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

[RobStark]

Fuel Economy:
10 / 10 for BOTH

This comes from authors where 25 mpg is the norm.

70 MPGe or 100 MPGe is in the "astronomically high" category and not relevant from a cost perspective.

In their test,extrapolated from 100 miles drives, Model S has 10 miles more range. Which they consider to be not meaningful.

 

[bhtooefr]

While I see what you're saying in the EPA datafile, this does not mean that 5-cycle testing was actually used, AFAIK.

See this document - 2020 Model 3 P -> Clearly, unambiguously 2-cycle testing; definitely, definitely not 5-cycle testing:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=48712&flag=1

Looks like they might be using option "3" in the document linked below, hence the "5-cycle" calculation "Calc Approach Desc" in the EPA datafile. But it appears to clearly be incorrect to take this to mean a 5-cycle test was used. It does mean that they received EPA approval for the chosen scale factor (I think), but the factors taken into account when using this higher scaling factor are very unclear and a mystery to me.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf

As far as I can tell, all this 2-cycle vs. 5-cycle column entry in the EPA datafile correlates well with is the presence of an (apparently) arbitrary scalar other than 0.7 when converting from 2-cycle results to the "expected" 5-cycle results. You can see here it correlates pretty well:
View attachment 509039

So far, it seems like the higher value just makes the results look better - and there is no indication of the rationale for the increased numbers. I'm not saying that a valid rationale does not exist. I just wish I knew what exactly the rationale was for coming up with a scalar that is 7% higher and increases all the label numbers by 7% relative to a factor 0.7. What is it, for example, about the 19" & 20" 2020 Model 3 P which warrants a more optimistic scaling of their much lower (due to tires) 2-cycle results to 5-cycle results, relative to the 18" 2020 Model 3 P? These should be extremely similar vehicles, and I don't know what would not be captured in the coastdown measurements which would need to be factored into the conversion scaling.

Anyway, I track this scalar in my spreadsheet, even though I don't understand its source:

2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants

Does anyone know why EVs are not required to use the 5-cycle test? Seems like it would be a lot simpler, and would incentivize better cold weather results!

OK, so digging further, I found the current certification summary for the Model 3 LR AWD family: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=49220&flag=1

It looks like what's going on is... Tesla did full 5-cycle testing on the LR AWD for MY2018, and the P19 and P20 for MY2020.

They also separately did full 2-cycle testing on the LR AWD, P18, and P20 for MY2020.

This allows them to credibly establish their own coefficients for reporting 5-cycle values for cars only tested on 2 cycles.

...and LR AWD P18 is using almost exactly the same coefficient as LR AWD, which may be calculated off of 2018 5-cycle testing? Not sure there, but it would explain the different coefficients. (Also worth noting that in previous years, the Performance wasn't even tested separately, it just used the LR AWD's test results. I suspect take rate on the Performance 19" and 20" options was high enough that Tesla would have had to have tested the Performance with 20" wheels, causing them to want to break out the options and report range separately.)

As far as not requiring EVs to use the 5-cycle test... as I understand, this is intended to reduce certification burden for manufacturers. ICE vehicles don't have to either - IIRC there has to be a representative vehicle that uses the 5-cycle emissions test, but not every configuration, so using one of the derived calculations is possible?

 

[Aeon]

This comes from authors where 25 mpg is the norm.

70 MPGe or 100 MPGe is in the "astronomically high" category and not relevant from a cost perspective.

In their test,extrapolated from 100 miles drives, Model S has 10 miles more range. Which they consider to be not meaningful.

Well, the EPA MPGe difference between a Raven Performance and the Taycan Turbo S is 50 kWh/100 mi VS. 35 kWh/100 mi.
And Porsche does not contest the EPA data
(Porsche Taycan’s Terrible EPA Range Makes It the Least Efficient EV :
What's curious is that Porsche says that these EPA numbers are merely confirmation of the numbers that the automaker itself submitted to the agency, as is typical practice. And Porsche spokesperson Calvin Kim said that Porsche is not "rebutting" the EPA numbers).

The environment (as long as energy isn't carbon neutral) and a reasonable person looking at their wallet when visiting a charger would consider that meaningful.

So it's quite safe to assume that Car&Driver just tested at more or less the point of optimal efficiency for the Taycan.
Building the Taycan to be most efficient at Autobahn speed might be considered a fine choice or matching the Porsche DNA. And those who are stuck in LA traffic and consume double the Tesla energy (seems necessary to get back to the EPA average) won't care because they basically bought a badge (or to be more fair: performance capability they will most likely never use)..

 

[Driver Dave]

View attachment 509179

View attachment 509178

2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo S vs. 2020 Tesla Model S Performance

They really should do two tests. Higher end vs. higher end, and lower end vs lower end.

Because they are different things, at different price points.

 

[Aeon]

They really should do two tests. Higher end vs. higher end, and lower end vs lower end.

Because they are different things, at different price points.

The lower end Taycan might then just as well be tested against a Model 3. It does not have more usability (space, range, tech, ..) and will be slower (probably even on a track) than a Performance Model 3 and will still cost about twice as much once optioned up to the Tesla standard equipment.

(Btw. I don't consider myself an Über-Tesla-Fanboy and Porsche hater. I am German and I used to be a Porsche superfan. Now I am just superdisappointed. As a nerd I loved them for being the thinking mans sportscars: understated, well engineered and highly efficient; Porsche horsepower just achieved more.. I guess, just like everybody else they are losing most of their pedigree and advantages during the switch to EVs..)

 

[Driver Dave]

TSLA thoughts since 2016.

I bought in 2016, part of what I look at as the 2nd wave.

1st wave - initial nose cone buyers. Very brave both in stock and car (very few superchargers for trips)
2nd wave - new S design and X buyers. (stock starting to look plausible, supercharger network now valid,)
3rd wave - model 3 buyers (stock dipped back to 2016 levels around this time, maybe just for them to get on board, how nice!)

I did see then what was unfair advantage for some buyers at this time:

If you were a software developer.

First, You got Elon

He's just geeky quirky socially awkward programmer, but very very smart and gets things done. If you are in the business, you know him exactly. And know the types to bet on or not bet on. Elon is a bet on developer definitely, because of the gets things done part. He can't help up it. He loves building stuff and knows how to navigate the evitiable ups and downs.

Second, You got the business.

Not the car business. The technology development business. It doesn't all go right. There are bad downs. But if you keep on moving forward and people love your product and you are attracting the best and brightest, well then you can whether many many bad downs. When Elon set a target to shoot for and the team misses it, or releases something not quite done, but then nails it 6 months later. Iteration. You get this.

I'm sure there are plenty of investors who just looked at a guy landing rockets on barges, the consumer love of product plus some deep market and financial analysis and came up with "good bet"... and I hail them. Especially the Ark team.

But if you know geeks, who get things done and what it looks like when you are making super innovative disruptive products that are successful...

Well this was a no brainer in 2016.

TSLA Long.

And still a no brainer in 2020.

PS: And when analysts freak about twitter posts and dancing and memes and edm music making ... you just say yeah. That’s goofy tech geek, no biggie, just the culture of smart people making great things right now. And all those smart goofy geeks see Elon as exactly one of them, and they all want to work for him.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Yes, it was manipulation. From Tue-Thu, FINRA reported there were 2,136,450 shares sold marked as "ShortExempt", which means they were not located before being sold.

This would be illegal naked short selling except for the Market Makers Exemption (the "Madoff Rule"), which allows MMs to artificially (and without limit) increase the float even during times of high volume (when there is plenty of liquidity). This is an abuse of the exemption, which was intended to 'provide liquidity' but is now being used by unscrupulous parties to crash the SP while they scoop huge profits.

On Wed-Thu this week (in the middle of this bear raid), FINRA reported "ShortExempt" sales reached 9% of total shares sold short: (during a period of huge trading volume when liquidity is NOT AN ISSUE).

View attachment 509185

This had the effect of killing the sustained rally of Tue afternoon, and causing widespread panic selling amongst real shareholders (sorry @Right_Said_Fred this is the illegal practice you got swept up in).

View attachment 509189

This is market manipulation, pure and simple. Your hand waving attempt to explain it away does not change the reality, nor deal with the underlying problem: Regulation SHO (see below).

Let's see if these anonymous MMs can locate all these naked short shares before they are legally required to report their activity in the Failure to Deliver (FTD) report after 13 days. If these MMs are able to locate shares post hoc, it simply means legitimate investors were duped into selling their shares by the panic created by the dumping of millions of non-existant shares. If they can't locate shares, there are no consequences, and the actors involved remain anonymous.

Tell me again how this isn't manipulation? Where is the SEC?

Paging @UncaNed @Hock1
Info: @Fact Checking @KarenRei @lklundin

More here about the Market Maker's Exemption (Regulation SHO):
Regulation SHO | FINRA.org
Key Points About Regulation SHO

A final note: FINRA-reported volume is just a fraction of total trading on NASDAQ. During this week for example, FINRA reported a total volume of just 94,702,898 (94.70M) shares, while we know that total NASDAQ volume was 208,823,482 (208.8M) during that time (FINRA only reports numbers for Pre-Market and the Main Session, does not include the After-Market Session).

We have ZERO visibility into how much the rest of NASDAQ trading is sold short, or conducted under the short selling exemption. We do know that last week, we have no short selling information on 54.65% of all TSLA trades done on NASDAQ.

Think about what that means for Investor confidence and the transparency of the Market.

You mention me as a victim of this illegal manipulation, but it only gave me a bruised ego (and I actually made 15k during my involuntary absence). But people with huge option wins that evaporated, like @pz1975 who lost half a million or more compared to his planned exit point, really have a reason to be annoyed, to put it mildly. Maybe someone who ‘lost’ a lot should start a class action suit to go after this illegal naked short selling.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I remember from Autonomy Day Elon stating they get their chips manufactured at Samsung Austin so might be a possible co location deal. Also it looks like Samsung needs some help as they are letting people go at that location, so Tesla may obtain favorable conditions in going there. But, all speculation.

Yeah, Austin isn't Mordor. That'd be Port Arthur.

Tesla needs to build a foundry to make their special Stainless steel alloy, then needs to deliver it to SpaceX for Starship production, and Tesla for Cybertruck.

One caveat here: if plans for a 2nd Gen Cybertruck acually do involve a giant casting machine for injection molding the entire hull of CT2, then that process will be done somewhere near the foundry, were they will have easy access to the still molten steel.

Port Arthur and the surrounding industrial area also makes large tanks for the oil industry. SpaceX is planning to build Starship like a water tower (tanks built from loops of steel).

I put my money on the Houston area, specially near the port for logistics.

 

[Hock1]

Guess it's too soon to show you the FINRA "Short Exempted" sales data from the past two days then, huh? You're not going to like it when you see plain evidence how you were cheated out of your shares by naked short selling. Glad you're back in TSLA.

So tell us when you're feeling more like yourself, then I'll share the data. Maybe this weekend would be a good time? Paging @Fact Checking @Hock1 it's got Andrew's Left fingerprint all over the MMs short seller's exemption data. Somebody started this in the Pre-market in Germany, and we have a suspect. Now if the SEC would do their job.

Kind regards,

Lodger

View attachment 509179

View attachment 509178

2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo S vs. 2020 Tesla Model S Performance

Interesting but, unless I missed it, I don't see a "range" category in that comparison.

 

[Fact Checking]

BTW., I'm trying to figure out when an S&P or Moody's credit upgrade is due. @jbcarioca warned us that the big credit rating agencies are quick with downgrades but slow with upgrades.

Last quarter S&P made their move on November 6:

"Tesla Wins Positive Outlook From S&P as Cash Flow Takes Shape" (Bloomberg)​

Q3 results were released on October 23 (Wednesday), the 10-Q was released on October 30 (Wednesday), and November 6 was one week after that - a Wednesday too.

So since Q4 results were released on January 23, but there's no 10-K yet (audited annual reports take time), last year the 10-K was released on February 19, a Tuesday.

I'd guess that S&P and/or Moody's will announce something about a week after that, around February 27 or so.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Good news, what's the range of your VIN number?

089XXX
October 2018 purchase.

Dan

 

[cricketman]

Interesting but, unless I missed it, I don't see a "range" category in that comparison.

Or anything about entertainment tech, UI, software updates or self-driving. It's like they were judging a 2007 iPhone on weight, size of keyboard and battery life.

Car and driver just compared the Tesla Model S and Porsche Taycan on old fashioned ICE attributes and the Tesla still won!

 

[anthonyj]

Lol, he from Texas, partner? What expiry?

Cheers!

28th expiry for the $1880 calls. Just in case TSLA goes Bitcoin

 

[anthonyj]

Yes, it was manipulation. From Tue-Thu, FINRA reported there were 2,136,450 shares sold marked as "ShortExempt", which means they were not located before being sold.

This would be illegal naked short selling except for the Market Makers Exemption (the "Madoff Rule"), which allows MMs to artificially (and without limit) increase the float even during times of high volume (when there is plenty of liquidity). This is an abuse of the exemption, which was intended to 'provide liquidity' but is now being used by unscrupulous parties to crash the SP while they scoop huge profits.

On Wed-Thu this week (in the middle of this bear raid), FINRA reported "ShortExempt" sales reached 9% of total shares sold short: (during a period of huge trading volume when liquidity is NOT AN ISSUE).

View attachment 509185

This had the effect of killing the sustained rally of Tue afternoon, and causing widespread panic selling amongst real shareholders (sorry @Right_Said_Fred this is the illegal practice you got swept up in).

View attachment 509189

This is market manipulation, pure and simple. Your hand waving attempt to explain it away does not change the reality, nor deal with the underlying problem: Regulation SHO (see below).

Let's see if these anonymous MMs can locate all these naked short shares before they are legally required to report their activity in the Failure to Deliver (FTD) report after 13 days. If these MMs are able to locate shares post hoc, it simply means legitimate investors were duped into selling their shares by the panic created by the dumping of millions of non-existant shares. If they can't locate shares, there are no consequences, and the actors involved remain anonymous.

Tell me again how this isn't manipulation? Where is the SEC?

Paging @UncaNed @Hock1
Info: @Fact Checking @KarenRei @lklundin

More here about the Market Maker's Exemption (Regulation SHO):
Regulation SHO | FINRA.org
Key Points About Regulation SHO

A final note: FINRA-reported volume is just a fraction of total trading on NASDAQ. During this week for example, FINRA reported a total volume of just 94,702,898 (94.70M) shares, while we know that total NASDAQ volume was 208,823,482 (208.8M) during that time (FINRA only reports numbers for Pre-Market and the Main Session, does not include the After-Market Session).

We have ZERO visibility into how much the rest of NASDAQ trading is sold short, or conducted under the short selling exemption. We do know that last week, we have no short selling information on 54.65% of all TSLA trades done on NASDAQ.

Think about what that means for Investor confidence and the transparency of the Market.

Come on tho. There was upside manipulation too. Tuesday we saw a $120 jump in premarket on just 4m of volume. That’s freaking absurd. The manipulation is going both ways this time, that way BagholderQuotes can make fun of both sides on Twitter. It’s great

 

[Buckminster]

This has previously been posted:

It's a must watch if you haven't already. Fridman got owned!

This is the best promotion of Elon I have ever seen/read. Coming from Keller means a lot. Why? - he is top of his game, has worked in different industries and crucially has left Tesla and is free to say what he wants. He wouldn't hold back if he thought otherwise, as Fridman found out.

Lots of chat about stripping out layers of assumptions (1st principles) and how good Elon is at it.

FSD is gonna be easy he reckons.

Now I need to become a craftsman in something....

 

[Artful Dodger]

I was always skeptical about FSD on HW2 in 2016 because of computational limitations. Images weren't even proccessed at full resolution - they were downsampled. Not a good start.

A hummingbird's brain weighs 4.2% of its body weight: largest percentage of any bird.

But that tiny brain is still powerful enough to guide it on an annual migration of thousands of miles from from South America and Mexico up to Canada.

Its not just about how much compute is available: its the algorithms and the code. Since Tesla's code evolves faster than one generation per year, the process should be somewhat faster.

Oh, and (hopefully) its directed evolution, rather than natural selection acting on random code changes...

Cheers!

 

[haid]

Come on tho. There was upside manipulation too. Tuesday we saw a $120 jump in premarket on just 4m of volume. That’s freaking absurd. The manipulation is going both ways this time, that way BagholderQuotes can make fun of both sides on Twitter. It’s great

Huh? The original author was discussing naked shorts which is illegal in most circumstances. This is the creation of a supply of shares out of thin air (selling without securing borrowing someone else's shares).

The rise you point to is explained by excess demand without sufficient supply. In other words, both events are a result of the same cause. But since naked shorting is illegal, calling fowl is warranted.

I am tired of the sloppy thinking of What-about-ism

 

[Artful Dodger]

Come on tho. There was upside manipulation too. Tuesday we saw a $120 jump in premarket on just 4m of volume. That’s freaking absurd. The manipulation is going both ways this time, that way BagholderQuotes can make fun of both sides on Twitter. It’s great

Lol, how do you naked-short-sell the SP to go UP? That's not manipulation; that's buying pressure as the Market revalues TSLA.

Did you see the latest SimplyWall.St TSLA valuation? $895.80 per share as of last night's calculation, based on their methodology of discounted 5 year cash flows.

The SP was closer to that independent valuation at the peak on Tuesday ($968 before the bear raid) than it was at the Close on Friday ($748). The SP was 8% above on Tue; now its -17.5% below fair value.

But hey, congrats on your Options win. Hope you didn't get burned on the way down. Other folks here did well while missing out on about 55% of their (pre-bear raid) gains.

Cheers!

 

[elasalle]

Tesla Gigafactory Shanghai China Resume Production Feb 10, Says Gov

Have to say it's easier for countries like China to control epidemics, because they can do what they want. Would be hard for Western Countries to force lockdowns without Parlaments debating justifications to death.

1/2 of US tariffs cut. Liquidity added to markets. I think pain is being felt, and they are going to try to remedy it .... and try to control the rest.

 

[jbcarioca]

BTW., I'm trying to figure out when an S&P or Moody's credit upgrade is due. @jbcarioca warned us that the big credit rating agencies are quick with downgrades but slow with upgrades.

Last quarter S&P made their move on November 6:

"Tesla Wins Positive Outlook From S&P as Cash Flow Takes Shape" (Bloomberg)​

Q3 results were released on October 23 (Wednesday), the 10-Q was released on October 30 (Wednesday), and November 6 was one week after that - a Wednesday too.

So since Q4 results were released on January 23, but there's no 10-K yet (audited annual reports take time), last year the 10-K was released on February 19, a Tuesday.

I'd guess that S&P and/or Moody's will announce something about a week after that, around February 27 or so.

I wish we could be more definitive, but the reality of rating agency life is an almost religious avoidance of perceived lack of diligence. That is to say all three major agencies have had severe criticism for historical errors, essentially every one of which happened after the agencies underestimated negative information. Given that even though S&P has declared 'positive outlook' any potentially risk-increasing events (e.g. CoV, drop of reported car sales almost anywhere, ending of BEV incentives somewhere, senior management hiccup, an earthquake near Fremont or Reno) could cause them to delay upgrading. My personal expectation is that if GF-3 reopens smoothly and Q1 results are positive they'll probably upgrade after Q1 results.

Right now there are so many apparent headwinds that their prudence probably will have them wait until the facts are incredibly obvious.

OTOH, rumor has it that TSLA securitizations are having much lower credit and residual value losses than assumed, so Tesla has had to replace essentially no collateral. The alleged corroborating facts are that early lease terminations are running well above assumptions and that a very large portion of those are tradeins for another Tesla. I believe those are correct rumors but I have zero factual proof. The available public information is not sufficient to confirm or deny, but nothing I have seen argues against this. The ease with which Tesla obtains better and better inventory finance terms suggests these rumors are plausible.

If anybody has proof of any of the points in the previous paragraph please post what you can. These are powerful risk mitigants for rating agencies. That these are US only is relevant to us, but not them. Despite protestations they weigh US results more heavily than anywhere else.