Then short it. If you dare...
-
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
Then short it. If you dare...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Um, hate to break it to you, but, whoever told you that was just trying to be nice...
Smokey4141
Banned
Yawn away, Sir.... Suit yourself...
But spend a minute going through this thread... It's really done quite well... And humorous to boot!!
But just one example of lot(s) full of Model 3's.... There are plenty more... This thread is certainly the most amusing though.. ;-)
CrowPointPartners on Twitter
So now when you buy a 2019 Extended Range Model S how do you know if you are getting the 335 mile range version that they made up until 6/25/2019 or the 370 mile range version that they started making on 6/26/2019? (Just making up some data points as an example.) It just doesn't fit with the way Tesla does things.
What will that do to used car values when you have to know the build date to know how to price the car?
I just don't see that working.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Not sure - the Model 3 Performance is already beating everything in its category - and I think they'd want to keep some price separation between the Model 3 and the Model S.
Plus they'd want to maintain the 'Ludicrous' brand for their $132k+ models.
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
Over and over, I see you telling people that they shouldn't be discussing things that they want to discuss, because it's been discussed. You used that reasoning on me several times.
I'd like to humbly submit that 1. you are not in charge of what others can and cannot discuss, and 2. reading every post is not requirement to participate on this forum, so not everyone will be up to date on all discussions.
Thank you
Troy's survey data, also only 255 S100D Ps sold in Norway since it was launched c.2 years ago, and it has been the only S performance model available for the last 18 months. I think P sales were much higher in 2012-14 when there was no AWD.
Margins would be way higher if P sales were higher, they make c.$70k gross profit per car.
Last edited:
Also we’d all be better off if posters like Karen didn’t feel the need to weigh in on every single development/conversation in the thread.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How many pictures of Teslas parked have we seen that never turned out to be anything significant? Every Q the shorty air force tries the same trick and every time it fails.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
...and I get at least 75mpg dollar equivalent in my M3 -- I'm really not sure what the point is?
Hmm.. I am not seeing any positives here.
This is a clear $8K price cut couched under the guise of introducing a new variance. If they had simply reduced the price by $8k for 100D, that optics would have been really bad. Because I am not sure the extended-range aka 100D is worth $8k more for just 25 mile additional range. So I would guess a huge % of sales will be this newer one with reduced price.
And this is especially obvious because the hardware is the same. So the cost to produce is the same. They are simply losing $8k in the hope that this would increase sales. And I am guessing sometime in the future they would open up additional range for anyone who cares for the extra 25 miles, for something like $4k.
Don't get me wrong, this is the right progression of price to performance one should expect in a fast evolving technology. And Tesla is adapting to it.
Singer3000
Member
If I may speculate slightly wildly on the Saudi Arabia collar hedge:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Saudi PIF’s original purchase of shares included leverage - most likely a “single stock margined equity loan”, which have become more common in recent years for largish block stakes than you might assume.
Such loans tend to have a step out option every 6-months for the lender. The share purchase was announced on 7th August, a little less than 6-months ago. So the timing fits perfectly.
If this is what happened, it is perfectly conceivable the lender became nervous about:
a) the borrower’s ability to meet a future margin call,
b) difficulty in hedging the risk / selling the shares without a loss if the stock tanks. TSLA’s volatility has been quite splendid since August, certainly enough to make a competent credit committee nervous.
Equally, the bank may have made a strategic decision to disengage with the particular borrower. Given macro and Saudi specific events of the past 6-months, one could easily understand a Wall St bank preferring for now to fall back on advisory business, rather than fairly risky concentrated lending with Saudi.
A zero cost collar would likely be the preferred de-risking strategy of the lender so as to cause minimal disruption to the stock price (I.e. collateral value), and would also earn handsome fees.
So in summary, this news might say more about Saudi Arabia’s credit quality than it does Tesla’s.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Saudi PIF’s original purchase of shares included leverage - most likely a “single stock margined equity loan”, which have become more common in recent years for largish block stakes than you might assume.
Such loans tend to have a step out option every 6-months for the lender. The share purchase was announced on 7th August, a little less than 6-months ago. So the timing fits perfectly.
If this is what happened, it is perfectly conceivable the lender became nervous about:
a) the borrower’s ability to meet a future margin call,
b) difficulty in hedging the risk / selling the shares without a loss if the stock tanks. TSLA’s volatility has been quite splendid since August, certainly enough to make a competent credit committee nervous.
Equally, the bank may have made a strategic decision to disengage with the particular borrower. Given macro and Saudi specific events of the past 6-months, one could easily understand a Wall St bank preferring for now to fall back on advisory business, rather than fairly risky concentrated lending with Saudi.
A zero cost collar would likely be the preferred de-risking strategy of the lender so as to cause minimal disruption to the stock price (I.e. collateral value), and would also earn handsome fees.
So in summary, this news might say more about Saudi Arabia’s credit quality than it does Tesla’s.
Wrong, cold temperatures preserve battery life. You just can’t get much energy out of them when they’re cold. I suspect your other claims are wrong too.
The least expensive Model S is now $9,000 more than it was three weeks ago ($85K v. $76K), but offers significantly more range.
The added cost is probably only about 1/3 of that. So an extra ~$6000 in profit per base model. Offset somewhat by lower prices for the Extended Range compared to the 100D.
Offering only the 100D was clearly a temporary measure to allow them to clear out 75D inventory. The main question to me is how many they can sell at these prices. Hopefully we'll get an estimate for 2019 tomorrow.
inventory rising in proportion to rising production is a total non story
tsunamiofhurt
Member
Where are you getting these numbers? P take rate in Norway looks like ~3.5% in 2017 and ~2% in 2018...Model 3 VINs
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Man I take a day off and all ....heck....breaks loose. I see lots of people arguing with ghost's.
Tesla is shaking up their model nomenclature. Stock price went up a little.
What else did I miss?
Tesla is shaking up their model nomenclature. Stock price went up a little.
What else did I miss?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
