-
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
I guess @Papafox knows better than I, but looks to me that yesterday was the highest short %age over the last 12 months, or close to:
You don't need to do that; satellites on the "dark side" can still produce power, so long as they're not in Earth's shadow. The higher their orbit, the less time they'll spend in Earth's shadow (although also the larger their spot beams on the surface are).
Space-based solar is one of those things that would be great (higher generation, no clouds, constant power day or night), but most people (myself included) have dismissed for decades, for the simple reason that launch costs have rendered it a non-starter. It's made way more sense just to build solar farms on Earth. But Starship actually renders space-based solar entirely plausible. It could be a massive gamechanger, yet most people seem not to realize that the game has changed.
BTW, Yahoo has taken down their article. I still wonder how that messup at http://investing.com happened. I see three possibilities:
1) Test data accidentally published
2) Analyst forecast misinterpreted as actual data
3) Some script designed to download and parse reports from http://ir.tesla.com actually guessed a correct URL for a draft report.
I don't find some peoples' suggestions of "hacking" or "deliberate market manipulation" to be realistic. Not impossible, but implausible.
1) Test data accidentally published
2) Analyst forecast misinterpreted as actual data
3) Some script designed to download and parse reports from http://ir.tesla.com actually guessed a correct URL for a draft report.
I don't find some peoples' suggestions of "hacking" or "deliberate market manipulation" to be realistic. Not impossible, but implausible.
Let's remember that guidance is for Tesla to already be at a ~500k/yr annualized rate at the end of this year.
about this, @KarenRei ... what are your opinions regarding GF3, and the whole new "space" it will provide for Tesla international logistics?
I mean, with GF3 operating, there will be several free ROROs annually that could go elsewhere: Europe, for example.
Tesla could even try to stop sending any ship in Asia from the start, and just use GF3 cars. (not sure if the Chinese would allow that though).
Do you think there will be significant savings/upsides there?
I just know it's a good thing, can't really put it in numbers.
GF3 is just for "Greater China" (China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, possibly Singapore). But yes, it's a massive amount of ships that can be redirected to other markets. They'll still be loading ships - GF3 doesn't create new demand in North America. But their current European markets are backlogged, they're opening to new markets in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia, etc, so it lets them send those vehicles elsewhere.
China clearly planned on the possibility of exports; GF3 is located in a free trade zone.
This thread, for a start. Elon Musk on Twitter
Milton Friedman, in the form of a negative income tax. UBI will not reduce inequality significantly, that's not what it's for.
Equality of opportunity you say? I'd love to read a description of a typical TSLA holder. For some reasons, most of the ones I know were quite affluent _before_ going long (I can vouch for myself). If the shareholders who'll get richer were already rich enough, then il n’y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil.
All Musk's initiatives that you mentionned do not address socio-political issues (although they offer side benefits). They were not meant to help the lower class specifically. Make no mistake: the guy is a great engineer and industrialists but he just doesn't care (or have enough time to) about the widenning inequeality gap.
He's right to want to save the climate and make mankind a multiplanetary species but if society is being increasingly torned apart (big money in politics, wealth inequality, oligopoly, etc) then I bet the nice things he wants will be disrupted by more immediate concerns (like being opposed by all those who thinks Musk is like any billionaire - trying to make money and increase his power).
Mike Smith
Active Member
15 Tesla Semi electric trucks to replace diesel trucks at Pepsi facility - Electrek
According to PepsiCo’s filing with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Tesla would also supply charging stations, a “large” solar array, and two energy storage systems of undisclosed sizes:
“Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) [Tesla] will deliver 15 highly anticipated Tesla Semis along with battery electric truck charging infrastructure, a largescale solar PV system, and two energy storage systems for facility peak shaving and heavy-duty electric truck charging.”
PepsiCo says that they expect the project to be completed by 2021.
"We hope this work will become an operating model for all of our facilities across the U.S., and that we act as the catalyst to accelerate adoption of alternative fuel vehicles across the industry.”
According to PepsiCo’s filing with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Tesla would also supply charging stations, a “large” solar array, and two energy storage systems of undisclosed sizes:
“Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) [Tesla] will deliver 15 highly anticipated Tesla Semis along with battery electric truck charging infrastructure, a largescale solar PV system, and two energy storage systems for facility peak shaving and heavy-duty electric truck charging.”
PepsiCo says that they expect the project to be completed by 2021.
"We hope this work will become an operating model for all of our facilities across the U.S., and that we act as the catalyst to accelerate adoption of alternative fuel vehicles across the industry.”
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
I disagree with the sentiment that tesla should not be aiming for consecutive profitable quarters and instead be continuing to plough all money back into R&D and expansion. Although I fully understand the philosophy of 'get big fast', I would argue that the company should concentrate a bit harder on showing some profit from here on (not a huge profit...but just not a loss).
Primarily the only direct effect a profit is going to have, is that the markets will lose one of their big sticks to beat them with, and the increased financial stability would lead to an stock price bump. Why should any super-bull or long term investors care about the short-term SP?
1) Many top-level and highly skilled employees will have remuneration tied to the SP. I'd guess a lot of them are motivated by the eventual value of stock & stock options. The longer they work with a flat SP, the less likely they are to stay / more tempted they can be by rivals, or the more expensive their compensating salary will have to be
2) There is a non-zero percentage of the population who believe tesla is always in financial trouble. cars are a big long-term expense and people do not want to be stuck with a car that's not supported ESPECIALLY a cutting-edge tech one which no other company knows how to service or support. This is a very real concern.
If I ran Tesla, I'd always be aiming to be profitable every quarter from here on, even if only trivially, and even if that slightly slowed expansion.
Primarily the only direct effect a profit is going to have, is that the markets will lose one of their big sticks to beat them with, and the increased financial stability would lead to an stock price bump. Why should any super-bull or long term investors care about the short-term SP?
1) Many top-level and highly skilled employees will have remuneration tied to the SP. I'd guess a lot of them are motivated by the eventual value of stock & stock options. The longer they work with a flat SP, the less likely they are to stay / more tempted they can be by rivals, or the more expensive their compensating salary will have to be
2) There is a non-zero percentage of the population who believe tesla is always in financial trouble. cars are a big long-term expense and people do not want to be stuck with a car that's not supported ESPECIALLY a cutting-edge tech one which no other company knows how to service or support. This is a very real concern.
If I ran Tesla, I'd always be aiming to be profitable every quarter from here on, even if only trivially, and even if that slightly slowed expansion.
Sean Wagner
Member
Global sales. Source: Focus2move| World Best Selling SUV - The Top in the 2018
Nissan Qashqai is analogous to the Rogue Sport in the USA.
Haval H6 is built by Great Wall Motors of China.
...
3) Profitability would help boost sales in Germany. And I think that healthy sales in Europe's largest market for vehicles are a precondition for GF4 being a financially sound undertaking.
Last edited:
NZ car market commentary:
“EV'S START MAKING A SHOWING
Car sales made a surprisingly strong upward turnaround, arresting a string of lower growth results. There were 10,322 passenger vehicles sold in the month, +9.4% more than September 2018. Included in these were 500 sales of pure electric vehicles during the month and 359 of these were Tesla Model 3s. A further 105 were sales of plugin hybrid vehicles. Those 500 pure electric sales compare with 906 in the previous eight months and 768 for all of 2018. Thanks to Tesla, EV's are now registering in the list of top vehicle sales but this isn't yet arresting the SUV share which is now at 67%.”
“EV'S START MAKING A SHOWING
Car sales made a surprisingly strong upward turnaround, arresting a string of lower growth results. There were 10,322 passenger vehicles sold in the month, +9.4% more than September 2018. Included in these were 500 sales of pure electric vehicles during the month and 359 of these were Tesla Model 3s. A further 105 were sales of plugin hybrid vehicles. Those 500 pure electric sales compare with 906 in the previous eight months and 768 for all of 2018. Thanks to Tesla, EV's are now registering in the list of top vehicle sales but this isn't yet arresting the SUV share which is now at 67%.”
A profit is nice, however I think it is easy to underestimate just how much of a slowdown in growth may be required to reach consistent profitability.
While many costs associated with growth are capitalised and amortised over the useful life of the asset (i.e. not hitting profitability too much), there are many expenses related to growth that are expensed in the period - many areas of R&D, additional labour costs, plans that didn't work out and need to be scrapped, etc. All these costs have a direct impact on the P&L for the quarter.
I'd prefer cashflow positive and more rapid growth. As OL&S says - the pace of innovation is all that matters for competitive advantage.
Well, I'm seeing more and more in Michigan, State officials are only hurting the best interests of the population as a whole. Effectively 0.5% sale tax to MI, 5.5% to OH on cars purchased in Ohio, harder to get service (but doable). Opposite of what previous administration claimed they were doing 'protecting constituents'
Looking forward to court session in February. Happy to link up with Tesla counsel.
"Tesla Silo Foundation". "Core, Shell and MEP". "Solar Roof Test Structure".... Why have I got building up a base on Command & Conquer in my head? Also, "Underground Fire Supply" sounds dangerous.
I think that is a underground feed to the fire supression system, not a remake of the 1997 Steven Seagal film : Three Word Title (part 6?)
Tripp case not to be tried until April next year at the earliest :Þ The delay is due to Tripp's desire to depose Musk, and Tesla's obvious opposition to that:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279.101.0.pdf
Annoying delay, but oh well. I want this over with because if Tesla wins, it can then move onto suits against any co-conspirators, such as Lopez/BI.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279.101.0.pdf
Annoying delay, but oh well. I want this over with because if Tesla wins, it can then move onto suits against any co-conspirators, such as Lopez/BI.
Jays200
Member
That and others like Homelink, Lte, ultrasonic interior alarm thingy, ambient lighting, self presenting doors and anything else Tesla could add a dollar value to and take my money.
All of Elon’s companies will significantly aid socio-political issues – this is too much to be coincidence or side effect, this is by design. (I think this is on topic by the way as it think it's very important for more people to realise how much the Clean Energy transition will reduce global poverty).
Lower energy costs, lower transport costs, wider access to education, wider access to AI, less health and environmental issues from burning fossil fuels - these all help everybody but disproportionately help poorer people when these basic needs make up a greater % of their income.
Since when did something have to exclusively help a single group to qualify as helping them at all? You can't say the world wide web didn't help scientists at CERN because it also happened to help the entire global population (at least those who have internet access).
More OT:
In those tweets Elon is just joking about a specific political dogma - this does not equate to mocking any of the issues that dogma aims to address.
UBI is only a small start, but it can grow into a broader solution. Currently studies have found happiness and quality of life roughly scale with salary up to around $75k, but from there there is little marginal benefit from increased wealth. The price of happiness? £50,000pa
If we can reduce energy, transport, health, education and property costs etc significantly we will reduce that $75k threshold - if at the same time we increase UBI until it is in-line with this number, then everyone will have access to broadly the same quality of life and happiness.
Of course, UBI only really works if implemented globally - AI is essentially a resource grab with silicon valley hoarding the world's data and replacing the world's workers with software and robots controlled from California - if this wealth is only redistributed within the US it will leave most of the world's nations and the majority of the global population in a much worse position than today.
I don't mean for Tesla investors - clearly you can't be in poverty if you have wealth to risk investing in high risk equities.
I mean that lower transport costs and energy costs and increased access to education levels the playing field for the broader global population - you have more opportunity if you have electricity and broadband and can now afford to travel further for work. Obviously its only a step - but it is moving in the right direction.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
OT
Actually, here is a collection of Elon's socio-political views:
Put differently: Elon is to the left of all current Democratic presidential candidates - which is exactly the opposite of what the smear campaign against him is trying to install as common wisdom.
In that thread Elon correctly criticizes the communist economic model that bankrupted the Soviet Union, China, half of Europe and killed over 50 million people due to famine and class warfare. The biggest problem with communism was, obviously, the notion to redistribute resources from those who knew what to do with them to those who didn't.
I don't think there should be a limit to how far a gifted individual should be able to rise, as long as the power is not inherited and it's properly taxed when transferred out of the economic domain he or she is so good at: i.e. steep income taxation and inheritance tax above 10-50 million dollars of net worth, plus strong safeguards to make sure wealth doesn't corrupt politics.
Actually, here is a collection of Elon's socio-political views:
- Elon is for Universal Basic Income: "Universal income will be necessary over time if AI takes over most human jobs"
- Elon is for overnment providing health care and all other basic services: "I think essential services, incl health care, should be taken care of by govt/taxpayers (socialist) & other parts of economy should be served by companies competing to serve the people (capitalist). Aka, the view held by most of America."
- Elon is also for Scandinavian level of income taxation - he said taxation between 40%-50% is the correct level. That's in stark contrast with U.S. level taxation where the richest 1,000 people (0.01%) only pay around ~10% of tax - or even lower of we include all the income loopholes like investment / capital gains income.
- Elon also declared it in the past that he doesn't think children should automatically inherit vast fortunes that parents amassed - i.e. he is basically in favor of an inheritance tax (although he has not declared on that explicitly).
- Elon also supports shunshine laws and other ways to strengthen democracy way beyond what is fashionable among mainstream U.S. liberals - to safeguard that wealth doesn't corrupt politics and legislates rent-seeking. (Which is the current practice of politics in the U.S. and in many European countries.)
Put differently: Elon is to the left of all current Democratic presidential candidates - which is exactly the opposite of what the smear campaign against him is trying to install as common wisdom.
In that thread Elon correctly criticizes the communist economic model that bankrupted the Soviet Union, China, half of Europe and killed over 50 million people due to famine and class warfare. The biggest problem with communism was, obviously, the notion to redistribute resources from those who knew what to do with them to those who didn't.
I don't think there should be a limit to how far a gifted individual should be able to rise, as long as the power is not inherited and it's properly taxed when transferred out of the economic domain he or she is so good at: i.e. steep income taxation and inheritance tax above 10-50 million dollars of net worth, plus strong safeguards to make sure wealth doesn't corrupt politics.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
