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

[lafrisbee]

So why would the clients not buy on the open market? Are they getting some sort of discount or benefits?

No. But they are getting a better price than if they tried to buy that much stock on the open market because once the sellers saw the stock was selling well they would increase their asking price, and the asking price would just go up and up and up.
This way the buyer can buy as much as they want at a set price.

 

[Chocochip]

I have some big issues with posts such as this one:

I find your comments offensive (and I was in the Army). The reason they are offensive is because you insist on bashing Elon without quoting what he actually said. That's either lazy or disengenuous, or both.

At no point did Elon say "dumbest thing". You are making that up out of your fears and self-loathing. What Elon said is raising equity to pay debt is not wise. Further he said:

Elon Musk

Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and yes, so, yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?​

Now tell us how you read "Dumb" out of that? Or, alternatively, quit putting your fears into Elon's mouth.

Word.

This post, which seems to receive a lot of Likes and Loves despite being at best aggressive in language and at worst straight-up offensive towards a fellow forum member, was a direct reply to @Singuy , who said
Not "thats the dumbest thing I have heard in weeks". Be more like Zach.

We get a lot of commentary here on what Elon means when he makes certain statements. And then later, when some of the actions the company makes seem to directly contradict those previous statements, we again see commentary (oftentimes from the same forum members) claiming that those statements Elon made previously were misunderstood by other forum members, who obviously are haters etc., and should obviously have been understood in a way that perfectly matches the new reality.

A very specific example may help.

During the CC on Jan 29, there was the following exchange:
Dan Levy
Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking the question. Just want to follow-up on the question on capital raise. So given the cheaper cost of capital – and this is a real competitive advantage for others – why wouldn't it make sense to raise capital to either pay down debt or to pursue acquisitions especially bolt- ons that could help you accelerate capabilities and autonomous and battery technology?

Elon Musk
I mean, if you know of any acquisitions, we'd love to hear about them. Yes, sure. Sounds great, whom should we acquire?

Dan Levy
Well, given the importance of autonomous I imagine that this is an area that you would want to accelerate, if you view it as a crucial competitive advantage?

Elon Musk
We're not aware of anyone that we'd want to acquire.

Dan Levy
And debt pay down?

Elon Musk
Diluting the company to pay down debt, doesn't sound like a wise move.

Dan Levy
I think the broader... there's been a couple of versions of this question over the course of the call. I think what we're saying more broadly is that as we look forward on the cash generation from the business relative to what our plans are, we are not constrained.

Elon Musk
Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and... yes, so... yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?


Here are some posts from Jan 29, "live" commentary from the CC:

Q: why not raise money?

A; We are spending money as fast as it makes sense as it is. So no need to raise money. We are not limited by cash. We learned during Model 3 launch in that we tried to grow too quickly, wasted money, had wasteful processes. We are now smarter. We are launching 2 vehicles now (Model Y and Model Y shanghai I presume).

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

This below refers to the exchange quoted above, Elon replying to Dan Levy's questions:

Q; Capital raise. Why not do it. Come on, please do it. We want fees! What about an acquisition?

A: Acquisition? Who should we acquire? We aren't aware of any companies to buy. Go away, we aren't raising money.

UPDATE: The analyst also then said, well maybe you should pay down debt. Yeah, that's the ticket, raise money to pay down debt.

Somehow Elon didn't outright say that was the dumbest thing he's heard (and It is pretty dumb!). He fairly politely said that wasn't a very smart thing to do for a growing company.

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

So, on the night of the conference call multiple forum members agreed that Elon's comment on the suggestion of a capital raise was equivalent to calling that suggestion dumb, even though not using the exact word. Elon said "[it] doesn't sound like a wise move". Easy to imply he thought the idea was dumb.

And now here we are, a capital raise has indeed taken place, many forum members celebrate it as a great idea (and whether it is or not is not actually relevant to the discussion, I personally believe it helps that Tesla improved their cash reserves), and when someone mentions Elon's comments with their at-the-time agreed-upon meaning, they get dumped on and called names.

Can we please be kinder to each other, particularly when things are otherwise moving positively with Tesla? Do we really need to flex so much and claim intellectual superiority vs. other forum members while being borderline insulting? It seems to happen fairly frequently these days, and it only contributes to a toxic atmosphere where you risk being called out as ill-intentioned, self-loathing, frustrated, or even plain dumb for saying something slightly wrong or not entirely factual. It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

 

[Paracelsus]

So............could this price action be TSLA Bond Holders that had taken out a Short position in the 800's - 900's anticipating to receive a share of TSLA as payment at a price near 650 racing to cover that naked Short because they might get paid in cash instead? I had previously posted this potential situation as a question to @Fact Checking and others on the board.................that IF Tesla came up with the cash to pay all - or part of the Bond back in cash it could force Bond Holders that hedged their position with a naked Short postion to cover as soon as the word on the street was that Tesla would not be paying in shares. This is once again speculation.........but waking up to the news that Tesla was issuing $2B in shares at a price of $775-ish means that they (Tesla) could pay off at least $2B of to Bond holders in cash at a ~20% savings if I understand this right. And the 2019 Q4 showed their income & their account could support paying much more than that in cash.

Furthermore, if this scenario does play out, there could be a pretty sizable run on TSLA shares to cover naked Short positions by Bond Holders willing to short TSLA at its high (that could be a pretty sizeable position given how fast and how far the stock dropped from $950). They would have thought they had the perfect setup...........the shareprice being $300 above the Bond payout and Jim Cramer helping to pump it up to that price. If Shorting was your thing, why not make money in both directions (I am proud to say 'Shorting companies trying to save the Planet ain't my Thing')

But they forgot about Elon & Uncle Larry E's ability to play 3D Chess...........Tesla realizes it can catch the Shorts in a very exposed naked position and then issues a surprise $2B in shares at 20% higher than their Bond payout and perhaps pays the rest in cash too............putting into to motion the first steps of the SBOTC all on the backs of the Shorts at a fair valuation for TSLA

Here was my previous post and question to @Fact Checking based on a very informative post he had provided:
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019-2020 Investors' Roundtable

Thoughts on this? Not an advice........but I am playing for a bit of a squeezy-ness at the moment

 

[ZachF]

 

[Fact Checking]

Various nuggets from the 10K:

Acquisitions
Acquisitions done in 2019, not counting Maxwell.

Automotive credits / (no)info on FCA pool
140m$ out of 140m$ of deferred revenue to be recognized next 12 months.

Purchase obligations comparison between 2019 10-K and 2020 10-K
These are primarily battery cell buy obligations to Panasonic. So sheds a bit of light on what was renegotiated with Panasonic and how Tesla sees the future vis-á-vis how many battery cells they need from Panasonic.
Notice that no obligation has been entered into from 2024 and onward.
Notice that 2021/2022 seems to have been negotiated lower.
(2019)

(2020)

Valuation allowance commentary

I'm wondering whether the new disclosures about the valuation allowance have changed @The Accountant's estimates about when they are going to make use of it?

Also, in Q4 it grew to $1.956b ...

 

[thait84]

I have some big issues with posts such as this one:



This post, which seems to receive a lot of Likes and Loves despite being at best aggressive in language and at worst straight-up offensive towards a fellow forum member, was a direct reply to @Singuy , who said
Not "thats the dumbest thing I have heard in weeks". Be more like Zach.

We get a lot of commentary here on what Elon means when he makes certain statements. And then later, when some of the actions the company makes seem to directly contradict those previous statements, we again see commentary (oftentimes from the same forum members) claiming that those statements Elon made previously were misunderstood by other forum members, who obviously are haters etc., and should obviously have been understood in a way that perfectly matches the new reality.

A very specific example may help.

During the CC on Jan 29, there was the following exchange:
Dan Levy
Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking the question. Just want to follow-up on the question on capital raise. So given the cheaper cost of capital – and this is a real competitive advantage for others – why wouldn't it make sense to raise capital to either pay down debt or to pursue acquisitions especially bolt- ons that could help you accelerate capabilities and autonomous and battery technology?

Elon Musk
I mean, if you know of any acquisitions, we'd love to hear about them. Yes, sure. Sounds great, whom should we acquire?

Dan Levy
Well, given the importance of autonomous I imagine that this is an area that you would want to accelerate, if you view it as a crucial competitive advantage?

Elon Musk
We're not aware of anyone that we'd want to acquire.

Dan Levy
And debt pay down?

Elon Musk
Diluting the company to pay down debt, doesn't sound like a wise move.

Dan Levy
I think the broader... there's been a couple of versions of this question over the course of the call. I think what we're saying more broadly is that as we look forward on the cash generation from the business relative to what our plans are, we are not constrained.

Elon Musk
Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and... yes, so... yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?


Here are some posts from Jan 29, "live" commentary from the CC:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

This below refers to the exchange quoted above, Elon replying to Dan Levy's questions:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

So, on the night of the conference call multiple forum members agreed that Elon's comment on the suggestion of a capital raise was equivalent to calling that suggestion dumb, even though not using the exact word. Elon said "[it] doesn't sound like a wise move". Easy to imply he thought the idea was dumb.

And now here we are, a capital raise has indeed taken place, many forum members celebrate it as a great idea (and whether it is or not is not actually relevant to the discussion, I personally believe it helps that Tesla improved their cash reserves), and when someone mentions Elon's comments with their at-the-time agreed-upon meaning, they get dumped on and called names.

Can we please be kinder to each other, particularly when things are otherwise moving positively with Tesla? Do we really need to flex so much and claim intellectual superiority vs. other forum members while being borderline insulting? It seems to happen fairly frequently these days, and it only contributes to a toxic atmosphere where you risk being called out as ill-intentioned, self-loathing, frustrated, or even plain dumb for saying something slightly wrong or not entirely factual. It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

I agree with you. My take away from the call was that they didn't need to raise money and they were self funding. Whether or not there were underlying tones that he doesn't want greedy bankers trying to get a cut of that money doing a capital raise is up for debate.

My positive takeaway is that even if at the time Elon was against raising money at the time, with the higher stock price and ideas on how they can use more money, Elon was able to change his mind and decide that a capital raise makes sense now. I'm always happy if people reevaluate their previous decisions and decide if it is the right call or not, versus just being stubborn and set in their ways. Elon doesn't mind course corrections and the potential blowback from it if he thinks it is the right thing to do.

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Jim Cramer positive on the stock offering.

 

[Curt Renz]

Amazing news. Tesla decided to go even bigger, faster.

If this latest follow-on offering is well subscribed and the share price remains elevated, let's not be surprised if even more offerings are announced before long. That would allow for more factories and earlier production of proposed new models. An innovative young company disrupting long established major industries can't be without enough cash to strike while the iron is hot.

 

[KarenRei]

Re, clearing at GF4... sounds like there's official confirmation that the go-ahead was given!

@GF4Tesla..️️.build #GigaBerlin. on Twitter

Expect some good drone videos soon!

 

[SOULPEDL]

I have some big issues with posts such as this one:



This post, which seems to receive a lot of Likes and Loves despite being at best aggressive in language and at worst straight-up offensive towards a fellow forum member, was a direct reply to @Singuy , who said
Not "thats the dumbest thing I have heard in weeks". Be more like Zach.

We get a lot of commentary here on what Elon means when he makes certain statements. And then later, when some of the actions the company makes seem to directly contradict those previous statements, we again see commentary (oftentimes from the same forum members) claiming that those statements Elon made previously were misunderstood by other forum members, who obviously are haters etc., and should obviously have been understood in a way that perfectly matches the new reality.

A very specific example may help.

During the CC on Jan 29, there was the following exchange:
Dan Levy
Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking the question. Just want to follow-up on the question on capital raise. So given the cheaper cost of capital – and this is a real competitive advantage for others – why wouldn't it make sense to raise capital to either pay down debt or to pursue acquisitions especially bolt- ons that could help you accelerate capabilities and autonomous and battery technology?

Elon Musk
I mean, if you know of any acquisitions, we'd love to hear about them. Yes, sure. Sounds great, whom should we acquire?

Dan Levy
Well, given the importance of autonomous I imagine that this is an area that you would want to accelerate, if you view it as a crucial competitive advantage?

Elon Musk
We're not aware of anyone that we'd want to acquire.

Dan Levy
And debt pay down?

Elon Musk
Diluting the company to pay down debt, doesn't sound like a wise move.

Dan Levy
I think the broader... there's been a couple of versions of this question over the course of the call. I think what we're saying more broadly is that as we look forward on the cash generation from the business relative to what our plans are, we are not constrained.

Elon Musk
Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and... yes, so... yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?


Here are some posts from Jan 29, "live" commentary from the CC:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

This below refers to the exchange quoted above, Elon replying to Dan Levy's questions:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

So, on the night of the conference call multiple forum members agreed that Elon's comment on the suggestion of a capital raise was equivalent to calling that suggestion dumb, even though not using the exact word. Elon said "[it] doesn't sound like a wise move". Easy to imply he thought the idea was dumb.

And now here we are, a capital raise has indeed taken place, many forum members celebrate it as a great idea (and whether it is or not is not actually relevant to the discussion, I personally believe it helps that Tesla improved their cash reserves), and when someone mentions Elon's comments with their at-the-time agreed-upon meaning, they get dumped on and called names.

Can we please be kinder to each other, particularly when things are otherwise moving positively with Tesla? Do we really need to flex so much and claim intellectual superiority vs. other forum members while being borderline insulting? It seems to happen fairly frequently these days, and it only contributes to a toxic atmosphere where you risk being called out as ill-intentioned, self-loathing, frustrated, or even plain dumb for saying something slightly wrong or not entirely factual. It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

Agreed.
Myself, I just play the naive one to keep under the radar. It buys me licence to be off script with ideas. But that could be just the Canadian way of communication

 

[Bobfitz1]

They've said they're spending cash as fast as they efficiently can, and their cash flows will be even stronger a few quarters from now after MY and Giga Shanghai are in full swing.

Elon and Zachary aren't stupid though, so there must be a good reason for the raise that is neither disclosed in the announcement, nor any of us are aware of at this moment. If I were to speculate, I'd say it must be for either an acquisition (company or Panasonic battery lines in Giga Nevada), or a new factory/production capacity most likely for battery cells.

FWIW I suspect they meant they are spending as fast as they can right now, not in the near or middle term future.

I believe Elon is preparing to go big in a way we haven't seen before. The way you might if you had a path to move from producing tens of GWh to TWh in the next few years. If you are a gambler and are going to try and break the casino, you get as many chips to hold in reserve as you can. April could turn out to be Tesla's perfect storm. In a span of four weeks they could:
1. Report a small Q1 profit which would likely trigger inclusion in S&P in the following few months.
2. Model Ys are starting to be delivered at greater volume and increasing ramp rate than expected by WS. Likewise MIC M3s.
3. Lay out at Battery Day just how good the new battery specs are and how much less CapEx per GWh.
4. Detail his plans for where and how fast the first factories for producing new gen batteries them will be built.
5. It's hard to believe the company talk would be at GF2 unless there is also something big to reveal about the solar glass part of the company. Even if that is just showing things are finally taking off at GF2 and Tesla won't need to pay NY state for not meeting the number of new jobs promised.

This is entirely speculation but I doubt that Elon and team have managed everything so this many positive milestones are reached at the same time, without also planning to maximize their collective impact on the company story.

 

[dw4ngg]

So............could this price action be TSLA Bond Holders that had taken out a Short position in the 800's - 900's anticipating to receive a share of TSLA as payment at a price near 650 racing to cover that naked Short because they might get paid in cash instead? I had previously posted this potential situation as a question to @Fact Checking and others on the board.................that IF Tesla came up with the cash to pay all - or part of the Bond back in cash it could force Bond Holders that hedged their position with a naked Short postion to cover as soon as the word on the street was that Tesla would not be paying in shares. This is once again speculation.........but waking up to the news that Tesla was issuing $2B in shares at a price of $775-ish means that they (Tesla) could pay off at least $2B of to Bond holders in cash at a ~20% savings if I understand this right. And the 2019 Q4 showed their income & their account could support paying much more than that in cash.

Furthermore, if this scenario does play out, there could be a pretty sizable run on TSLA shares to cover naked Short positions by Bond Holders willing to short TSLA at its high (that could be a pretty sizeable position given how fast and how far the stock dropped from $950). They would have thought they had the perfect setup...........the shareprice being $300 above the Bond payout and Jim Cramer helping to pump it up to that price. If Shorting was your thing, why not make money in both directions (I am proud to say 'Shorting companies trying to save the Planet ain't my Thing')

But they forgot about Elon & Uncle Larry E's ability to play 3D Chess...........Tesla realizes it can catch the Shorts in a very exposed naked position and then issues a surprise $2B in shares at 20% higher than their Bond payout and perhaps pays the rest in cash too............putting into to motion the first steps of the SBOTC all on the backs of the Shorts at a fair valuation for TSLA

Here was my previous post and question to @Fact Checking based on a very informative post he had provided:
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019-2020 Investors' Roundtable

Thoughts on this? Not an advice........but I am playing for a bit of a squeezy-ness at the moment

Thanks a lot, bud... b/c of this post, I spent $520 on a Feb 21 $950 call......

edit: +$1,900 on 2 Feb 21 $900 calls...

edit ^2: not an advice... commissions will be paid if successful

 

[KarenRei]

You used to say "I want the price to drop." Now you say "Keep it volatile." I say "2% a day is just fine, thank you."

Huh? I was saying "I want the price to drop"? I remember on multiple times telling people who were freaking out over every little drop that they're not a big deal and that we're consolidating, but I'm not one of the people who missed out on the runup and wanted to see $400 again to get back in. Nor am I one of the Q1 pessimists. Half of my Tesla holdings are options (used to be a much higher %, but I lowered the % the higher we got).

But while we're no longer pushing new daily highs, I'm glad to play the daily volatility, since all my options are long-term (Mar '21)

 

[gerebgraus]

I have some big issues with posts such as this one:



This post, which seems to receive a lot of Likes and Loves despite being at best aggressive in language and at worst straight-up offensive towards a fellow forum member, was a direct reply to @Singuy , who said
Not "thats the dumbest thing I have heard in weeks". Be more like Zach.

We get a lot of commentary here on what Elon means when he makes certain statements. And then later, when some of the actions the company makes seem to directly contradict those previous statements, we again see commentary (oftentimes from the same forum members) claiming that those statements Elon made previously were misunderstood by other forum members, who obviously are haters etc., and should obviously have been understood in a way that perfectly matches the new reality.

A very specific example may help.

During the CC on Jan 29, there was the following exchange:
Dan Levy
Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking the question. Just want to follow-up on the question on capital raise. So given the cheaper cost of capital – and this is a real competitive advantage for others – why wouldn't it make sense to raise capital to either pay down debt or to pursue acquisitions especially bolt- ons that could help you accelerate capabilities and autonomous and battery technology?

Elon Musk
I mean, if you know of any acquisitions, we'd love to hear about them. Yes, sure. Sounds great, whom should we acquire?

Dan Levy
Well, given the importance of autonomous I imagine that this is an area that you would want to accelerate, if you view it as a crucial competitive advantage?

Elon Musk
We're not aware of anyone that we'd want to acquire.

Dan Levy
And debt pay down?

Elon Musk
Diluting the company to pay down debt, doesn't sound like a wise move.

Dan Levy
I think the broader... there's been a couple of versions of this question over the course of the call. I think what we're saying more broadly is that as we look forward on the cash generation from the business relative to what our plans are, we are not constrained.

Elon Musk
Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and... yes, so... yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?


Here are some posts from Jan 29, "live" commentary from the CC:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

This below refers to the exchange quoted above, Elon replying to Dan Levy's questions:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

So, on the night of the conference call multiple forum members agreed that Elon's comment on the suggestion of a capital raise was equivalent to calling that suggestion dumb, even though not using the exact word. Elon said "[it] doesn't sound like a wise move". Easy to imply he thought the idea was dumb.

And now here we are, a capital raise has indeed taken place, many forum members celebrate it as a great idea (and whether it is or not is not actually relevant to the discussion, I personally believe it helps that Tesla improved their cash reserves), and when someone mentions Elon's comments with their at-the-time agreed-upon meaning, they get dumped on and called names.

Can we please be kinder to each other, particularly when things are otherwise moving positively with Tesla? Do we really need to flex so much and claim intellectual superiority vs. other forum members while being borderline insulting? It seems to happen fairly frequently these days, and it only contributes to a toxic atmosphere where you risk being called out as ill-intentioned, self-loathing, frustrated, or even plain dumb for saying something slightly wrong or not entirely factual. It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

It is a bit complex issue:
1. Elon at that point could not confirm the capital raise. So the question was dumb.
2. Elon does not like analysts with low target price and "underperform" recommendations especially if he considers the analysis dumb. Elon was a bit aggressive there.
3. Given the fairly convincing rumors of starting a breakthrough battery cell production, it was predictable that in some form they will need funds to finance expansion even with FCA generously volunteering to finance Giga Berlin. So the claim that TSLA does not need money was an obvious BS.

 

[wipster]

I'm not gonna post a thing until market close...

Whoops, blew that already...

 

[Tim S]

I have some big issues with posts such as this one:



This post, which seems to receive a lot of Likes and Loves despite being at best aggressive in language and at worst straight-up offensive towards a fellow forum member, was a direct reply to @Singuy , who said
Not "thats the dumbest thing I have heard in weeks". Be more like Zach.

We get a lot of commentary here on what Elon means when he makes certain statements. And then later, when some of the actions the company makes seem to directly contradict those previous statements, we again see commentary (oftentimes from the same forum members) claiming that those statements Elon made previously were misunderstood by other forum members, who obviously are haters etc., and should obviously have been understood in a way that perfectly matches the new reality.

A very specific example may help.

During the CC on Jan 29, there was the following exchange:
Dan Levy
Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking the question. Just want to follow-up on the question on capital raise. So given the cheaper cost of capital – and this is a real competitive advantage for others – why wouldn't it make sense to raise capital to either pay down debt or to pursue acquisitions especially bolt- ons that could help you accelerate capabilities and autonomous and battery technology?

Elon Musk
I mean, if you know of any acquisitions, we'd love to hear about them. Yes, sure. Sounds great, whom should we acquire?

Dan Levy
Well, given the importance of autonomous I imagine that this is an area that you would want to accelerate, if you view it as a crucial competitive advantage?

Elon Musk
We're not aware of anyone that we'd want to acquire.

Dan Levy
And debt pay down?

Elon Musk
Diluting the company to pay down debt, doesn't sound like a wise move.

Dan Levy
I think the broader... there's been a couple of versions of this question over the course of the call. I think what we're saying more broadly is that as we look forward on the cash generation from the business relative to what our plans are, we are not constrained.

Elon Musk
Yes, we're going to pay down the debt just as time goes by and we paid down $0.5 billion worth the debt last quarter. So we'll just keep steadily paying it down and... yes, so... yes. But, yes, I don't think we have any more say on that part, all right?


Here are some posts from Jan 29, "live" commentary from the CC:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

This below refers to the exchange quoted above, Elon replying to Dan Levy's questions:

@Artful Dodger (among many others) Loved this post.

So, on the night of the conference call multiple forum members agreed that Elon's comment on the suggestion of a capital raise was equivalent to calling that suggestion dumb, even though not using the exact word. Elon said "[it] doesn't sound like a wise move". Easy to imply he thought the idea was dumb.

And now here we are, a capital raise has indeed taken place, many forum members celebrate it as a great idea (and whether it is or not is not actually relevant to the discussion, I personally believe it helps that Tesla improved their cash reserves), and when someone mentions Elon's comments with their at-the-time agreed-upon meaning, they get dumped on and called names.

Can we please be kinder to each other, particularly when things are otherwise moving positively with Tesla? Do we really need to flex so much and claim intellectual superiority vs. other forum members while being borderline insulting? It seems to happen fairly frequently these days, and it only contributes to a toxic atmosphere where you risk being called out as ill-intentioned, self-loathing, frustrated, or even plain dumb for saying something slightly wrong or not entirely factual. It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

The poster you are defending is a ghost to me, so they obviously have a history of anti-Tesla, anti-Elon or just plain annoying posts. That is probably why Artful Dodger reacted so strongly.

 

[palmer_md]

Re, clearing at GF4... sounds like there's official confirmation that the go-ahead was given!

@GF4Tesla..️️.build #GigaBerlin. on Twitter

View attachment 510783

Expect some good drone videos soon!

That machine reminds me of this.

 

[StealthP3D]

It's ok to point out incorrect quotes etc. but I fail to see why we need to follow that up with personal insults.

I had to read Artful Dodger's post again just to be sure. I don't see any personal insults there.

Perhaps pointing out the misquote is taken by you to be a "personal insult"? I do think a little "rolling of the eyes" was warranted because the original post was a misrepresentation of what Elon actually said. And Artful Dodger shouldn't have had to waste his time correcting the record. Additionally, numerous good and valid reasons have already been given why, given what was known during the Q4 conference call, raising additional capital wasn't a good idea while now it is. Tesla is not a static company, things are moving along very quickly and Tesla moves in the moment.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

But they forgot about Elon & Uncle Larry E's ability to play 3D Chess...........Tesla realizes it can catch the Shorts in a very exposed naked position and then issues a surprise $2B in shares at 20% higher than their Bond payout and perhaps pays the rest in cash too............putting into to motion the first steps of the SBOTC all on the backs of the Shorts at a fair valuation for TSLA

I coined the poker term "spite call" for a situation where the preflop raiser is 50/50 to be full of *sugar*, but the potential joy of felting them pushes one to call. If we find out Elon went through all the hassle of raising $2B not to make a couple hundred million but primarily as a "spite raise", I'll be laughing for a week.

 

[KarenRei]

$800 broke!