn’t imply I like her (classical Washington establishment).
Actual text from Reuters:
WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department said Monday it will issue proposed guidance for critical minerals and battery components requirements in March - a key component of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit overhauled by Congress.
That decision means electric vehicles that are not in compliance with battery sourcing rules could be eligible for $7,500 tax credits sometime in March. The Treasury also said it will by Dec. 31 "release information on the anticipated direction of the critical mineral and battery component requirements that vehicles must meet to qualify for tax incentives."
The department noted that under the law "the critical mineral and battery component requirements take effect only after Treasury issues that proposed rule." General Motors Co (GM.N) and Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) vehicles again become eligible for EV tax credits on Jan. 1 after Congress in August lifted the per-manufacturer cap on EV tax incentives.
WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department said Monday it will issue proposed guidance for critical minerals and battery components requirements in March - a key component of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit overhauled by Congress.
That decision means electric vehicles that are not in compliance with battery sourcing rules could be eligible for $7,500 tax credits sometime in March. The Treasury also said it will by Dec. 31 "release information on the anticipated direction of the critical mineral and battery component requirements that vehicles must meet to qualify for tax incentives."
The department noted that under the law "the critical mineral and battery component requirements take effect only after Treasury issues that proposed rule." General Motors Co (GM.N) and Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) vehicles again become eligible for EV tax credits on Jan. 1 after Congress in August lifted the per-manufacturer cap on EV tax incentives.
This last bit is confusing to me.
Does this mean that requirement is waved during the 1st quarter so everyone gets it or does it mean nobody will be able to collect the incentives based on the critical mineral components clause?
Either interpretation benefits GM and Ford who don't qualify regardless. It's just a matter of whether their customers get a boon until the IRS finalizes it or Tesla customers get screwed.
Cnbc again with a pro-Tsla piece. Steve Westly, former Tesla board member, just on with positive Tesla view. Confirms, in his opinion, Elon stepping away from Tw is a good thing and emphasizing Tesla's dominance in the EV sector and solid company standing.
Drumheller
Active Member
Perhaps we should wait for additional information from a more reliable source.
16 billion people familiar with the issue have informed me that Reuters isn't reliable.
That's... an interesting Interpretation...
Not sure it works that way...
They are going by this:
But not this:
Never said he was. If he abides by the results of his poll, he'll be resigning as the head of the bird. Technoking is his title at Tesla.
I think its the others way around: all EVs that meet the IRA requirements (other than the critical mineral & battery component requirements - which are yet to be defined) will get the full subsidy on Jan 1st.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Sounds like “That’s a nice company there, be a shame if x didn’t do y.” if I ever heard one.
What a crapshoot of legislation and implementation by the government
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
