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

[Speedr117]

We ride along in Tesla Mobile Service's customized Model S - Video

Tesla mobile service

That's great! CNET has proved over and over again that they are one of the only news sources that are positive about Tesla. Of course, it makes sense since it's a tech website. What I can't understand is why ArsTechnica, which I love and pay money to, has such a negative vibe. It must really be all about the clicks. On a related note, I also don't understand why most of the comments are negative on ArsTechnica's site, since most tech people are cutting edge, and why they're on a tech site to begin with.

 

[Silentk]

Sorry to barge in after being away for a long time from TMC. Ihor (Ihor Dusaniwsky on Twitter) is on Twitter claiming that currently we have the highest short interest ever in TSLA (not in $$$ but in % of the float) and we know there's some delay to the numbers. So short sellers were shorting all the way down to $177? They probably saw the "free falling" stock price as evidence for their thesis that Tesla was heading for bancruptcy? Is it really possible to be that stupid? And if so, wouldn't this mean that (once again) TSLA is like a loaded spring waiting to rebound with a vengance?

Ihor also tweeted this about a week ago:

“$TSLA shorts are down almost $550 million today, but they are still up around $4.5 billion in mark-to-market profits this year. I don't think a car crusher could create a #Tesla short squeeze right now.“

 

[SPadival]

That video is blocked in the US on copyright grounds, FWIW...

Posting a short excerpt (which is perfectly legal) containing the relevant portion :

 

[uselesslogin]

I wonder what the days to cover situation looked like at that point in time. Nasdaq doesn't have historical data going back that far. Daily volume preceding that short squeeze was a lot lower on average than it is today.

I really want a short squeeze to happen, but the stars just dont seem to be aligned in our favor.

Yeah, um, 22.

Anyway here is what you seek:
Tesla Motors, Inc. (TSLA) Short Interest

 

[kengchang]

Below is his response to the above. I’m thinking on how to answer him. I’d like to say: “Because this is common sense to anyone who has remotely any knowledge of Tesla and doesn't exist for the sole purpose to trash Elon/Tesla at every turn.” But....



On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:14 PM, Mitchell, Russ <[email protected]> wrote:

If he misstated himself, why didn’t he tweet or otherwise clarify? He may well have intended to be misunderstood.

>It doesn’t pass the “smell test”.

That’s the whole point!

R

From: >
Date: June 12, 2019 at 2:30:02 PM
To: Mitchell, Russ <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Robotaxi Elon softens claims.

It doesn’t pass the “smell test”.

Russ Mitchell
Los Angeles Times
Automotive - Reporting and Analysisutomobiles -

Why does Elon has to refute everything that is misstated?

Just like Larry Ellison said, "You know, he’s landing rockets on robot drone rafts in the ocean. And you’re saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Well, who else is landing rockets? You ever land a rocket on a robot drone? Who are you?”"

 

[Artful Dodger]

Well, the Raven S/X use an AC rear motor. Unless they find a way to get the non-AC motors to spin "freely" (with less total losses than the AC ones, which is difficult as they can't be simply just turned off and left to spin), we're likely to always see at least one "axle" with AC motor(s) on any AWD vehicle, so that the they can spin "freely" for better efficiency in low power situations.

The S/X rear AC motors do not spin freely; the controller is set to "torque sleep". This zero net thrust mode has lower losses than the drag of an unpowered axle pulled by a powered axle. In torque sleep, most work is done by the more efficient front motor.

The Roadster2 likely won't have a AC motor in the front. It achieves both a 1.9 sec 0-60 performance and a 250+ mph top speed. AC motors don't allow this range of performance with a single speed drive.

Further, we saw the Roadster do 0-70mph 'wind-sprints' for an hour at the reveal event. An AC motor would melt doing this demonstration. The simpliest explanation for all these capabilities is that there are three Model 3 SRPM motors in the Roadster2.

Since this tri-motor design already exists in the Roadster, Tesla can use that design for the Cyberpunk truck and the eventual new S/X platform. There is no need for a large rear AC motor which are replaced by two SRPM motors on that axle. That's over 760 hp, which is more than the performance AC motor but at lower cost, higher efficiency and better performance.

This is also why talk of an imminent S/X 'refresh' is baseless, The halo product has to come first, and it sounds like the Roadster is not planned for 2020, which will be the year of the Model Y then the Semi. The Cyberpuck truck may also beat Roadster to the gate. I expect to hear more plans during the reveal later this Summer.

It will be years before the tri-motor architecture appears in the S/X. I predict sub-10 sec quarter miles, a 300+ kph top speed, and a 500 mile range on a 125 KWh Maxcell pack to be released around 2023. Prices should be comparable to current levels.

Beyond this, my crystal ball grows dim. But I know Tesla will always be at the intersection of science and technology. It's their unique art.

Cheers!

 

[CyberDutchie]

Even if we say that Tesla scale data sets are necessary but not sufficient, who says that Tesla is solely using inference a la multi-multi-layer backprop?

Biological brains are a bag of tricks. You can find mis-matched based learning for categorical memory, match based learning in motor control, and opponent processing based reinforcement learning for timed behavioral selection. Some of the tricks involve learned mappings from one coordinate system to another, e.g. retinal coordinates to spatial to motor codes in movement. Some of the tricks transform input, e.g. visual inputs are spit into form and boundary channels that reconverge for further processing. And so on.

You can pick and choose from this bag of tricks. Oftimes you can leverage some of these insights in data preprocessing and input representations. Sometimes you might need to do more. You can even use a hammer: You can add 'rules,' algorithmic pre-, inter-, or postprocessing.

Just because Tesla isn't publicizing every trick they use doesn't mean they aren't using them. Don't be blinded by your own strawperson.

In point of fact, our evolution is the existence proof that a sufficiently large data set plus search/inference can find the solution to every problem in navigating in the real world and more.

Tl:dr; Silicon Valley understands nothing so well as search. Recast this problem in your mind as a search, i.e. evolutionary, problem. Recognize that the compute power to perform this search is available today (given a sufficiently large and comprehensive data set ). And, perhaps, you will come to a different answer.

@capster, what do you believe Elon means by feature complete? What percentage of “tricks” of the human brain should the NN be able to master for full autonomy... or even, for the enhanced summon (since that’s also unsupervised)?

 

[Johan]

Ihor also tweeted this about a week ago:

“$TSLA shorts are down almost $550 million today, but they are still up around $4.5 billion in mark-to-market profits this year. I don't think a car crusher could create a #Tesla short squeeze right now.“

While he, and you, are right in principle you're missing the actual point of my observation: a short position has an infinite potential loss, a long position can only ever go to $0. If short interest has increased as the price of TSLA has fallen then - on the whole - it means the shorts are positioning themselves for a continued drop in stock price. Now, if short interest had in fact been falling during the drop that would be bad indeed for those of us playing the long long game - it would mean shorts were unwinding their positions as the stock price fell taking their profits, but in stead it would seem they've doubled down on their bet creating the spring effect I was imagining. You see, in the same way the short sellers as a whole haven't profited $4,5 Bn (because they haven't exited their postions, on a whole) I haven't "lost" a cent yet compared to last year's highs because I haven't sold a single share…

 

[neroden]

No one seems too focused on Panasonic. Smells to me like half the 1Q problems and current cell shortage are fairly premeditated acts from a Panasonic side whose profits are set to drop this year for the first time in 8 years.

Ramping up has been expensive for them and perhaps they feel now's the time to squeeze Elon before it's too late? Certainly the Maxwell acquisition was partially in response to the recent relationship.

Is this everyone else's understanding? Any way to track progress toward a more productive scaling? Is this just about Tesla potentially squeezing Panasonic out of Shanghai GF?

If this is the big bottleneck, and was created purposely, an announced resolution plus Maxwell enhancements on this Battery Day would be a monumental leap forward from my perspective.

I do not think it was intentional. Panasonic screwed up big time, yes. It appears to have been a conflict between the Japanese and Amercian corporate cultures, which led to "hiding problems under the rug" until they became to big to ignore.

 

[STARR X]

A number of made for Netflix shows have had a Tesla in them, but I don't think Tesla is paying for that, so they aren't doing product placement.

My wife, for fun, has been an extra in several movies that were filming in metro Atlanta. Several times, she has gotten a gig because they were looking for a Model S. Doesn’t pay much but it’s a fun experience.

 

[neroden]

At the scale we hope global BEV production reaches, will there be enough nickel production available to scale alongside it?

There is really a massive amount of nickel available, including in mines which are "mothballed" and even extraction from recycling. It's really easy to ramp up compared to lithium or cobalt, is what I'm saying.

 

[neroden]

Tesla.com lies. Communications hell is the next circle, which Elon has yet to recognize.

This is my only long-term worry about the company. If they get out of communications hell, they'll find themselves in heaven.

 

[abasile]

Umm what?

Did I say they sold shares? Are you responding to the right person?

And I’m sure the majority here all know ARK is the biggest player consistently buying.

No, in your previous post, you sarcastically downplayed ARK's most recent Tesla buy:

WOWzers!! They increased their TSLA holding by 0.3%. I’m going to add a couple more shares to my account now. /s

My response was simply that this represents a continuation of ARK's recent Tesla buying streak. Not everyone here is reading every post.

 

[Fact Checking]

Below is his response to the above. I’m thinking on how to answer him. I’d like to say: “Because this is common sense to anyone who has remotely any knowledge of Tesla and doesn't exist for the sole purpose to trash Elon/Tesla at every turn.” But....



On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:14 PM, Mitchell, Russ <[email protected]> wrote:

If he misstated himself, why didn’t he tweet or otherwise clarify? He may well have intended to be misunderstood.

>It doesn’t pass the “smell test”.

That’s the whole point!

R

From: >
Date: June 12, 2019 at 2:30:02 PM
To: Mitchell, Russ <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Robotaxi Elon softens claims.

It doesn’t pass the “smell test”.

Russ Mitchell
Los Angeles Times
Automotive - Reporting and Analysisutomobiles -

I'd reply something like this:

Russ, you are a JOURNALIST, Tesla's Autonomy Day was a 4 hour long presentation with a lot of ad-hoc moments. It is your JOB to report the truth, to examine the full context and to not come to nonsensical conclusions, and it's your JOB to ask for clarification if there's any ambiguity. It is your JOB not to report falsehoods, and it is also your job to inform your readers if a particular (mis-)statement by Elon Musk is in direct contradiction with what he said just seconds before...

Please correct your misleading article that quotes Elon Musk out of context.​

Maybe also ask him whether the editorial board of the LA Times considers it proper, ethical and legal to write misleading articles about Tesla, who happens to be in direct competition with "NantEnergy", a zinc-air startup owned by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the current owner of the LA Times:

Let's again remember that the LA Times is owned by a direct competitor of Tesla, which is developing zinc-air battery technology:



The only surprising thing about this is that the LA Times writing hit pieces about the owner's competition does not count as market manipulation aiding and abetting an illegal 'short and distort' scheme in the SEC's book.

Wondering whether this is related:

Patrick Soon-Shiong - Wikipedia

In February 2018, the Los Angeles Times reported that Soon-Shiong's investment firm Nant Capital reached a deal to purchase the paper and The San Diego Union-Tribune from Tronc Inc. for "nearly $500 million in cash"​

And:

"In September 2018, his company NantEnergy announced the development of a zinc air battery with a projected cost of $100 per kilowatt-hour (less than one-third the cost of lithium-ion batteries)."​

I.e. the LA Times' current owner has a company that is developing battery technology that competes with Tesla's battery technology.

So the LA Times is attacking a direct competitor of the owner of the paper.

I'd not expect any substantial replies though.

 

[SoGA Fan Club]

One more thing I will

I feel that Tesla would then have to start making the $35,400 car available for online ordering. Probably not a good idea until there's ample battery cell production capacity.

Good Point - make it whatever the lowest price available on the website is. $39,900?

Or, don't even put the starting price. Only reason I mentioned that is because another thing most people ask me is, "Don't those things cost about a hundred grand?". All are shocked when I say they start around $37,000 (or whatever).

 

[neroden]

Scott is not happy with Tesla, starts 9min in:

Oh, he's a moron. To be more fair, he's overspecialized.

Sure, Tesla has communications problems, but so what? That's not a business analysis. His problem is that he is a professor of marketing, so all he can see is the marketing.

Tesla's marketing is certainly abysmal, but what Mr. Galloway is missing is any ability to analyze the actual business. A business with terrible marketing which still has people lining up out the door to buy their product... should wake him up and make him realize that there's something else going on, but he's too specialized. He thinks a business is nothing BUT marketing, and ignores the products, ignores the consumer desires, etc.

 

[mongo]

The S/X rear AC motors do not spin freely; the controller is set to "torque sleep". This zero net thrust mode has lower losses than the drag of an unpowered axle pulled by a powered axle. In torque sleep, most work is done by the more efficient front motor.

The AC motor, when active, continually wastes power in the rotor. The PMSR is much higher on the efficiency curve in cruise than the AC at near idle is. So it is more efficient to drive the gearing and rotor with the front motor than to drive the rear motor electrically.
See also @wk057's investigation showing the motors turn off:
Let the hacking begin... (Model S parts on the bench)

The Roadster2 likely won't have a AC motor in the front. It achieves both a 1.9 sec 0-60 performance and a 250+ mph top speed. AC motors don't allow this range of performance with a single speed drive.

I doubt it will be AC also, but an AC motor can produce those performance numbers. Current S top speed is 155 MPH. To keep the same rotor speed, they need to up the gear ratio 60% which means for the same wheel torque, they need to boost current 60% also (or change the windings) . An upsized AC motor can give whatever power performance you need (at least till the rotor overheats)

 

[Sudre]

it still amazes me that people just will not accept how advertising works, or even be so convinced it doesn't work at all (normally on *them* because they are *smart*). Please read 'the advertised mind'. Do people REALLY think that hundreds of billions of dollars get spent every year globally without anybody ever looking into it whether or not it works?

Great you know how it works.

How fast after advertising does the effect kick in?
Do you believe Elon is lying and demand is an issue?
Why not wait until demand is an issue then advertise? (because I do believe it works)
Will people believe the advertising against the FUD now but not later? (that just sounds crazy)

Company's do not advertise to raise their stock price.

 

[canoemore]

Put me in the "in favor of some informative type advertisements" column.

Every single person I talk to about my Tesla (and yes, I'm pretty freaking bold about finding a way to tell people about Tesla) says the same exact thing to me - "yea, but where do you charge when you go out of town"?

Just that one piece of information would be HUGE for Tesla's market. In Cali, sure, everyone knows Tesla and almost everything about it. But, in the Southeast, and most of Florida and Texas (and several other states surrounding the SE), there is a HUGE market of potential buyers that know NOTHING about Tesla. I still get this quite often - "Tesla? Who makes it?"

My wife works with surgeons on Hilton Head Island, SC. Now, I don't know about you, but I tend to think surgeons are some intelligent folk. And, they ought to be able to afford a Tesla, right? Well, my wife is constantly educating these people on Tesla. It is totally shocking that they know essentially NOTHING about Tesla. Most ask her where she has to stop on the way to work to charge and how long it takes (it's a 35 mile drive for her). They all ask the "where will I charge on trips" question. And they all believe the fire and AP wrecks FUD (and most of the other stuff too). And none have a clue about just how fast a Tesla is. One doctor is a big Porsche guy - and had the gall to tell her he couldn't drive a golf cart after owning a Porsche. My wife showed him all the 0-60mph times, as well as the 1/8th and quarter times. He was shocked and said, I never had a clue." Well, of course not!!

A simple commercial detailing the basics about the range, charging in your garage, the supercharger map, a blip about the performance, etc - and ending with a picture of the Model 3, and then lastly under the car - "Starting at $35,400 www.tesla.com".

That would go a long way to dispel some of the FUD.

Now, I've had a couple of scotches so far this evening, so excuse me if this is a little stream-of-consciousness. But. When I read a post like the one above I get kind of excited for the next few years. I don't own a Tesla (just the stock), and I've never even driven one. I have a 2006 civic with lots of peeling paint and janky wheels. But the second that mythical short squeeze happens, the second purchase I make after buying a Souris River Quetico 17 canoe is going to be a Model 3. The fact that so few people know so little about this company and the products it makes - like the folks you're talking about in your post - leaves me a little gobsmacked at how much room there is to run.

I have no idea what to think about this advertising situation - I'm no expert. I read a post from someone advocating one position and I think, "Yeah, that makes sense, Tesla should do the rational thing and run some targeted internet ads." And then I read another post from @Krugerrand and think, "Down with the propaganda! We shall not manufacture consent!" (apologies for the dramatization). I just like to imagine what I see as an inevitable future where Teslas are the cool cars that people aspire to have. All they have to do is stay afloat till Gen Z has the means to start buying cars. Then it's game over.

Time for some Letterkenny.

 

[neroden]

I don't think he's unreasonable. He has some valid points. But he just doesn't get the paradigm shift that's occurring.

His points and my respective thoughts....

*Elon over promises, under delivers -- true. We/Elon know this. I don't see it affecting the company's viability.
*1 M Robotaxis next year is crazy -- Like most, Scott is twisting what Elon said. Elon said there will be 1 M cars that are equipped to be robotaxis (a fairly rational prediction). Elon has never said there will be 1 M robotaxis in operation next year.
* $420 tweet -- fair point, we know it was ill-advised. Doesn't really affect the company's future prospects.

Agree, agree, agree

* Sr Leadership exits -- I still don't know if there really is an unusually high turnover rate. I'd have to compare it to other companies in the valley. Scott says the quality of mgt matters; I think the mgt team is quite good.
* Weak board -- fair point. I think the board will be improving soon; several members will be replaced.

Tesla has a stronger board than most companies I've invested in. Most corporate boards are sinecures -- look at ExxonMobil or Berkshire Hathaway.

* Scott thinks a tech company buys them -- I doubt Tesla becomes imperiled to the degree it gets bought at a discounted price.

Mr. Galloway doesn't understand buisness. He's a professor of marketing.

Scott does not mention anything about demand/sales/growth. Or battery efficiency, range, capacity, etc... ie - the things that matter most. Scott doesn't mention global EV growth rates or any macro pressures pushing the world to EV. He just doesn't get it.

That's because he doesn't understand any sort of business at all. All he understands is marketing.