-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
tesla_raj @tesla_raj
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
And here I naively thought that UK ultras have their own best interests at heart primarily, which means to get re-elected in the next elections, and to be able to blame any policy failures on others, like absolutely almost every other politician in the world.
"Global trade demands", whatever that means, is not a concept most of them understand, which sadly precludes them from having those interests "at heart". Just a quick data point: the pending UK trade negotiations with Japan: the UK will get a worse trade deal from Japan post-BRExit. Japanese officials were pretty blunt: the UK is a much smaller player easier to get concessions from than the EU as a whole.
The interests of the EU? Puh-lease.
He could likely sell his puts today for a profit. We don't know that he is doing anything more than playing the vol.
Wonder if Tesla tracks the person exiting the car for a while before it starts going crazy when a person is getting close to the car. Should not be to hard to do a rudimentary person identifier to remove false positives such as this guy was trying to provoke.
SebastianR
Active Member
OT: In Germany, at the behest of BMW, the government now officially want to find a way to fudge the EU Diesel Emissions thresholds in order to avoid wide-spread Diesel bans (sorry for German source):
Umgehung von Fahrverboten: Regierung will Dieselschadstoff-Grenzwerte lockern - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Mobilität
The situation must be very desperate - just consider lead paint poisoning being accepted since paint makers claim it is too expensive to have paint without poisonous lead...
Umgehung von Fahrverboten: Regierung will Dieselschadstoff-Grenzwerte lockern - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Mobilität
The situation must be very desperate - just consider lead paint poisoning being accepted since paint makers claim it is too expensive to have paint without poisonous lead...
Singer3000
Member
Brexit is quite a fascinating psychological phenomenon in that it is at heart quite an arbitrary and technical package of changes sought for what are perfectly defendable though certainly debatable reasons, executed under a legitimate democratic mandate. And yet it leads otherwise sensible people to lose their ability to calmly assess risk or to empathise with people who share broadly similar social and political attitudes and goals.And here I naively thought that UK ultras have their own best interests at heart primarily, which means to get re-elected in the next elections, and to be able to blame any policy failures on others, like absolutely almost every other politician in the world.
"Global trade demands", whatever that means, is not a concept most of them understand, which sadly precludes them from having those interests "at heart". Just a quick data point: the pending UK trade negotiations with Japan: the UK will get a worse trade deal from Japan post-BRExit. Japanese officials were pretty blunt: the UK is a much smaller player easier to get concessions from than the EU as a whole.
The interests of the EU? Puh-lease.
Let’s get back to Tesla shall we, debate of Brexit is a yawn fest and it barely presents even tail risk to TSLA anyway. You do yourself a disservice on an international forum with the use of inflammatory language such as “Ultras” and “spiteful” and flippant references to 60 trillion in derivatives contracts, as though you believe for a second that enforceability will actually be a problem in practice.
I can't find the post, but somebody asked recently what are the motives for TSLAQ and the attacks on Elon/Tesla. Whenever I encounter a new TSLAQ troll I always try to understand their background and motives. Its always extremely difficult to know, but here's my view in general.
Motives for attacks on Elon, Tesla, EVs & Clean Energy
1. Professional PR/lobbyists/defamation artists
2. Workers that are employed by the fossil fuel, ICE OEM, taxi/driver media & financial analyst industries that feel it is in their financial self-interest to attack Elon, Tesla, EVs & Clean Energy and try to slow the Clean Energy/AV transition.
3. An army of manipulated pawns.
4. Organic TSLAQ recruits due to personal world views and biases.
The TSLAQ foot soldiers under bullets 3 & 4, together with many of the industry insiders from bullet 2 have many commonly recurring social, economic & political opinions and world views. A few trends that I have seen:
Motives for attacks on Elon, Tesla, EVs & Clean Energy
1. Professional PR/lobbyists/defamation artists
You would be extremely naïve to doubt that part of the Tesla short narrative originates with professional PR/lobbyists/defamation artists hired by the fossil fuel & Auto industry. I personally think professional PR is at the core of the narratives generated by the TSLAQ movement. They likely also hire social media trolls and bots and provide direct financial incentives for some journalists. These people use the extremely common FUD or Merchants of Doubt strategy that was used to convince the world smoking wasn’t harmful, nuclear winter wasn’t a threat, pollution doesn’t kill and global warming doesn’t exist. This strategy is very commonly employed by incumbents against new startup disruptors in their industries.
The global fossil fuel industry is worth $6trn in GDP (note GDP is profit + wages, total revenue is far higher), while the Auto industry is over $3trn in revenue. All of these profits are at existential risk from the clean energy transition which is on track to provide a much cheaper alternative without subsidy (both financially and in terms of environmental & health cost) as soon as we invest in it. It is now 100% possible to transition to a close to zero carbon energy global economy within 10 years with a great return on financial investment, just by aggressively investing in increased scale of our current solar, wind, battery, EV powertrain and AV technology. This isn't a prediction, but it is definitely a possibility in the very unlikely event global industries and global politicians get their act together.
Note that over $2bn was spent on lobbying US congress alone against climate change regulation between 2010-16. Money talks when trying to influence climate change legislation: New research examines the amounts different sectors spent on lobbying on climate-related issues in the US between 2000 and 2016. Frankly it is absurd that anyone could assume huge amounts of money are not being spent to attack the ringleader of the Clean Energy transition and to defend well over $10trn of revenue from near to medium term obliteration.
The global fossil fuel industry is worth $6trn in GDP (note GDP is profit + wages, total revenue is far higher), while the Auto industry is over $3trn in revenue. All of these profits are at existential risk from the clean energy transition which is on track to provide a much cheaper alternative without subsidy (both financially and in terms of environmental & health cost) as soon as we invest in it. It is now 100% possible to transition to a close to zero carbon energy global economy within 10 years with a great return on financial investment, just by aggressively investing in increased scale of our current solar, wind, battery, EV powertrain and AV technology. This isn't a prediction, but it is definitely a possibility in the very unlikely event global industries and global politicians get their act together.
Note that over $2bn was spent on lobbying US congress alone against climate change regulation between 2010-16. Money talks when trying to influence climate change legislation: New research examines the amounts different sectors spent on lobbying on climate-related issues in the US between 2000 and 2016. Frankly it is absurd that anyone could assume huge amounts of money are not being spent to attack the ringleader of the Clean Energy transition and to defend well over $10trn of revenue from near to medium term obliteration.
2. Workers that are employed by the fossil fuel, ICE OEM, taxi/driver media & financial analyst industries that feel it is in their financial self-interest to attack Elon, Tesla, EVs & Clean Energy and try to slow the Clean Energy/AV transition.
Many auto journalists and auto analysts have built their career on their connections to the ICE auto industry and they need to keep these people close.
Old industry employees do not know that Clean Energy transition will generate a significant number of new jobs with better working conditions and better pay. They also do not realize that the transition will lead to a much lower chance of death for them and their families from pollution and car accidents. It will also significantly reduce the cost of living due to cheaper transport costs & cheaper energy costs.
Old industry employees do not know that Clean Energy transition will generate a significant number of new jobs with better working conditions and better pay. They also do not realize that the transition will lead to a much lower chance of death for them and their families from pollution and car accidents. It will also significantly reduce the cost of living due to cheaper transport costs & cheaper energy costs.
The reason they do not know this is due to the obfuscation from the fossil fuel/ICE lobby and the complicit media & political establishment.
3. An army of manipulated pawns.
I’m sure professional PR has many trolls and journalists under direct employ, but I think their main aim is to manipulate and recruit an army of pawns to fight their cause.
They aim to convince short investors and retail investors that there is easy money to be made shorting Tesla and that these people can accelerate their profit by actively working towards Tesla’s destruction.
They aim to create a market in the media for negative Tesla clickbait stories, to incentivize journalists to deliver these biases and these stories.
They aim to convince people that Tesla and Elon genuinely are a fraud, that the cars genuinely don’t work and that it is their moral duty to inform potential customers and investors about this.
They aim to convince short investors and retail investors that there is easy money to be made shorting Tesla and that these people can accelerate their profit by actively working towards Tesla’s destruction.
They aim to create a market in the media for negative Tesla clickbait stories, to incentivize journalists to deliver these biases and these stories.
They aim to convince people that Tesla and Elon genuinely are a fraud, that the cars genuinely don’t work and that it is their moral duty to inform potential customers and investors about this.
4. Organic TSLAQ recruits due to personal world views and biases.
Many people would have joined the $TSLAQ/anti EV/anti Elon movement even without a nudge from lobbyists/PR, due to their own world views and biases.
The TSLAQ foot soldiers under bullets 3 & 4, together with many of the industry insiders from bullet 2 have many commonly recurring social, economic & political opinions and world views. A few trends that I have seen:
- A deep hatred of Elon. Partly this comes from a hatred of billionaires in general. Partly it comes from a hatred of celebrities in general, or a specific belief that people from science, engineering or business backgrounds have no right to be celebrities. Partly it comes from a hatred of innovation. Partly it comes from a hatred of Elon’s social awkwardness and a failure to understand his sense of humor. Partly Elon has brought it on himself with some of his more stupid tweets and sometimes brash and volatile behaviour.
- A belief in the inherent sanctity and superiority of old incumbent corporations, combined with a deep distrust of startups and disruptors.
- A deep lack of understanding of how innovation happens and how technology is developed. In particular they do not understand the difference between 1-3% incremental annual development through iteration, and first principles based research and step change innovation. They do not understand exponential trends, technology experience curves or consumer adoption curves. They do not understand the blood, sweat and tears and inherent disorder that are required to grow at absurd rates and to advance the world.
- A belief that the world is going to stay as it is today, nothing is going to change and anybody that is trying to change it is the enemy.
- A financial background investing in mature companies but no experience investing in startups or industries under disruption. These people have been drawn into the Tesla story but don’t realize that understanding and valuing startups like Tesla requires a completely different skill set and set of analytical tools.
Relatedly, Shell recently won the rights to 1 of 3 offshore wind farm sites in an auction.
$135 million just for the site, rivals oil drilling locations.
Martha's Vineyard Wind Farm Lease Auction Blew Away Records With $405 Million in Bids
Agreed. No bank is going to act against its self interest out of spite and blow up its reputation. If they decide to screw over the EU it will be because they've found a way to profit from it.
hacer
Active Member
Why exactly would Dana Hull end her latest article with:
?
Which is a pair of carefully selected quotes taken out of context and strung together to leave the impression that Musk thinks there is near zero demand for Tesla cars in the U.S. so he needs to get cars to China in order to sell any.
Of course the context of the quotes in the actual earnings calls shows that he means we don't need to think about demand in China, demand is huge, it is not a problem so we don't bother thinking about it. Instead we are working on how to satisfy the demand. He said what he said because the financial "analysts" kept asking questions about demand disappearing (here there and everywhere), which were boneheaded questions in the first place likely designed to be able to generate quotes that could be misused like these were.
It is no accident that Dana chose those quotes, out of context, and strung them together at the very end of her article. It had a purpose to create a false impression of demand collapse. It's part of an agenda. An agenda that you really shouldn't support.
Maybe Dana has no choice, this is what her boss wants and perhaps she hates doing it. But if that's true (which I doubt) she should quit her job and find another employer to work for where she can retain her self respect.
He could also know that the manipulators will we taking the stock down again.
His strength was trading bonds and forex, now he pretends to know EVs .
Another master of the universe so brilliant he’s blinded by his own glare.
The GF4 announcement is likely delayed driven by a complex decision and negotiation situation in Europe. Many countries would love to have it in their country and I bet are willing to pay for it be it direct or with tax relief. However there are many criteria that play a role here beside what FC pointed out its also access to qualified labor, good suppliers, logistic infrastructure, local regulations and many more.
Given the localization of Groman and Tilburg I still believe the three country area around Germany/France/Luxembourg is not a bad place however you need a massive piece of land for industrial usage and Europe is very much regulated therefore its likely that laws needs to be changed to make it happen. No one wants to have such a massive building in their backyard and land is precious here. Not to mention environmental regulations may hinder Tesla go build it how they want it.
China was a much more easy and straight forward decision I guess. Thats the beauty of a political system where you have one ruling party. Europe is quite the opposite and there is a lot that can go wrong with GF4 unfortunately and therefore we all should prepare ourselves for a longer process to get it up and running too.
Words of HABIT
Active Member
Thanks to all TMC posters for keeping the discussion real. Sure it has been frustrating for buy and hold TSLA investors over the last three years. But I for one am not giving up. I know Elon and Tesla will not give up. The Mission of sustainable transportation is too important to give up upon. There is still no better place than TSLA where I would keep my investments. Cheers all.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Just to give @bonnie and @Swampgator some hard data and fact checking on how misleadingly out of context Dana Hull has quoted Elon - here's the full context of what Elon said on the Q4 conference call a few weeks ago, answering two analyst question about demand:
Source: Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) Earnings Conference Call Transcripts - Nasdaq
David Tamberrino:
"So like orders above, I think I've seen like 20,000 order levels for Europe and single-digit thousands for China is better than that, Elon?"
Elon Musk:
"Yes, absolutely. The - I mean, we're not even really trying, I should point out. I guess it's - we - our factory is like, right now, only making cars for China and Europe. That's all it's doing for - with respect to Model 3. And our whole focus is, okay, how do we get those cars made, get them on a ship as fast as possible, get the ship as fast as possible to Zeebrugge in Belgium then get them over to Drammen in Norway and get those cars to customers as fast as possible. We get them to China as fast as possible."
[....]
Daniel Ives:
So my question is around Europe. Obviously, with deliveries coming onboard in the first quarter, maybe what surprised you in terms of - your demand looks strong, but in terms of what you're seeing at the region, is it stronger than you expected in certain countries? What do you think is driving that? And maybe you can just talk about the opportunities and challenges in Europe especially from a delivery logistics perspective.
Elon Musk:
"Well, like I said, we're thinking about demand almost zero right now. It's really getting the product there in time and not having a ton of cars on the water and in a quarter and then for China getting cars there before there's a potential rise in tariffs. That's really - put really at front of mind that cost reduction and then improving service in North America, yes."
David Tamberrino:
"So like orders above, I think I've seen like 20,000 order levels for Europe and single-digit thousands for China is better than that, Elon?"
Elon Musk:
"Yes, absolutely. The - I mean, we're not even really trying, I should point out. I guess it's - we - our factory is like, right now, only making cars for China and Europe. That's all it's doing for - with respect to Model 3. And our whole focus is, okay, how do we get those cars made, get them on a ship as fast as possible, get the ship as fast as possible to Zeebrugge in Belgium then get them over to Drammen in Norway and get those cars to customers as fast as possible. We get them to China as fast as possible."
[....]
Daniel Ives:
So my question is around Europe. Obviously, with deliveries coming onboard in the first quarter, maybe what surprised you in terms of - your demand looks strong, but in terms of what you're seeing at the region, is it stronger than you expected in certain countries? What do you think is driving that? And maybe you can just talk about the opportunities and challenges in Europe especially from a delivery logistics perspective.
Elon Musk:
"Well, like I said, we're thinking about demand almost zero right now. It's really getting the product there in time and not having a ton of cars on the water and in a quarter and then for China getting cars there before there's a potential rise in tariffs. That's really - put really at front of mind that cost reduction and then improving service in North America, yes."
I.e. first Elon confirmed to David Tamberrino that their EU demand is higher than 20k orders and that they are 'not even really trying' to create more demand. Then, after a similar question from a second analyst Elon reaffirms: "like I said, we're thinking about demand almost zero right now".
Note how brutally Dana Hull is mis-quoting Elon, completely changing the plain meaning of what Elon said, 180 degrees: the 'zero' was a shortcut for: 'we are not thinking about demand, at all, because there's plenty'. She also omitted the 'like I said', which would have alerted readers to the existence of the prior context.
Tesla is exclusively focused on getting cars to Europe and China, because they have tons of demand in both places and the bottleneck is logistics.
Also, the questions and the context wasn't about U.S. demand at all, but about European and Chinese demand.
No matter how I read Dana's piece I cannot come away with any other interpretation that she has misleadingly strung together those quotes from Elon, intentionally and in bad faith.
This is not about "good" or "bad" opinion - reporters are free to have whatever opinion they want, even if I disagree with them. This on the other hand is clear evidence of Dana Hull materially misreporting key, very clear factual statements Elon Musk made about demand. There's nothing borderline about this, and it's not about Tesla fanboys and fangirls being upset about someone writing bad things about Tesla.
This is about Dana Hull breaking basic journalistic ethics of reporting.
Last edited:
Just as a new perspective wrt the Tsla SP vs. revenue chart, AMARA'S law pretty much describes what has happened:
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Facts in isolation. When you know ALL the facts about both events it paints quite a different picture, but of course those with bias don't want to present all the facts. That's the problem.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Actually, they aren't facts I believe.
Three months ago I investigated which of these unarguably controversial events/behavior by Elon impacted public sentiment, and the only one that did measurable damage IMO is the verbal splat he got into after the Thai rescue:
The Joe Rogan interview turmoil and the SEC fine created waves of sympathy in the public - if you accept my measurement methodology as a valid proxy for public support, of course.
The $420 tweet early August? It was a huge event to us and to the $TSLAQ conmen, but it's not even a blip on the radar of public opinion: the web browsing public doesn't care about mergers, takeovers and financials.
Of course "general public doing web searches" is not the same as the "investing public", the latter is older and more conservative if weighted by wealth - but in terms of Elon generating organic demand for Tesla products among young people his 'weird' behavior is a resounding success.
If you want to see what kind of 'weird' behavior today's youngest generations are entirely comfortable with, just check out a few #PewDiePie videos.
Last edited:
anthonyj
Stonks
ATH institutional ownership, all time low (or close) short interest, stock is +6% from September 2014. Market ripping full force and the algos that make TSLA track the Nasdaq have been turned off. Nothing to see here officer
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
