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

[Right_Said_Fred]

Are you trying to do a friendly checkup on @Right_Said_Fred ?

Darn, that confession is going to haunt me forever...

Feeling comfortable right now, whether we drop to 700 or 500 or rise to 1200 or 1500. Not going to blink.

I guess that when we reach a value of a few thousand in a few years’ time the new game in this thread is going to be who blinks last.

 

[LJS22]

CNBC has a guy from ARK on to talk about SPCE. They haven’t invested in it because they think all excitement on space is being focused on this one stock, but the CNBC host said “so like Tesla and electric cars?” ARK guy said no difference is Virgin Galactic hasn’t put anyone in space, while Tesla has proven itself, and is closer to realizing its potential with the most advanced autonomous fleet.

Weak comment by CNBC to compare Tesla’s progress with Virgin Galactic

 

[Artful Dodger]

Is this our first close above $900?

Not just that, but also these Intraday Records:

Highest Open: $923.50
Highest Low: $901.02
Highest Close: $917.42

2nd Highest High: $944.78
Rank by Volume: TBD
Rank by Sales: TBD​

Cheers!

 

[EcoBruin]

What people need to harness this growth is an amazing new product from Investor's Edge called GorillaGrip(tm). It costs nothing, takes no time out of your day and it has a long track record of minting millionaires. GorillaGrip(tm) is found wherever people have patience, conviction and growing brokerage accounts. Get yours today and see how it can help ensure your financial future.

I need me some of that even though I've been holding since early 2013​

 

[printf42]

0001564590-20-005288 | 8-K | Tesla, Inc.
8k filling for the raise, it was:

• fully subscribed
• underwriters took all the 397.5k additional shares too.
• Net proceeding ~$2.31B

Guess now we wait for a email from Elon stressing how quickly they are going to burn through it.

To Elon, please don’t do it!!!

 

[mejojo]

Right. Because human drivers use smell, sound and touch to determine appropriate speeds! Sight alone just won't work.

OK...so long as FSD can be taught to think the worst of human behavior.........

 

[StealthP3D]

As relevant as ever with an ATH close - The Art of (Not) Selling - Akre Capital Management

Oh, that's a good one and a must-read for those who missed it the first time around or want to freshen up on their GorillaGrip(tm).

A lot of free wisdom there that was learned the expensive way. Now it's free for your time.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Darn, that confession is going to haunt me forever...
...

As I recall the story, you made a tidy sum from your lapse in judgement. If it works, don’t knock it.

 

[jerry33]

Right. Because human drivers use smell, sound and touch to determine appropriate speeds! Sight alone just won't work.

Smell usually works only after you've run over the skunk.
Sound let's you hear the kids in the back.
Touch. Well, if you've ever experienced ice fog in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, then yeah, you do have to open the door and almost touch the ground to see where you are. Otherwise touch is known as road rash.

 

[Nocturnal]

OK...so long as FSD can be taught to think the worst of human behavior.........

It's simpler than that. You just program it to say "well, if we were in a 55, if the sign suddenly reads 85, then only adjust speed to 65 until confirmation happens." Or more in line with neural net learning, perhaps it will think "this road doesn't have barriers on the sides and has cross streets so an 85mph limit is impossible". The latter is what we do.

Edit, I casually call this "simple" as if I'm an expert in AI, but I hope my meaning comes across.

 

[madodel]

Just now CNBC some Credit Suisse guy on Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) etf investing. Shows Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon as large holdings. But Tesla is to rich for it to be included.

Watched that. They have been mentioning TSLA a fair amount today, but their "best performer" today is Virgin Atlantic. Sounds like a potential short to me. SpaceX is eating their and Boeing's lunch and these idiots think this is the big mover of the day. Tesla was UP ONLY $59 (6.88%) today but the increase in TSLA Mkt Cap today was more than the total Mkt Cap for SPCE.

 

[Artful Dodger]

So that's true among current automotive CEOs.

But what about people who are formerly automotive CEOs, has any of those more experience than Musk?

Oh, Henry Ford was around for a while, as was Ferdinand Porsche. Certainly, Elon will be included in that group of auto pioneers, but he'll also be discussed when recalling contributions by Tsilkovsky, Goddard, and von Braun.

Thats right now. But if things go to plan, you can group Elon Musk with Alan Turing, Guglielmo Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell and Christopher Columbus. How's that for company?

Cheers!

 

[Mike Smith]

Forbes hit piece is also out there today. "US revenue down!" The author also goes on to claim that there is "no inherent seasonality in Tesla demand". That's such an obvious lie. He should be forced to retract the article.

"So, bottom line, Musk’s prediction that Tesla will “comfortably exceed 500,000 deliveries” in 2020 has zero chance of coming to fruition. I stand by my estimate, first published in this Forbes article, that Tesla will deliver 360,000 - 400,000 cars in 2020, flat with 2019’s final count of 367,200."
-Jim Collins, Forbes

Interesting..

 

[adiggs]

Darn, that confession is going to haunt me forever...

Feeling comfortable right now, whether we drop to 700 or 500 or rise to 1200 or 1500. Not going to blink.

I guess that when we reach a value of a few thousand in a few years’ time the new game in this thread is going to be who blinks last.

The new game will be celebrating as each person hits "their number", after which life changes radically, and how they change their life. That's why, at least for me, $2xx / $7xx / $9xx are all the same - no change. But $2xxx - I think that probably means it's time for a retirement party. Maybe time for a job with Tesla as an Owner Advisor (part time of course) - you know - something to get me out of the house and around people now and then

 

[dl003]

Oh, that's a good one and a must-read for those who missed it the first time around or want to freshen up on their GorillaGrip(tm).

A lot of free wisdom there that was learned the expensive way. Now it's free for your time.

I might not be alone, but the moment I paid for my shares, TSLA *owes* me at least a 10x return. No way I let it off that easily by selling for crumbs. Perhaps that's why I can't sympathize with my friends who all day be like "should I sell?" "It's too expensive, should I buy?".
Or perhaps I'm just a sociopath.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Thanks for the link.

I was responding to the implication that the ARK analysis was wildly inconsistent from page to page and that this damaged their credibility. In fact, the two numbers represented completely different things. As to the accuracy of their projections, look at what ARK says about their own forecast for Global EV sales of 37 million from all manufacturers (from page 26 of your link):

The biggest risk to ARK’s forecast is whether or not traditional automakers will be able to scale EV production. If they do, then global EV sales could hit 37 million units in 2024.

So ARK admits their 37 million forecast is dependent upon traditional automakers being able to rapidly scale production. This is in BIG letters. In other words, ARK's valuation projections of TSLA are largely independent of ICE manufacturer's ability to scale EV production. If anything, there is a negative correlation for two reasons:

1) A slower transition from ICE manufacturing to EV manufacturing puts less strain on supplies of raw materials for batteries.
2) A slower transition does not flood the market with EV's. So the theory that Tesla would have trouble selling every EV they produce falls flat.

Said another way, ARK is taking the conservative approach to valuing Tesla by assuming ICE manufacturers might use their existing infrastructure to quickly transition to EV's that will compete with Tesla. If this doesn't happen, Tesla has more of the market to themselves while simultaneously having the huge cost advantages of not having to compete with ICE makers for raw materials that are needed for batteries. Remember, the entire thesis here is predicated on continuing cost declines for EV's. ARK's projection is a worst-case scenario. I agree it's unlikely to play out that way because it would be too painful for ICE makers. Most of them will go bankrupt instead.

How does this argue against ARK's TSLA valuation models?

We can argue about how realistic ARK’s predictions are, but we should be really thankful for the price targets they set out and for the air time Cathy is getting to promote those targets. Without them $1,000 would look a lot higher now. In the minds of many investors ARK’s base targets of $5,000 and more recently $7,000 are already becoming a given for the future, making $1,000 just a short stop along the way instead of a huge insurmountable barrier.

 

[madodel]

Beer & fries?

I thought Belgium was known for its waffles and beer?

Don't they put mayonnaise on fries there? Like there isn't enough clogged arteries from the frying oil, they have to make it even more sludgy. Do they give coupons for free stents with every order? Oh that's right they have universal healthcare don't they? Never mind.

 

[kbM3]

Thanks for the link.

I was responding to the implication that the ARK analysis was wildly inconsistent from page to page and that this damaged their credibility. In fact, the two numbers represented completely different things. As to the accuracy of their projections, look at what ARK says about their own forecast for Global EV sales of 37 million from all manufacturers (from page 26 of your link):

The biggest risk to ARK’s forecast is whether or not traditional automakers will be able to scale EV production. If they do, then global EV sales could hit 37 million units in 2024.

So ARK admits their 37 million forecast is dependent upon traditional automakers being able to rapidly scale production. This is in BIG letters. In other words, ARK's valuation projections of TSLA are largely independent of ICE manufacturer's ability to scale EV production. If anything, there is a negative correlation for two reasons:

1) A slower transition from ICE manufacturing to EV manufacturing puts less strain on supplies of raw materials for batteries.
2) A slower transition does not flood the market with EV's. So the theory that Tesla would have trouble selling every EV they produce falls flat.

Said another way, ARK is taking the conservative approach to valuing Tesla by assuming ICE manufacturers might use their existing infrastructure to quickly transition to EV's that will compete with Tesla. If this doesn't happen, Tesla has more of the market to themselves while simultaneously having the huge cost advantages of not having to compete with ICE makers for raw materials that are needed for batteries. Remember, the entire thesis here is predicated on continuing cost declines for EV's. ARK's projection is a worst-case scenario. I agree it's unlikely to play out that way because it would be too painful for ICE makers. Most of them will go bankrupt instead.

How does this argue against ARK's TSLA valuation models?

if I may jump in on @Bobfitz1 side. He’s not disagreeing with Ark’s valuation. It’s the methodology.

I.e. They’re effectively doing this:

1) Assume 37M EVs worldwide.
2) Assume Tesla’s share remains constant (changed from decreasing).
3) Calculate market cap.

Far superior would be to assume 50% annual growth with gradually declining ASPs.

 

[mejojo]

It's simpler than that. You just program it to say "well, if we were in a 55, if the sign suddenly reads 85, then only adjust speed to 65 until confirmation happens." Or more in line with neural net learning, perhaps it will think "this road doesn't have barriers on the sides and has cross streets so an 85mph limit is impossible". The latter is what we do.

Edit, I casually call this "simple" as if I'm an expert in AI, but I hope my meaning comes across.

Still waiting for my car to not slow from 60 to 35 on the 4-lane because there are no children present any time I pass that schoolhouse......

 

[StealthP3D]

Something like an Extended Range towing package might not be too crazy with the CT. Add a battery pack to the bed area and turn it into a pure towing vehicle. That would get it to the point where it could really compete with larger diesels for heavy towing.

The existing specs of the Cybertruck can already compete with "larger diesels" for most towing. Most Interstate hauling is already done by semis. That's what the Tesla semi is for. Most towing below that is done locally, well within the 500+ mile (unladen) range of the Cybertruck. Local towing is the bulk of towing. It's expensive to tow smaller loads Interstate and it's not a very big market compared to over-the-road bulk freight done by semis and local towing (for example to get the backhoe to the job site).

If Tesla wanted to compete in that market (long-range towing for loads smaller than semis) it would make more sense to make a trailer with the battery in the floor. That way the truck is not hauling around 1000 miles worth of batteries when it's not towing.