Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla gave the 90-100k guidance at the end of April, well into the quarter. So they must have had a good insight in deliveries and orders up to that moment, and had confidence in giving that guidance. Is it really that hard to reach 90k? They need to deliver 27k more cars than in Q1. That does not seem impossible given the spillover from Q1 to Q2, the horrible 12k S and X in Q1, and Model 3 production picking up steam (SR+). In Q1 they delivered half of the cars during the last 10 days. What if they do the same this time? (even if it is not desirable, due to the stress it puts on employees and customers).

Why do you think the q1->q2 spillover will help achieve 90k deliveries when Tesla is guiding for an even larger q2->q3 spillover?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doggydogworld
How does you owning their stock help their mission (unless you bought at IPO or during an offering)? I get how buying their products helps.

There's several areas where it helps.
  • As has been pointed out, holding shares confers voting rights on the company's future.
  • Shares being held aren't being sold, and therefore reduce the supply of TSLA shares. This means that the price is supported by those shares. That in turn has a few effects:
    • As has been pointed out, cost of acquisitions is lower
    • Employees being paid in stock options get more value from those options, improving morale (or allowing Tesla to issue fewer options, decreasing dilution)
    • Capital raises become cheaper, as the number of shares issued (and the resulting dilution) is lower
  • If Tesla chooses to use instruments such as rights offerings, holding shares gives the opportunity to participate in those, directly enabling the actual direct investment that you encourage
 
Did anyone see all this TSLAQ drama on twitter?

Bonnie Norman on Twitter

I'm not necessarily one to buy into media bias, but that one sure does look damning. Why would any sane journalist only want input from TSLAQ?
I thought Ross was one of the better ones? WTF is going on here? This is WS acting like a toddler. **** me.

Ross Gerber‏Verified account @GerberKawasaki 1h1 hour ago
Replying to @bonnienorman @BlakeLinton @latimes
I talk to Russ all the time. He wants to write good stories. Tesla doesn’t give reporters the time of day. It’s Teslas fault the narrative has turned so negative.
 
Last edited:
Read it. Last paragraph is concerning. Haven’t seen it in any other article

*While our current assessment of the company is positive, please note that it may be necessary for ARK to liquidate or reduce position sizes prior to the company attaining indicated valuation prices due to a variety of conditions including, but not limited to, client specific guidelines, changing market conditions, investor activity, fundamental changes in the company’s business model and competitive landscape, headline risk, and government/regulatory activity. Additionally, ARK does not have investment banking, consulting, or any type of fee paying relationship with the company.
 
Did not say they would solve FSD. Said they would have the best autonomy on the market. And you do not see a path to exiting 2020 at twenty thousand cars a week between China and US factories? OK, how about 16000 a week. Does that sound more plausible? Have not even mentioned the batteries....

I find that doing 50% YOY growth for Tesla auto works pretty well. It's not just about making cars, but the whole supply chain plus sales and support has to grow. You can see today how hard that growth is even at todays "modest" growth rate.

Plus I doubt there is yearly demand for 900K Model 3 at a $35K price point. Although I have no idea what the Chinese want in a car.
 
Read it. Last paragraph is concerning. Haven’t seen it in any other article

*While our current assessment of the company is positive, please note that it may be necessary for ARK to liquidate or reduce position sizes prior to the company attaining indicated valuation prices due to a variety of conditions including, but not limited to, client specific guidelines, changing market conditions, investor activity, fundamental changes in the company’s business model and competitive landscape, headline risk, and government/regulatory activity. Additionally, ARK does not have investment banking, consulting, or any type of fee paying relationship with the company.
This is a clusterfuck circle that WS has created. Damnit. Tesla needs to be private so they can focus on growth.
 
Lol insider selling huh? Certain institutes are selling and I think it's pretty apparent what why(here's a hint, has nothing to do with Tesla's actual business). New poster with 5 posts lies about insider selling. At least try and make it not so obvious.

Yea, probably not insider selling. At this low price, not much positive by exercising options and selling now unless some non-financial reason.
But, institutions selling is definitely real. Who is probably smiling now: T Rowe and Fidelity, or ARK?
 
Yea, probably not insider selling. At this low price, not much positive by exercising options and selling now unless some non-financial reason.
But, institutions selling is definitely real. Who is probably smiling now: T Rowe and Fidelity, or ARK?

Gonna bookmark this post because I would love to come back to this comparison at the end of 2019 and compare 2019 fund performance of T.Rowe/Fidelity against ARK's results ;)
 
If Tesla knows that they can't make their guidance, aren't they obliged to warn investors beforehand?
1. They didn't in Q1
2. It's still too early for them to know
3. It's way too early for those saying 70k to know​

After Q1 Tesla talked, again, about unwinding the wave. But Q2 will still be "wavy" in that no ship reached Europe or China until May 8th. Tesla has also trained customers to wait until late in the quarter for the best deals, and on cue the price cuts and promotions have started. So while Q2 may not be as backloaded as Q1, it will still be massively backloaded. Any projections based off April sales are just guesses, and usually biased ones.

The first ship arrived in Europe on February 5th. Model 3 deliveries started ramping on the 7th in the Netherlands, but it took almost a week to see a ramp in Spain and almost two weeks for Norway. The first ship this quarter arrived on the 8th. There was no real ramp in the Netherlands, though yesterday did show an uptick. Spain showed an uptick more or less on schedule, but today marks two weeks without a ramp in Norway (the jump to 240/week in early May didn't last). So it's a slower ramp overall in Europe, but the second ship just arrived today. By this time in Q1 the 4th ship was a few hours from Zeebrugge.

I still expect 20k Model 3s in Europe this quarter, if they can get enough SR+ and RHD loaded onto ships. Add ~35k for the US and some random number for China to get perhaps 65-70k total Model 3s. 75k looks pretty heroic, but EOQ heroics are a regular thing with Tesla. S/X depends on Raven production and how aggressively they dump pre-Raven inventory. I'd guess 15k.
 
Read it. Last paragraph is concerning. Haven’t seen it in any other article

*While our current assessment of the company is positive, please note that it may be necessary for ARK to liquidate or reduce position sizes prior to the company attaining indicated valuation prices due to a variety of conditions including, but not limited to, client specific guidelines, changing market conditions, investor activity, fundamental changes in the company’s business model and competitive landscape, headline risk, and government/regulatory activity. Additionally, ARK does not have investment banking, consulting, or any type of fee paying relationship with the company.

If ARK starts selling or reducing targets, then even the strongest of bulls would need to accept the *sugar* is real.

Gonna bookmark this post because I would love to come back to this comparison at the end of 2019 and compare 2019 fund performance of T.Rowe/Fidelity against ARK's results ;)

If T Rowe/Fidelity were to hold a new position now, they would be guaranteed to have done better than ARK.
 
Did anyone see all this TSLAQ drama on twitter?

Bonnie Norman on Twitter

I'm not necessarily one to buy into media bias, but that one sure does look damning. Why would any sane journalist only want input from TSLAQ?

Wow, I just checked, anf this guy has blocked me too! I've never interacted with him AFAIK...

Kind of proves the MSM campaign against Tesla...