2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
I kinda wish that Elon's legal team would invite a few key folks from TMC to help work their way through the mine field to develop a plan to use the legal system as a lever in undermining the status quo on Wall Street.
-
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
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
As pointed out in the white paper, this method is approximately 1000x more effective at sequestering CO2 per hectare of land than biological photosynthesis. We need to expand healthy wildlife habitat and rebuild our topsoil and forests for sure, but these options simply can’t sequester carbon fast enough to clean this mess up in time.
Without these “human-designed technological solutions” for chemical manufacturing, we will either remain unsustainably dependent on fossil hydrocarbons or we will have no fertilizer, no plastics, no lubricants, no rubber or other crucial polymers and organic chemicals. We also need advanced human technology to get life off Earth to avoid inevitable extinction at some point in the future. This planet will not be inhabitable forever. Without human engineering, terrestrial life is utterly doomed.
Will this introduce new and unforeseen problems? Probably it will, but do you have any suggestions for alternatives that don’t involve mass global famine, crippling poverty, total deindustrialization and eventual extinction?
Also, the proposed replacement of petrochemicals with direct air capture solar-derived chemicals actually will tend to localize supply chains instead of creating more globalization like we inherently have from petroleum and gas reliance.
It is much easier to add CO2 back into the atmosphere than to remove it. You just need to light stuff on fire.
Last edited:
I see what you did there and I approve.
Thank you everyone for so many great posts this morning. The signal ratio has definitely improved today. In particular, the warnings about trading on margin and then options are always a welcome reminder. I remember on the last run up thinking that it was a shame that I didn’t understand options because it felt like I was missing out on outsized gains. However, a part of me was also sticking to the maxim that “if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is”. In hindsight, it’s probably a good thing I didn’t bother to learn and avoided them altogether.
Unfortunately, today much of the anger and resentment seems to be from those who got burned with options and margin, and rather than expressing their vitriol towards the parties most responsible for their problems, i.e. the market makers and short-sellers, etc.; they’re venting their frustrations at Elon and Tesla. Ironically, by doing so they’re unwittingly further helping the short-sellers by helping to sour the public’s opinion of Elon and Tesla. Exactly what the short sellers are hoping for.
There's a game called "MIT beer game" that is used as an introduction to systems thinking. Even small delays in feedback and quick actions can cause wild oscillations, even in very simple systems. We will not be able to control the climate by removing co2 and then lighting things in fire if we go too low.
There are plenty of much better solutions for especially food systems than the petroleum based ones. The examples exist in nature, all we need to do is observe, learn, and facilitate. Native American food forests in PNW have been discovered that have been "neglected" for hundreds of years and still produce an abundance of food, and have higher biodiversity than the surrounding woods.
Might be 1000x more effective at that, but you're ignoring 1000 things that make photosynthesis and organic life superior. Map is not the territory.
Edit. I love veering off-topic! I'll shut my mouth about this now
I’m hoping for a post earnings bear reaming rally by then. I want to see a bunch of hungry bears complaining about posterior pains by Feb 1st. Then Musk can ship his Burnt Hair cologne.We need 23 in a row to get back to ATH, so should be at a new ATH well before the end of February. That is how this works, right?
I’ve seen people blame Rivian’s recent stock problems on Tesla.
There is some truth to it, a lot of funds and investors buy the best performing stocks in a fast growing market segment trying to capture the cream of that segment. So when Tesla is doing well, people buy Tesla, Rivian, XPeng, BYD, Lucid… Even though they are competitors, the logic is if just one of them is as successful as Tesla it will pay off much better than just investing in Tesla alone.
So Tesla drives the whole sector, so when Tesla dips, Rivian sinks. A sinking tide lowers all ships so to speak.
It’s definitely not 100%. But there is a good reason Rivian IPO’d right at Tesla’s ATH. They captured near maximum cash raising potential. If they IPOd this December they’d have gotten less than half the funds.
So if Tesla has a face ripping rally, you betcha these guys are going to tag along at least some.
See my above post, Rivian stock owners think the issues with TSLA are causing problems for them. Musk is the face of the EV movement. There would be no EV market without Musk. Some people might say otherwise, but deep down they know it’s truth.
The Accountant
Active Member
I will be compiling a list but I believe at the moment there are only 2-3 forecasts published.
I will publish tomorrow what is available and update the list as new forecasts get reported.
btw, Q4 2022 will be my last quarterly forecast. The rigor required going forward is more than I can devote the time to.
Two ramping factories, two new vehicles (Semi, CT), Lathrop Energy ramp, IRA credits, price cuts, etc make the effort more time consuming.
Others computing the quarterly forecasts do a very good job so I don't think my exit in this area leaves us empty handed.
I will continue to post Tesla financial analyses and metrics and insights to the numbers. I will also continue with my 5 to 10 year financial numbers generating a valuation for the stock price.
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Just a reminder to please spell out initially any acronyms used in posts. There are several in many many posts today. For someone that does not know what they are there is a lot of information lost. Even googling them does not get me the answers to what they mean and I have been here for almost 7 years following 80-90% of what is posted.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Tesla dropped another engineering recruitment video.
Thanks my friend! Believe me, all the posters to this thread appreciate your efforts. I know how much work it must be, but you've spoiled the rest of us who are too lazy to do it ourselves... Me in particular.
Looking forward to your forecast!
Last edited:
Options are risky.
You could even lose 70% of your account value in a year.
You could even lose 70% of your account value in a year.
Two-part (and largely hypothetical) question on both the philosophical and actual operations of market makers (MM) - part 1 (here) I believe I understand the answer to, but part 2 (later to come) I am less certain what the correct philosophical answer should be.
Question: Is it philosophically good, and are the requirements in place via FINRA (5000 - 6999), that entities designated as Market Makers be required to quote a price at which they will consummate you selling and them buying that security at all times? Best case, A) there is a corresponding retail or institutional buyer who wants to buy that share that you are selling, who then immediately purchases said share. Middle case, B) if there is no corresponding retail or institutional buyer who wants to buy that share at that precise moment for that price, the Market Maker may be ok with holding that share you are selling them for their own activities (e.g. for them to use to satisfy a future buy order should a lack of sellers emerge). Worst case, however, would be C) if you are selling a share and for whatever reason there are current *no* retail or institutional buyers who want to buy that share at that time...and even in this scenario, my understanding is that Market Makers are *required* to continue to publish prices at which they will continue to buy those shares from you, even if no one wants to buy them and the Market Maker themselves do not even want to buy it. The Market Makers can (and would) reduce their bid price at each update, hoping to draw in buyers and move from scenario C to either B or A, but even if dropping their bid price no (or insufficient) sellers appear, the Market Makers are still required to buy your share, correct? Regardless of the cause (whether stock-specific or overall market flash-crash, etc), is it philosophically good that Market Makers are forced to buy shares even in this scenario where they do not want to buy them?
<Just to be very clear, I have *0* expectation of any such doom-and-gloom situation - I just want to have the answer to this locked in to use as the basis for the harder, second part question.>
Question: Is it philosophically good, and are the requirements in place via FINRA (5000 - 6999), that entities designated as Market Makers be required to quote a price at which they will consummate you selling and them buying that security at all times? Best case, A) there is a corresponding retail or institutional buyer who wants to buy that share that you are selling, who then immediately purchases said share. Middle case, B) if there is no corresponding retail or institutional buyer who wants to buy that share at that precise moment for that price, the Market Maker may be ok with holding that share you are selling them for their own activities (e.g. for them to use to satisfy a future buy order should a lack of sellers emerge). Worst case, however, would be C) if you are selling a share and for whatever reason there are current *no* retail or institutional buyers who want to buy that share at that time...and even in this scenario, my understanding is that Market Makers are *required* to continue to publish prices at which they will continue to buy those shares from you, even if no one wants to buy them and the Market Maker themselves do not even want to buy it. The Market Makers can (and would) reduce their bid price at each update, hoping to draw in buyers and move from scenario C to either B or A, but even if dropping their bid price no (or insufficient) sellers appear, the Market Makers are still required to buy your share, correct? Regardless of the cause (whether stock-specific or overall market flash-crash, etc), is it philosophically good that Market Makers are forced to buy shares even in this scenario where they do not want to buy them?
<Just to be very clear, I have *0* expectation of any such doom-and-gloom situation - I just want to have the answer to this locked in to use as the basis for the harder, second part question.>
Last edited:
It does feel like we are moving to a more speculative earnings period - there seems to be little benefit in publicly predicting a quarterly EPS when we are at the confluence of several major forces. It's no longer just cars in a "stable" environment - global macro plus the product/regulatory items you mention make accurate short term forecasts very difficult IMO.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sure, that's reasonable to do so, everyone can weight his various actions as they see fit. The problem arises when past achievements are used to negate recent and completely avoidable errors. Errors add up too, not just achievements, so they both need to be considered. Hopefully he's gotten enough negative feedback to take notice and curtail pointlessly destructive behavior.
So that's what pennies are used for now.
They are producing Methane which presumably will be burnt releasing the CO2, so it is a zero net emissions strategy.
Plants (and animal algae) do a good job of absorbing CO2.
Algae, Sugar Cane, Hemp and Bamboo are fast gowing and can be used to make a range of products including food,
If their product stacks up economically it is a way of making Gas probably at best for around the same price as the current price. We are likely to trend towards using a lot less Gas, and this is one net zero emissions way to do it.
Abundant energy means adequate food, housing and transport for every human on the planet. Abundant energy and resources means no real need to fight wars for economic reasons.
The first country to tap abundant cheap energy has the ability to make a lot of military hardware. The best guarantee of peace is having all nations on an equal technological footing.
Last edited:
Yes and another factor is with an aging population, high property prices, young people are working hard (or out of work) and don't have the time / economic security to have a family.
Some are also travelling the world and enjoying a good lifestyle, delaying the decision to have children. Or perhaps not in the right relationship.
But angst about climate change is a definite factor.
The Optimus robot will help, especially if it eventually results in more housing, a more even distribution of wealth, and more leisure time.
Optimus helping with child raising and housework should not be underestimated. Optimus helping with aging parents may mean a lot more free time.
Elon always has a knack of working on the right problems.
How did you get my brokerage password?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
