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

[aubreymcfato]

Tesla Semi factory progress in the last 2 weeks basically nonexistent per Zanegler, they're still moving dirt and rocks.

 

[insaneoctane]

TSLA now at a record amount of days since making an all time high: 648 days.

View attachment 1055044

Feels like it

 

[samppa]

Looks like the EU parliamentary elections have resulted in a big shift to the far right..

Unfortunately the new EU parliament will now probably look to roll back all the EU emission mandates that were the basis of phasing out ICE vehicles.

Hopefully some of our EU based members can flesh out the likelihood of what might happen?

Finland is the outlier, left party leader Li Andersson got over 245k votes
That's over 10% of all votes in the whole country.

 

[jamaatta]

This type of bad stuff happening to other robotaxis is not a positive for Tesla, it’s bad for the whole business.

This type of stuff hapoening to Waymo is good for damping the hype of Waymo robotaxis in this Tesla forum. I also prefer hard facts more than "Waymo already solved robotaxis, where's Tesla?" hopium. If the facts are bad for your business, it's not a good business.

 

[jamaatta]

Finland is the outlier, left party leader Li Andersson got over 245k votes
That's over 10% of all votes in the whole country.

Plus the most right wing populist party, branded themself as green energy shift laggards (including EVs) , collapsed to the half.

 

[CitizenKane]

Finland is the outlier, left party leader Li Andersson got over 245k votes
That's over 10% of all votes in the whole country.

Sweden also saw success for left and green parties whereas the Sweden Democrats, our version of Trumpists, dropped most. It should however be noted that only about 50% of voters participated and it is fair to assume that the participation was particularly low among Sweden Democrats.

 

[Dikkie Dik]

Unfortunately the new EU parliament will now probably look to roll back all the EU emission mandates that were the basis of phasing out ICE vehicles.

Hopefully some of our EU based members can flesh out the likelihood of what might happen?

A roll back of the Green Deal is almost impossible afaik.

It’s already implemented policy and less radical then intended and the far right primarily won votes on the immigration theme, although they are also climate sceptic.

Problem is that climate policies really need to be strengthened and that’s not likely to be happening I’m afraid.

 

[NicoV]

Looks like the EU parliamentary elections have resulted in a big shift to the far right..

Unfortunately the new EU parliament will now probably look to roll back all the EU emission mandates that were the basis of phasing out ICE vehicles.

Hopefully some of our EU based members can flesh out the likelihood of what might happen?

From my point of view (Belgium, and we also had national and regional elections at the same time, which are much more important to our daily life):
I doubt the shift to the right will have any meaningful effect on the phasing out of ICE.
While the extreme right may think the phase out is a bad idea, it’s not really something they focus on. The less extreme right is not convinced this is a bad idea, and only talks about the affordability of EVs, so this may actually lead to more financial incentives to switch to EVs. This election was completely focussed on migration and totally not on green policies and it shows in the results of the green parties.

 

[Papafox]

Sure, it's called "discounted cash flow" models. But you don't get to assign some unrealistic probability to your assumptions, then get upset when the market disagrees.




Uh ok. yeah a 500 billion market cap company is heavily manipulated down from trillion dollar market cap. I'm sure it has nothing to do with decreasing profits.


Have you all spent anytime looking at the financials and valuations of other companies? Daily I look at the financials of a few companies seeing whether they are good opportunities to go long (or short).

#1 When companies report decreasing earnings and / or forward guidance is adjusted downwards... the stock price almost always goes down. It has nothing to do with shorts.

#2 The forward PE ratios of most healthy companies are in a certain ballpark, say 20-40. Usually the only companies higher than this are "startups" that are scaling up revenue very quickly, and there is hope that operational costs start flatlining / growing more slowly so operational leverage takes over. Often, this doesn't come to fruition and the bubble is popped. But sometimes it does.

#3 For established companies, even when investors "skate to where the puck is headed" they only do so a few years out. Look at NVDA, who's 1 year forward PE ratio is lower than TSLA's.

If any unbiased person walked up and looked at Tesla's financials, they would assert the stock is already valued on skating to where the puck is going.

You may certainly argue you assign a higher probability to robotaxis happening in the next few years than the rest of the market, but that doesn't mean the stock is manipulated.

It just means there are a wide variety of potential outcomes for the future earnings of Tesla.

Sigh...
Nobody suggests that manipulations are the primary reason for TSLA's dip these past few years. Nobody.

Investors value Tesla by looking at assets (to a lesser extent) and future revenues and figuring out what a company earning these future revenues should be valued at. Recent earnings are a critical indication of future earnings and with Tesla's earnings dip, the stock price has naturally readjusted.

The tricky part is assigning value to future earnings. It's a rather nebulous challenge. Since expectations of future earnings for a company such as Tesla can vary hugely (defending on who you talk to), there's ample ambiguity in just what those earnings will be. That ambiguity allows tremendous room for manipulations that can go unnoticed because nobody has an ironclad idea of just what Tesla will be earnings in future years and therefore how TSLA is deviating from this expected value. Let's look at the past four weeks as an example.

Here's the Nasdaq trading for the past month. Looks like it's up about 600 which works about to be about a 3.7% increase in value. Now, let's take a look at TSLA.

Chart courtesy of @JimS
Here's TSLA's maximum pain (blue line showing approx. most profitable closing price for those selling options) and closing stock price (green line). Now, if nothing was happening at Tesla, nothing at all, not a whisper of news, you would expect TSLA to move with the NASDAQ, multiplied by its beta (2.4X). The Nasdaq's 3.7% gains over this time period x 2.4 = 8.88% gain. Did we see this in TSLA over the past 4 weeks? Nope, We saw about a 4.7% gain, and all of that was in week 1. The rest of the month TSLA traded essentially level even though the Nasdaq continued to rise.

Most importantly, though, look how close TSLA's closing price came to max pain each week. Now, you can argue that the regular alignments of maximum pain and stock price each Friday, week after week, is just coincidence. When you watch too many of these "just coincidence" alignments happen for years at a time, though, you begin to suspect that someone who has something to gain (option sellers) might, just might, be doing some day-shorting and other manipulations in a manner that biases the stock price toward the max pain price.

This week, maximum pain was 177.50. The stock closed on Friday at 177.48. Feel free to believe this was just a coincidence. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[EVMeister]

Sigh...
Nobody suggests that manipulations are the primary reason for TSLA's dip these past few years. Nobody.

Investors value Tesla by looking at assets (to a lesser extent) and future revenues and figuring out what a company earning these future revenues should be valued at. Recent earnings are a critical indication of future earnings and with Tesla's earnings dip, the stock price has naturally readjusted.

The tricky part is assigning value to future earnings. It's a rather nebulous challenge. Since expectations of future earnings for a company such as Tesla can vary hugely (defending on who you talk to), there's ample ambiguity in just what those earnings will be. That ambiguity allows tremendous room for manipulations that can go unnoticed because nobody has an ironclad idea of just what Tesla will be earnings in future years and therefore how TSLA is deviating from this expected value. Let's look at the past four weeks as an example.

View attachment 1055149
Here's the Nasdaq trading for the past month. Looks like it's up about 600 which works about to be about a 3.7% increase in value. Now, let's take a look at TSLA.

View attachment 1055148
Chart courtesy of @JimS
Here's TSLA's maximum pain (blue line showing approx. most profitable closing price for those selling options) and closing stock price (green line). Now, if nothing was happening at Tesla, nothing at all, not a whisper of news, you would expect TSLA to move with the NASDAQ, multiplied by its beta (2.4X). The Nasdaq's 3.7% gains over this time period x 2.4 = 8.88% gain. Did we see this in TSLA over the past 4 weeks? Nope, We saw about a 4.7% gain, and all of that was in week 1. The rest of the month TSLA traded essentially level even though the Nasdaq continued to rise.

Most importantly, though, look how close TSLA's closing price came to max pain each week. Now, you can argue that the regular alignments of maximum pain and stock price each Friday, week after week, is just coincidence. When you watch too many of these "just coincidence" alignments happen for years at a time, though, you begin to suspect that someone who has something to gain (option sellers) might, just might, be doing some day-shorting and other manipulations in a manner that biases the stock price toward the max pain price.

This week, maximum pain was 177.50. The stock closed on Friday at 177.48. Feel free to believe this was just a coincidence. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

What are you doing here? This is the EU politics thread.

 

[hobbes]

So people who are perceived as asses should not expect to get their pay? And should expect deals to be broken?

And people who are seen as being on the far right politically should expect the same?

Who decide when people fall into these categories?

Disclaimer: I do not live i the US and may miss some context

I was initially agreeing with @ggies07 post until I read yours - I think we have to differentiate between two points

1. Is it fair from priniciples if Elon would not get his pay package due to people voting against it now because they despise his politics?
2. Is it likely that some people will do so and that might jeopardize it passing?

For me the answer to 1 is no (and that was your point, too) but 2 is yes. So it is reasonable if someone says 2 will happen and that what I took @ggies to mean, but in hindsight that post was not clear between the two.

 

[hobbes]

Assuming that a no vote for Elons pay package will tank the stock, what would the Norwegian pension funds motive be for voting no?

Possibly disapproval of Elon as a CEO and hoping he leaves if not paid

 

[hobbes]

Some possibilities:
They have a short position
They hope to reload down below

Is this something a pension fund can do? Is it a likely thing a pension fund would do? Serious question for the people with a financial background here..

IMHO this sound more like something a hedge fund would do.

 

[Christine69420]

Assuming that a no vote for Elons pay package will tank the stock, what would the Norwegian pension funds motive be for voting no?

They are supporting the Swedish Union IF Metall's strike against Tesla

Edit: They said to a newspaper that they thought Elon's pay package was too costly for the share holders.

 

[hobbes]

Looks like the EU parliamentary elections have resulted in a big shift to the far right..

Unfortunately the new EU parliament will now probably look to roll back all the EU emission mandates that were the basis of phasing out ICE vehicles.

Hopefully some of our EU based members can flesh out the likelihood of what might happen?

Just tried to find out who voted for and against the EU ICE ban back in Feb 2023, but could only find the turnout of the vote: 340 for/279 against/21 abstentions. So I´d say with the shift to the right it might be close but not clear (but this is only a hunch, no math to back it up). I´ll keep my eyes open if I see any analyses in the media.

Regarding shift to the "far right", from our European point of view I´d call it that, too. But the far right´s positions here are mostly on the same level of stuff that Elon keeps tweeting and is mainstream for Republicans in the US, first of all anti-immigration.

Here is the EU parliament´s seats before (left pic) and after (right pic) the election (left to right mirrors political left to right with everything starting at blue seriously right, black conservative):

EDIT: This analysis (sorry, paywall) says it is likely that the president of the EU comission, Ursula von der Leyen, will be re-elected. She was the one who pushed the ICE ban through the legislative process, so if she does stay in power that makes its survival more likely. However, it seems like she might need votes from the right now for her re-election who would likely on the other hand not support the ICE ban. So while the likelyhood of the ban surviving has decreased, seems too early to know how it will turn out. But it will definitely increase uncertainty for car manufacturers and buyers.

 

[alexxs88]

This has been hashed out here ad nauseam. The CA reporting requirements are irrelevant to this discussion. What we need to know about is any intervention that costs Waymo money. Every time a remote operator has to do something to get a Waymo going or keep it on track, it costs Waymo money. We do not have insight into that, but it appears to be a very frequent occurrence.

Sorry, but this is a straight lie. Below you'll see ALL of the instances when someone physically had to go and retrieve the autonomous vehicle. I've also attached the document that contains ALL of the instances when a Waymo operator had to intervene in ANY way. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this data tells me you're treating this more like a religion than actually trying to understand what's happening.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/2023-autonomous-vehicle-disengagement-reports-csv/

There is no publicly available intervention data that is relevant to this discussion. That goes for both Waymo and Tesla. And there is no way Waymo or Tesla would report internal data right now. There would be no advantage.

As shown above, this is a straight lie. There is publicly available data for Waymo. Why are you discarding it?

 

[Ellec]

TSLA now at a record amount of days since making an all time high: 648 days.

The more powerful the move up when it breaks, building a base.

 

[hobbes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1799571673181769868

 

[hobbes]

FSD has memory of occupancy objects, first time I have seen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1799402818639712548

 

[FEERSUMENDJIN]

Hypothetical alternate scenario:

Let’s say back in 2018, instead of this particular comp plan, the demand was that Tesla must buy Twitter in its entirety and give it to Elon, or else he will not focus on Tesla any more and will develop technologies at his other private companies instead. Seems totally ridiculous, but is essentially what happened here. He had the percentage ownership he now wants, but he felt the need to sell shares and spend $44 billion on that piece of garbage, taking his ownership down. Now, he wants the 25% stock ownership again, which would cost more than what he spent on Twitter. The board should have never gone along with something so egregious, even if the goals were completely pie in the sky. But they alsways do whatever he wants, and that’s the problem. Okay, he earned it based on the metrics - but it never should have been the reward in the first place. If he wanted that share ownership level he could have passed on Twitter and focus on the one company he runs that is, you know, actually public and has shareholders.

Would you have voted yes for that plan?

This will not "cost more than he spent on Twitter". This reveals how little you understand of any of this process. Please look at the preallocated budget for the deal, even a quick listen to the recent interviews with the Board chair might illuminate you further.