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

[Pezpunk]

It's a nice morning in Virginia today. Although my friend Maggie Hansford lost, Democrats for the first time now control the house, senate, and governorship, in what was, just 15 years ago, one of the most reliably Republican states in the Union, voting GOP uninterrupted from 1964 to 2004.

With full control of the state government for the first time, perhaps we can finally get some kind of subsidy passed for solar roofs or electric vehicles. At the moment we've got nada.

 

[Fact Checking]

The reason Apple and Google are interested in EVs is not for the hardware side but the software side. Autonomous (FSD) software and carOS have hundreds of billions of dollars market opportunity. This dwarfs the profit from just car sales or the pure hardware. And software is their expertise.

Yes, they have to somehow get through or get past the manufacturing of cars, which is very capital intensive but not nearly as profitable as software. So they either partner (like Waymo/Google) or make their own (like Tesla).

The problem with the CarOS thesis is that carmakers are the gateways and platform owners - not Google or Apple. Cars are still perfectly usable and get bought even with a mediocre or outright poor CarOS - and this won't change for the next 5-10 years.

FSD is useful and valuable enough in itself to create its own platform. CarOS in isolation not.

Tesla is pretty much the only "triple play" company that has both car/hardware, CarOS and FSD businesses.

 

[davecolene0606]

I did some research on uses of corn in the USA. Here's what I found:

World of Corn 2019

Short summary:
Feeding animals for protein/milk production ~41%
Ethanol ~34.5%
Exports: (Probably mostly for the ethanol and animal feed)15.4%
Human consumption ~8%

It is really pretty extraordinary how little of this stuff humans actually eat directly. BEV adoption will put enormous pressure on the price of corn, land prices, and the entire ag economy. The way the US Senate and Electoral college are gerrymandered, we will be seeing no small amount of political pressure following along with the stresses on the local economies.

The other thing to keep in mind is that even considering no deterioration of demand due to BEV ramping, production will continue to increase.

Historical Corn Grain Yields for the U.S. (Purdue University)

This chart shows how the per acre increase in production has ramped along a fairly tidy trendline, but what it does not show is how good modern hybrids have become. Land that was previously not suitable for corn farming is now producing well, so as yield increases on a per acre basis, it also increases the acres planted. With all this in mind, unless there is a huge discovery (bioplastics for example) I see a glut of corn in the medium term and a lot of pain, disruption, and turmoil in corn country.

On a more positive note, I did a little calculation for land use, and one can generate almost 100x the miles with an acre of solar panels vs an acre of corn ethanol, though it costs a bit more to plant a solar field than a cornfield.

Doesn't sound like Tesla is making their own cells and that "battery and module" building at GF 3 is for battery packs and battery modules.

Certainly not initially, but let’s wait for Battery investment day to about cell production going forward.

Fire Away!

 

[Antares Nebula]

The problem with the CarOS thesis is that carmakers are the gateways and platform owners - not Google or Apple. Cars are still perfectly usable and get bought even with a mediocre or outright poor CarOS - and this won't change for the next 5-10 years.

FSD is useful and valuable enough in itself to create its own platform. CarOS in isolation not.

Tesla is pretty much the only "triple play" company that has both car/hardware, CarOS and FSD businesses.

A kinda agree with what you're saying. FSD and CarOS go hand in hand. CarOS (games, apps, ads,) is not that useful until FSD arrives. Once you have FSD, all occupants will be riders/passengers and will be free to interact with the carOS. And then, carOS will have significant value. Of course, before that, you may have some value that incrementally grows as FSD advances in stages (for example, some folks have been pestering Musk about an app store, and we now have youtube and Netflix on TeslaOS).

When you say that cars are still usable and get bought with poor CarOS, I agree up to a point. Things are changing fast. Five to ten years? Maybe. If that is how long the transition to EVs and autonomy takes. Customers are not considering carOS (all that much) in their purchase. But they are (or will be) considering the EV and autonomy/semi-autonomy aspects. By virtue of considering the latter two, they are going to indirectly select carOS platforms. Be it Tesla, Google/Waymo, or Apple.

As you say, the current legacy OEMs are the gateways (just like blackberry, samsung, and nokia were), but if they cannot deliver on autonomy, they are going to have to partner with other software players or go extinct (blackberry and nokia basically went extinct, while samsung partnered with google). Either way, there will be a emergent carOS platform as autonomy progresses.

For example, Mercedes has talked about this. They don't want Alexa or Waymo, and they don't want to just be dumb hardware. They want their own OS. That's fine. But they better then level up and hire software engineers big time. (People are already aware of Netflix on Teslas. I can see millenial Mercedes shoppers asking their sales guy, "can I play Netflix?")

I agree Tesla is the only triple play, *currently*. Waymo is only FSD and (eventually) carOS. But Apple is the unknown. Are they following Waymo's approach or Tesla's? Apple has always integrated hardware and software, which would suggest the Tesla approach. But then again making cars is something entirely different than making phones and computers. So we'll have to just wait and see what they do.

 

[shootformoon]

Thank you for clarifying my position and articulate in a way much better than i did.

I now understand that my posts might've brought sad memory that puts some members into bad moods. But that is a complete unintended side effect.

I wanted to bring it up to understand why we had such a horrible 8 months in terms of SP. My basic theory is, the stock is manipulated, yes. But the fighting ground between longs and shorts was maybe $280-$380(obviously still vastly undervalued, but it was a balance somehow) The suffer we all experienced at sub $200 territory is not by manipulations directly. It was inflicted by the horrible order flow due to FUD. If the order log was 3-6 months in US in q1/2, there was no price cut and there was no way the shorts could push the SP that deep.

Looking at future, the shorts have limited influence on SP without inflicting general public misunderstandings on tesla products. For an extreme example, if tesla has constantly 6 months back log and is expanding capacity crazy, shorts just can't push SP down. Large long funds will just take their money.

in 2019 q1/2, some large long funds bailed out and now they are coming back. Lots of them might be short sighted but hard cold sales is what they are looking at. Not shorts.

Shorts can be de facto donors if the SP is constantly increasing, like Amazon. They always have to sell low buy high. That is sending money to the real investors.

We need some investor activism to fight FUD on a large scale. That is to defend the fundamentals of tsla.

Catching up on the thread, wanted to give my two cents re today's discussion.

I wish we'd never had to talk about FUD and Tesla. Of course, it can be frustrating how pervasive the FUD has been for years and years. It's encouraging that new beating of the FUD drum seems less and less effective re the stock price.

All that said, as to a member here bringing up their frustration with the FUD and/or concern re its impact... that has my empathy.

It has been a real concern.

I was at the annual meeting in June, and when this topic came up there for ten minutes (at 1:22:40) the tone of the room markedly shifted to one with a sense of focus, camaraderie, relief, and enthusiasm that the topic was being brought out in the open. Elon's initial response to the first shareholder to raise the topic was, "it's very distressing... it makes me sad... I don't know what to do about it." That said, he seemed uplifted by the topic being brought up in a supportive way, including several suggested responses in the discussion (more than half shouted from the crowd, so, you have to listen closely if you want to hear them).

At one point, 1:30:35 in the video, in reference to this rampant phenomena he'd already called ~"the most crazy disinformation campaign I've ever seen," Elon paused, and said "I agree we need to take action here."

Finally, fwiw, my personal take on what the impact has been/is

- yes, new FUD seems less impactful on the stock

- yes, as someone pointed out here last week, the microscope probably actually makes Tesla raise the bar even higher

- I do think FUD has and continues to reduce demand for the products

- Tesla may be supply constrained today, but, I do think plans have been shifted due to the FUD impacting demand (i.e., the MR being created, the SR/SR+ being pushed out early, several price cuts in Q1)

- Even if Tesla is supply constrained today, Tesla's demand cushion has taken a material hit... two examples of this,

1) the Q1 price cuts, and early push out of the SR/SR+ I mentioned just above. we can say this was because Tesla was surprised by just how much pull forward there was from Q1 '19 to Q4 '18 due to the first reduction in the US tax credit for Tesla, and I think it was... but, had demand not been suppressed by FUD, I strongly suspect surplus demand would have been more than enough to override that phenomena, and the rash price cuts and moving up of SR/SR+ production would not have been needed.

2) the last explicit number we got suggested about 10% more demand than supply... well, it's much easier to shrug off the potential of a recession in making product and plant production plans in the midst of Teslamania with demand outstripping supply by something on the order of 50% than when your demand is just slightly outstripping supply (that 10% number a month or two ago was framed as a positive, i.e, an uptick in demand).



tl;dr I may not agree with all the interpretations of the member who brought up concerns re the impact of FUD today, but, raising such concerns didn't strike me as disingenuous or out of left field.

 

[davecolene0606]

It's a nice morning in Virginia today. Although my friend Maggie Hansford lost, Democrats for the first time now control the house, senate, and governorship, in what was, just 15 years ago, one of the most reliably Republican states in the Union, voting GOP uninterrupted from 1964 to 2004.

With full control of the state government for the first time, perhaps we can finally get some kind of subsidy passed for solar roofs or electric vehicles. At the moment we've got nada.

How bout we start with just letting Tesla sell there product with no impediments. I believe we are at the point where given an even playing field, Tesla wins.

Congrats for Virginia, now let’s see them Dems support what they purport to stand for...

Cheers!

Fire Away!

 

[UncaNed]

Although you only have to plant the solar field once. Might be an interesting option to lease former crop land to energy producers. As a former Iowan, I could image the challenge of keeping the panels snow-free in the winter.

Single-axis tracking, perhaps, to dump it off?

 

[dhrivnak]

It's a nice morning in Virginia today. Although my friend Maggie Hansford lost, Democrats for the first time now control the house, senate, and governorship, in what was, just 15 years ago, one of the most reliably Republican states in the Union, voting GOP uninterrupted from 1964 to 2004.

With full control of the state government for the first time, perhaps we can finally get some kind of subsidy passed for solar roofs or electric vehicles. At the moment we've got nada.

I believe that solar and EVs should be able to sand on their own. Ensure solar customers can Net meter and EVs are not punished on registration taxes is good enough for me.

 

[Tslynk67]

I believe that solar and EVs should be able to sand on their own. Ensure solar customers can Net meter and EVs are not punished on registration taxes is good enough for me.

Totally agree once they stop the fossil fuel subsidies. Until then...

 

[Sean Wagner]

new EV incentives:

Cars under €40,000: €6,000 incentive
Cars €40,000 - €60,000: €5,000 incentive
Cars over €60,000: no incentive

I've talked earlier about the hidden champion in VW's lineup, the new, cheaper and upgraded e-up! [just so] citycar.
With the new incentives, they should be able to sell every one that comes off the lines.
Don't know where the cells are made but suggest China.

Base price incl. VAT is 21.975,00 €, battery capacity 32 kWh and 260 km range [WLTP].
So with an incentive of 6'000 EUR, that's one very juicy proposition for a metropolitan runabout.
What remains to be seen is how many they actually want to build.

Sources:
VW e-Up (2020): Testfahrt, Reichweite, Preis | ADAC
Der neue e-up!

This is the right time to point out Volkswagen AG's [including Porsche, Audi, Skoda, etc.] latest prognosis for its 2019 results: up to +5% over last year's revenue of 235 billion EUR with an operating margin of 7.0 +/- 0.5% [discounting costs from the Diesel deceit], and chiefly benefiting from a rise in SUV sales.

 

[WarpedOne]

Even better than that VW eUP is Skoda's version - Citigo e iV with 36,8 kWh @ 19.500 EUR.

There is no reason to buy VW over Skoda, same car, different name, bigger battery, lower price.

 

[humbaba]

The Lemur was created because Panasonic could not deliver enough 2170 cells to support the production plans at Fremont. Nothing to due with FUD, although you seem to have internalized some with this conclusion...

Hack up that hairball!

Cheers!

More specifically, the MR was a stopgap because the SR could not yet be made. And Tesla was tweaking output to maximize throughput in order to get higher margin and achieve profitability. Since Panasonic could not supply them with enough cells the only way to get more units was to lower the cell count.

I had nearly bought an LR, but getting a Tesla was such a reach for me that I hesitated -- then MR was announced and the LR was pulled so that people were forced to buy the MR, the AWD or P -- the latter offered nice margins and the MR's reduced cell count allowed a higher margin than the LR. There was a quick increase in the initial MR price (I missed the first offer as well...) as Tesla tried to balance demand and margin.

This same story played out again with the release of the SR: whenever Tesla wants to shift sales to either the higher margin (AWD or P) or the lower price point (SR/SR+) they take the LR off the table. Unsurprisingly, Tesla took the MR off the table permanently -- but the SR+ fills the gap. I'm not in a production company, but it is still apparent that Tesla's costs are opaque. For example, making pearl white the standard color or ditching the idea of a metal roof in favor of all M3 using a glass roof. The only reasonable explanation for these choices is that it achieves the lowest cost for Tesla.

In short, sure, FUD has an effect, but I (and I think others) have observed that it has much less effect now than it did a year ago. This can be seen objectively by looking at stock movement in response to hit pieces -- what happened Monday with the "OMG TESLA FIRE!!!!" news? Now compare that to a year ago. Not only that, the tenor of pieces has changed in the last twelve months. Certainly there are still hit pieces, and Claudia Assis has not given up Tesla bashing -- but the content of such pieces has largely lost its punch. Sure, you still get raving pieces in the LA Times, but the financial news is not as exaggeratedly negative as it used to be.

There is a tendency by some to credit the FUD with vast powers. While negative pieces have, anecdotally, turned some people off from the idea of buying a Tesla this has not stopped Tesla from selling all they make. The idea that Tesla has deliberately slowed production is objectively wrong. If Tesla was slowing vehicle production, where was the battery capacity to make the additional cars that they wanted to but were unable to make for sale due to "soft demand"? How can someone square this with Tesla shifting battery production from storage to automotive?

The reality is that Tesla has been, and still is, production constrained for cars. So much so that for GF3 they are arranging to buy from a third party. Given their plans, even if they get a battery plant built and operational in the near future they will still be production constrained due to demand for their cars and their storage.

So, sure, some individuals won't buy a Tesla due to FUD. So what? That's their loss. It only becomes an issue when Tesla has saturated the rest of the market. And when everyone is driving a Tesla, does not experience range problem, their car does not spontaneously combust, service happens not only without the customary pain of dealerships but less frequently as well? Media could still spew FUD (they won't, though, at that point) but people won't listen. Its well known in advertising that word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising.

In the interim is there room for FUD related issues to impact sales? Sure, its possible. If the ownership ramp up does not happen quickly enough then a continued FUD campaign could hamper adoption. But what is observed is a reduction in the FUD. Yes, there are still frothing mouthed outliers -- but on the whole -- FUD has been dissipating. For the foreseeable future, Tesla will continue to sell every car they can make.

And there has been EV advertising from other companies. Whether they like it or not, this helps Tesla because it normalizes EVs. And if they actually produce non-compliance EVs that further normalizes EVs. As weak as the ID.3 is, and as unlikely as Polestar 2 is to be competitive when it is released, they should still sell every unit that is made. This is all good for Tesla.

I know some very anti-EV people who have insisted that my Tesla is a firetrap and unsafe while going "La la la la" very loudly when I raised the spontaneous combustion of ICEv when parked and not running. And yet they allowed me to not only park, but to charge, at their house. Will they ever buy an EV? Not while there is an ICEv or a hybrid for purchase, and probably never a Tesla. Who cares? If they buy a Polestar 5 in a non-ICE future, that's good enough.

Debating the impact of FUD is fine, but incessantly insisting that it is a significant problem for Tesla while in fact it is waning and Tesla sales are ramping up? Give it a rest.

 

[Sean Wagner]

Just to point out the obvious, but VW can evidently get their hands on pretty cheap cells (albeit in unknown quantities), or subsidize these cars thanks to their ginormous profits, or both. Plus they benefit from scale - it's a chassis they can certainly spit out at a very low cost.

 

[aubreymcfato]

Right now, there's a incredible incentive in Lombardia (region where Milan is) that is up to 16k euros for a full electric car.
Of course, the budget is capped, and I think they finished it in the first 48 hours...

We'll see if they renew it, but I expect ~200 teslas in Milan alone in the following months

 

[JRP3]

Single-axis tracking, perhaps, to dump it off?

I always liked idea of a tracker which tilts slightly down at night to avoid ice and snow buildup.

 

[jbcarioca]

OK if they are assembling in those countries and have high import duties on imported used cars and their own oil, that is a very different I would say exceptional circumstance.

In this case politics and local circumstances override the global trend, no matter how strong that trend is...

Only ways I can see this changing is if those countries negotiate free trade arrangements that require them to drop their tariffs, or the Chinese open an EV factory in the country.

These circumstances are definitely not exceptional. For good or ill, countries have for more than a century offered substantial incentives for domestic production to substitute for imports. Many such incentives have been highly technical which have resulted in CKD (Complete Knock Down) kits or even less. Two examples:
The US had for years a 10% duty on imported pickup trucks. That resulted in serious distortions such as Nissan, Toyota and others which imported 'cars' then stripped extra seats and seat belts etc and placed a pickup bed then sold the resulting vehicle duty free. That also produced the bizarre Subaru that had two seats actually in the pickup bed, so was sold as a car.
More than 40 years ago, in the late 1970's the Cheviran was sold. I had one. It was an Opel Commodore assembled in Iran. More than a century ago Ford pioneered CKD with the Model T produced in many countries, sometimes with slight changes and badging differences, such as the AeroFord of England in 1911. These CKD practices produce myriad local variants all over the world today, some quite illogical on the surface such as the Tesla's produced in Tilburg, the Range Rover Evoque produced in Brazil and countless others for commercial vehicles. The Chinese builders are exceedingly adept at this, with Chery having gone from non-existent to being a major market force in Brazil.

In EV we see similar things happening including partnerships of VAG, Daimler-Benz and others.

For many countries such arrangements also yield odd exemptions for other vehicles. Those tend to be visible when such products are priced below their ostensible equivalents.

All these practices are ubiquitous but often are made to be very obscure. Often one can see the presence of such deals only by comparing pricing in home market with pricing in the incentivized market. The deals are always complex in order to avoid triggering various regulatory regimes.

Tesla has a deep bench of people who know these tactics. Those include Robin Denholm, Jerome Guillen, Fritz von Holzhausen and Deepak Ahuja. Elon also has lots of direct experience. A quick review of all those people makes it clear that Tesla is very well equipped to cope with regulatory/tax issues and nationalistic policies. We must remember that almost everything significant in such subjects is so structured as to minimize direct disclosure.

Those who worry about Tesla in China tend not to know how the manufacturing process actually works. I freely admit that I am not an expert. That said, I was involved in arranging the financing for such deals involving more than a dozen countries. From that perspective alone I think Tesla has just begun.

The soon-to=-be announced EU GF will be one. The next two years will see very rapid developments for global expansion using the benefits that accrue from the ability to source from US, China, EU and others TBD. There is zero question in my mind that we will see TE products being major components of these developments.

Think of Ford between 1910 and 1920. Think of Toyota in the 1970's. Those are just a couple of automakers. Exactly the same circumstances have applied to every military supplier and aerospace company. Some of the biggest players in this are almost unknown outside their industry, such as Magna (FWIW, they actually built a half dozen cars I have owned).

Finally, I hope I have shown how supply chain, tax benefits and politically controlled access interrelate. The traditional way to see all those things is to look at the product supplier list. That works for Tesla too.

Hint: look not just at batteries, look for wheels, tires, light bulbs, glass, every other part. Don't forget factory equipment either. Whenever the same control exists between licensing, factory and employees you have proof positive that only major political upheaval can upset progress.

 

[humbaba]

Even better than that VW eUP is Skoda's version - Citigo e iV with 36,8 kWh @ 19.500 EUR.

There is no reason to buy VW over Skoda, same car, different name, bigger battery, lower price.

I can think of a reason: not enough units of either made? The "EVs compete with EVs, not ICEv" line of thought is what the legacy makers want not necessarily how people purchase. The trade ins for Tesla are quite revealing in that regard. Not sure there's data for ones like this.

 

[jbcarioca]

Right now, there's a incredible incentive in Lombardia (region where Milan is) that is up to 16k euros for a full electric car.
Of course, the budget is capped, and I think they finished it in the first 48 hours...

We'll see if they renew it, but I expect ~200 teslas in Milan alone in the following months

Now we need more Superchargers, especially in the Northern suburbs, such as Monza, Ferno, somewhere along the new A8.
Hopefully this will begin a major EV adoption in Italy as a whole.

 

[Off Shore]

It's a nice morning in Virginia today. Although my friend Maggie Hansford lost, Democrats for the first time now control the house, senate, and governorship, in what was, just 15 years ago, one of the most reliably Republican states in the Union, voting GOP uninterrupted from 1964 to 2004.

With full control of the state government for the first time, perhaps we can finally get some kind of subsidy passed for solar roofs or electric vehicles. At the moment we've got nada.

Not to mention passage of the Equal Rights Amendment!

 

[shootformoon]

incessantly insisting? I am talking about a real issue.
Unlike you, talking about "apple is the largest threat of tesla" nonstop. I can't stop laughing everytime you brought this up, for how many time in one day? But I did not mock you due to courtesy. Why don't you just mind your own business.
As long as Tim Cook is the apple CEO, tsla is safe.

More specifically, the MR was a stopgap because the SR could not yet be made. And Tesla was tweaking output to maximize throughput in order to get higher margin and achieve profitability. Since Panasonic could not supply them with enough cells the only way to get more units was to lower the cell count.

I had nearly bought an LR, but getting a Tesla was such a reach for me that I hesitated -- then MR was announced and the LR was pulled so that people were forced to buy the MR, the AWD or P -- the latter offered nice margins and the MR's reduced cell count allowed a higher margin than the LR. There was a quick increase in the initial MR price (I missed the first offer as well...) as Tesla tried to balance demand and margin.

This same story played out again with the release of the SR: whenever Tesla wants to shift sales to either the higher margin (AWD or P) or the lower price point (SR/SR+) they take the LR off the table. Unsurprisingly, Tesla took the MR off the table permanently -- but the SR+ fills the gap. I'm not in a production company, but it is still apparent that Tesla's costs are opaque. For example, making pearl white the standard color or ditching the idea of a metal roof in favor of all M3 using a glass roof. The only reasonable explanation for these choices is that it achieves the lowest cost for Tesla.

In short, sure, FUD has an effect, but I (and I think others) have observed that it has much less effect now than it did a year ago. This can be seen objectively by looking at stock movement in response to hit pieces -- what happened Monday with the "OMG TESLA FIRE!!!!" news? Now compare that to a year ago. Not only that, the tenor of pieces has changed in the last twelve months. Certainly there are still hit pieces, and Claudia Assis has not given up Tesla bashing -- but the content of such pieces has largely lost its punch. Sure, you still get raving pieces in the LA Times, but the financial news is not as exaggeratedly negative as it used to be.

There is a tendency by some to credit the FUD with vast powers. While negative pieces have, anecdotally, turned some people off from the idea of buying a Tesla this has not stopped Tesla from selling all they make. The idea that Tesla has deliberately slowed production is objectively wrong. If Tesla was slowing vehicle production, where was the battery capacity to make the additional cars that they wanted to but were unable to make for sale due to "soft demand"? How can someone square this with Tesla shifting battery production from storage to automotive?

The reality is that Tesla has been, and still is, production constrained for cars. So much so that for GF3 they are arranging to buy from a third party. Given their plans, even if they get a battery plant built and operational in the near future they will still be production constrained due to demand for their cars and their storage.

So, sure, some individuals won't buy a Tesla due to FUD. So what? That's their loss. It only becomes an issue when Tesla has saturated the rest of the market. And when everyone is driving a Tesla, does not experience range problem, their car does not spontaneously combust, service happens not only without the customary pain of dealerships but less frequently as well? Media could still spew FUD (they won't, though, at that point) but people won't listen. Its well known in advertising that word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising.

In the interim is there room for FUD related issues to impact sales? Sure, its possible. If the ownership ramp up does not happen quickly enough then a continued FUD campaign could hamper adoption. But what is observed is a reduction in the FUD. Yes, there are still frothing mouthed outliers -- but on the whole -- FUD has been dissipating. For the foreseeable future, Tesla will continue to sell every car they can make.

And there has been EV advertising from other companies. Whether they like it or not, this helps Tesla because it normalizes EVs. And if they actually produce non-compliance EVs that further normalizes EVs. As weak as the ID.3 is, and as unlikely as Polestar 2 is to be competitive when it is released, they should still sell every unit that is made. This is all good for Tesla.

I know some very anti-EV people who have insisted that my Tesla is a firetrap and unsafe while going "La la la la" very loudly when I raised the spontaneous combustion of ICEv when parked and not running. And yet they allowed me to not only park, but to charge, at their house. Will they ever buy an EV? Not while there is an ICEv or a hybrid for purchase, and probably never a Tesla. Who cares? If they buy a Polestar 5 in a non-ICE future, that's good enough.

Debating the impact of FUD is fine, but incessantly insisting that it is a significant problem for Tesla while in fact it is waning and Tesla sales are ramping up? Give it a rest.