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

[pz1975]

I wonder if this is just a magnet to max pain for the week.

 

[Cirrus MS100D]

Is the 2PM 4.15 million share trade accurate or is that just stupid Yahoo Finance?

Somebody on here want to own up to it?

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Looks like the rise in Tesla's share price got the attention of shorts/bears. Pretty heavy amount of sell blocks started coming through as the macro's were rising slightly. Pretty consistent technique used for capping Tesla rallies. Guess bears still have more ammo throw. Taking out Thursday, pretty stable/consistent price action.

 

[Stars aligned]

If a share is known that it will never pay a dividend then technically it is worthless. All stock ownership is based on the net present value of future dividends. Otherwise we are just trading air.

I suppose a tiny bit of residual value would remain because acquiring 51% of all shares of a company would grant you voting control.

Actually, it's a very theoretical discussion and although many view it this way, I disagree or at least think this view is too narrow. Companies tend to use their excess capital in the most efficient way, whatever the metrics for this are.
- if they have attractive growth to fund, that's the way to go.
- or they fund attractive acquisitions.
- share buybacks could also be interesting. Just look at BH. Imagine Tesla would throw 5 bn at share buybacks in the next 3 years (not sure if this has already been mentioned, was traveling and didn't catch up with all posts).
- and then there are also dividends.

Even if Musk should have said never dividends, so what? He changed his mind about o lo of things, including Model S and X always having the latest and greatest technology.

If anyone want to grow any gray hair over this, feel free. Me definitively not, and I'll certainly not do any investment decision based on speculation whether Tesla will pay dividends in the late 2020's or 2030's or not. I'm sure it will be a rationale, market driven management decision. If Tesla doesn't reward shareholders sufficiently, the market will react in a way which is also unfavorable to the management. they may become a takeover target, as an example.

 

[Stars aligned]

Is the 2PM 4.15 million share trade accurate or is that just stupid Yahoo Finance?

Somebody on here want to own up to it?

Stupid Yahoo as almost every day around this time. Volume of off exchange / over the counter / call excersizing transactions might be reported at once, as a wild guess.

 

[Off Shore]

Looks like the rise in Tesla's share price got the attention of shorts/bears. Pretty heavy amount of sell blocks started coming through as the macro's were rising slightly. Pretty consistent technique used for capping Tesla rallies. Guess bears still have more ammo throw. Taking out Thursday, pretty stable/consistent price action.

That's because shorting ammo /< Chuck & Dave's net worth.

 

[kbM3]

Not infinite

Agree . Infinite is an exaggeration.

It’s probably closer to 1/2 infinite.

 

[Antares Nebula]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Mod: Everyone, please, don't post links like this without telling the reader something about the content. In this case:
Lyft Operating Chief to Depart After Moving Last Year From Tesla
--ggr.

I think what happens here is that most of the time when links are posted here on TMC, the TMC code automatically formats the title of the link or article (instead of just "http://..."). So in such cases, users don't have to in addition cut and paste the article title (like I have to at, say, Seeking Alpha).

But for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to work with the Bloomberg cite (so I do have to cut and paste the article title). If you're not used to doing it for other links, then it is easy to forget to do it for Bloomberg. I don't think it's intentional. Maybe TMC software folks can look at this. But it could be a problem inherent to Bloomberg and unavoidable??

Example:

China vows fight against Trump's latest tariffs as stocks sink - Reuters

Stock Traders Have Theories About the Timing of Trump’s Tariff Tweet
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Notice how the Reuters link is properly formatted with the title of the article, but the Bloomberg link is not, and therefore I have to in addition cut and paste the title. It's an extra step, but I agree that it's worth it, as posting uninformative links is kinda annoying. But I could see how folks could forget to do it when, in most cases, TMC does it for you.

@ggr @Right_Said_Fred @AudubonB

 

[sparcs]

So some people in this thread are saying that share buybacks are the same as dividends? so a company splits itself into two pieces and this new definition makes that a dividend?

No wonder this dividend discussion makes no sense at all. Is it a dividend if the company goes bankwupt?

this is my understanding of a dividend:

Dividend Definition

What Is a Dividend?
A dividend is the distribution of reward from a portion of the company's earnings and is paid to a class of its shareholders. Dividends are decided and managed by the company’s board of directors, though they must be approved by the shareholders through their voting rights. Dividends can be issued as cash payments, as shares of stock, or other property, though cash dividends are the most common. Along with companies, various mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETF) also pay dividends.

 

[ggr]

I think what happens here is that most of the time when links are posted here on TMC, the TMC code automatically formats the title of the link or article (instead of just "http://..."). So in such cases, users don't have to in addition cut and paste the article title (like I have to at, say, Seeking Alpha).

But for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to work with the Bloomberg cite (so I do have to cut and paste the article title). If you're not used to doing it for other links, then it is easy to forget to do it for Bloomberg. I don't think it's intentional. Maybe TMC software folks can look at this. But it could be a problem inherent to Bloomberg and unavoidable??

Example:

China vows fight against Trump's latest tariffs as stocks sink - Reuters

Stock Traders Have Theories About the Timing of Trump’s Tariff Tweet
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Notice how the Reuters link is properly formatted with the title of the article, but the Bloomberg link is not, and therefore I have to in addition cut and paste the title.

@ggr @Right_Said_Fred @AudubonB

Sure, but I always look at the message I just posted and if it doesn't look right I fix it. It's still laziness on the part of the poster to not do at least that much.

 

[Green Pete]

Sorry if this comes off as OT, but I feel like I frequently see Tesla attempt to make decisions that require shareholder approval and frequently fall short of the required votes to pass. My guess is that most of the people on this forum are not set up to vote in alignment with the board automatically or don't even know how. Anyone got a good resource on how to go about voting with the board automatically regardless of how you are holding shares that could be shared/added to some peoples signatures?

 

[jerry33]

I think what happens here is that most of the time when links are posted here on TMC, the TMC code automatically formats the title of the link or article (instead of just "http://..."). So in such cases, users don't have to in addition cut and paste the article title (like I have to at, say, Seeking Alpha).

But for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to work with the Bloomberg cite (so I do have to cut and paste the article title). If you're not used to doing it for other links, then it is easy to forget to do it for Bloomberg. I don't think it's intentional. Maybe TMC software folks can look at this. But it could be a problem inherent to Bloomberg and unavoidable??

Example:

China vows fight against Trump's latest tariffs as stocks sink - Reuters

Stock Traders Have Theories About the Timing of Trump’s Tariff Tweet
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Notice how the Reuters link is properly formatted with the title of the article, but the Bloomberg link is not, and therefore I have to in addition cut and paste the title. It's an extra step, but I agree that it's worth it as posting uninformative links is kinda annoying. But I could see how folks could forget to do it when, in most cases, TMC does it for you.

@ggr @Right_Said_Fred @AudubonB

I believe the issue is that if you post a URL you should say something about the URL's content and why it's worthwhile clicking on the URL (or not worthwhile)--not just the title.

 

[EVMeister]

Damn the short's seem to have unlimited powder!

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[Doggydogworld]

This is not a fact, even with your greatly expanded definition of dividends.
There is no fundamental limit to growth. A company can expand into new products, new industries, new regions, new planets, new galaxies....

And you chide me for "expanding", lol.

Anyway, I didn't "greatly expand" any definitions. A dividend to a 100% shareholder is still a dividend. If SolarCity ever upstreams earnings to Tesla (instead of the opposite), it will be a dividend. By standard definition.

Share buybacks are mathematically identical to dividends. TSLA buying back 10% of their stock tomorrow is economically the same as issuing a 10% dividend and doing a 9:10 reverse split. In both cases shareholders collectively end up with the same number of shares and the same amount of cash in their pocket. (There are real-world differences w.r.t. taxes and employee stock options which go beyond the scope of this discussion).

Distant cash flows are almost irrelevant once they have been discounted.

Not if reinvestment ROI exceeds the discount rate. It's basic arithmetic.​

The next 5, 10, 20 years are what matter to valuation

Again, not if the company maintains high IROIC. If IROIC is low then they damn well should pay dividends. Otherwise they just destroy value.

Myron Gordon's DDM theory...

Never heard of him or the theory, but what you describe doesn't sound very useful. I'm just using basic logic and arithmetic.

There is no fundamental reason why a company's growth rate should ever fall below its cost of equity, so there is no fundamental reason why the DDM should ever become relevant for every company.

At 50% CAGR Tesla revenue will exceed global GDP by ~2040. A lower CAGR means this ridiculous outcome occurs later, but it's mathematically unavoidable if Tesla keeps growing faster than the discount rate. And if they don't maintain such growth, they must eventually pay dividends. The size of those eventual dividends determines Tesla's current value.​

 

[ZeApelido]

This is some sort of omen, right?

Hit a bear

Guess we are officially entering a bear market.

 

[willw64]

Really blowing up in KC over the past few months.

Totally anecdotal, but picked up a Model 3 today in Denver, and they were very busy with deliveries and a car carrier was coming in with more 3's.

 

[Christine69420]

This is some sort of omen, right?

Hit a bear

Guess we are officially entering a bear market.

Didn't you see the pics? The bear is dead!

 

[Doggydogworld]

"Our most important assumption is [demand for] electric vehicles, given the battery-cost declines and the new chemistries coming out of Tesla. We believe the average electric-vehicle price will drop below the average auto price in the next two years. In five years, a Toyota Camry will still be around $25,000, but a 200-mile-range electric vehicle will probably be $15,000."

Is she actually this dumb, or just cynically trolling for new clients?

 

[BornToFly]

Love Cathie Woods!!! Not selling my shares until 6000.
Tesla, Bitcoin, and the Inverted Yield Curve Herald a New Era of Growth

I can retire when we get to 700. At this point, even that number feels unattainable....

 

[willw64]

Is she actually this dumb, or just cynically trolling for new clients?

I can buy the cost curve on batteries continuing to decline, as well as other operational efficiencies, but anyone who seriously has robotaxi's in their official valuation model has a screw loose. I would love to eat some crow, but that's a long, long way's off, if ever.