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

[vikings123]

Yeah, it's stupidly and needlessly complicated.



You underestimate how much of my portfolio is in options already



This is pretty interesting, but if margin requirements at IB for regular stock are this complicated, I don't even wanna know how complicated they are for short option positions.

Anyway, this is quite OT for this thread, and a helpful member sent me a PM with some info, as well as a suggestion to talk to IB on the phone instead of the live chat I tried. So I think I'll be able to figure the rest out. Besides, as it's looking right now, I'll probably end up going with a 7-8% loan for the majority, because IB won't let me use my options as collateral for a margin loan.

So thanks everyone who helped out!

Frank- Please share what you find out. I agree with you that the IB margin information is needlessly confusing. Way too many terms and not enough information on how it works. Thanks.

 

[UkNorthampton]

My view: I don't quite get this as I expect wholesale prices to fall over time, not rise. They suggest wind farms will be paying the government. Either way, fossil fuel electricity generation is uneconomic

Offshore wind power is now so cheap that wind farms could soon be paying back subsidies

It is the latest indication of how dramatically offshore wind energy costs have fallen. Just a few years ago, wind farm operators struck deals with the Government to be paid generously for producing green power. Now the tables have been reversed, with the Government set to claw back some of the money it has paid out in subsidies over the last decade.

“Offshore wind power will soon be so cheap to produce that it will undercut fossil-fuelled power stations and may be the cheapest form of energy for the UK,” said lead author Dr Malte Jansen. “Energy subsidies used to push up energy bills, but within a few years cheap renewable energy will see them brought down for the first time. This is an astonishing development.”
...
In exchange for a stable return, wind farm developers agree to sell their power at a certain price at Government auctions. Under the deal, if the wholesale cost of power is below the ‘strike price’ the Government pays the difference to wind farm operators. But if wholesale prices are higher, wind farms must pay.

Last year’s offshore wind auction brought the cost of offshore wind power down to around £40 per megawatt hour. The Imperial analysis suggests wholesale electricity prices are likely to rise above this level over the lifetime of the projects, so wind farm operators will have to pay the Government the difference between their £40 ‘strike price’ and the wholesale energy price. The savings will be passed on to households via their energy bills.

 

[mongo]

In exchange for a stable return, wind farm developers agree to sell their power at a certain price at Government auctions. Under the deal, if the wholesale cost of power is below the ‘strike price’ the Government pays the difference to wind farm operators. But if wholesale prices are higher, wind farms must pay.

I think that statement is incorrect/ over simplified (possibly dunning kruger talking). If the wholesale is higher than the strike, I would expect the windfarm to be paid the strike price only. Paying the difference only makes sense in a short term net cost scheme, and then only to the level to which they had recieved subsidies.

Otherwise it's: "I make cheap power, so I lose money on each MWh"...

 

[Drax7]

Sacconaghi & The Bernsetin Bears did a "downgrade", here's a look at Toni's meaningful $TSLA recommendation history

View attachment 569821

“Hold” on Wall Street means never buy in your life time.
In other words, he never predicted or foresaw the price run up .
Generally those that miss the move , instinctively want to sell it.

 

[Drax7]

I think the estimates were that the index funds would need to buy 25-30 million shares. Even if Tesla agrees to a secondary offering it will only help a little bit. As a shareholder I'm against any kind of dilution to help out S&P. For eg: 5 million shares is about 8 billion USD(at 1600 per share) so all it does is dilute our shares by about 2.5-3%, based on my back of napkin calculations at a 300 billion market cap.

I don't see why as shareholders we should be OK with the dilution. Tesla has become very efficient with their capital and improved cash flow. The S&P committee definitely has a major problem on their hands, that's for sure. The clock starts once Tesla files their 10Q.

Generally Elon buys his secondary, if he does this time I will double up.

 

[Boomer19]

Yeah, it's stupidly and needlessly complicated.



You underestimate how much of my portfolio is in options already



This is pretty interesting, but if margin requirements at IB for regular stock are this complicated, I don't even wanna know how complicated they are for short option positions.

Anyway, this is quite OT for this thread, and a helpful member sent me a PM with some info, as well as a suggestion to talk to IB on the phone instead of the live chat I tried. So I think I'll be able to figure the rest out. Besides, as it's looking right now, I'll probably end up going with a 7-8% loan for the majority, because IB won't let me use my options as collateral for a margin loan.

So thanks everyone who helped out!

available funds tell you what is available for w/d

im trying to find if they report stock by stock margin requirement on website or just the blast bulletins that go out.

unfortunately future margin changes are decided as the market progresses so you won’t know until you know, but obv if your available funds is x and your need is x - “a lot” then you should be ok for short term loans as you reach your required holding period and sell to payback loans each semester/year

maybe it works out, maybe it doesn’t. just trying to provide what little info i have. i’ll let you know if i find the stock by stock requirement on site

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think that statement is incorrect/ over simplified (possibly dunning kruger talking). If the wholesale is higher than the strike, I would expect the windfarm to be paid the strike price only. Paying the difference only makes sense in a short term net cost scheme, and then only to the level to which they had recieved subsidies.

Otherwise it's: "I make cheap power, so I lose money on each MWh"...

In an open market the generator receives payments based on the wholesale price.

So, rather than adjusting that system, they may have added separate pieces for the subsidies.

Anyway, I'm going to add that link to the Energy subforum Wind News thread.

 

[phantasms]

10-Q up on IR.
0001564590-20-033670 | 10-Q | Tesla, Inc.

 

[Nocturnal]

“Hold” on Wall Street means never buy in your life time.
In other words, he never predicted or foresaw the price run up .
Generally those that miss the move , instinctively want to sell it.

I also get the sense that since so many analysts missed the boat on Tesla, while retail investors did not, that these guys want Tesla to stay low in order to prove they were right. That may be a conscious or subconscious thought process.

 

[Zero CO2]

I also get the sense that since so many analysts missed the boat on Tesla, while retail investors did not, that these guys want Tesla to stay low in order to prove they were right. That may be a conscious or subconscious thought process.

well many analysts were and are still wrong .. and unless these analysts change their position they will eventually be ignored

 

[Buckminster]

Indeed, $NKLA is a pure speculation stock, no comparison.

Ooh - you make NKLA sound enticing...

 

[engle]

Interesting breakdown of the GAAP "deferred revenue" from 10-Q. They "expect to recognize $876M in the next 12 months" out of a total of $1.61B remaining as of June 30, 2020. That's a lot!

 

[StealthP3D]

- please do not ditch the dashboard display. This is Tesla's upscale luxury offering.

There is nothing inherently "luxurious" about having a display behind the steering wheel - in fact it's about the stupidest place to put important driving information, especially since steering wheels rotate while driving and most are now adjustable for better ergonomics. The only reason it seems like a natural place is because cars have had speedometers behind the steering wheel since before any of us were born. That doesn't mean it's better.

I've put a few hundred miles on two different Model S's and two things struck me:

1) The display behind the steering wheel is difficult to use. The steering wheel obscures it as it rotates and the best driving ergonomics with the adjustable steering wheel do not correspond to the line of sight to the display (at leas for me). There was only one steering wheel adjustment where I could see the entire display and this was too high for driving comfort. Luxurious? That's funny!

2) The inside ambience of the Model S is like a cave compared to the Model 3. I'm 6'-4" tall and the roof where it meets the top of the windshield intrudes into my driver space and reduces visibility upwards when trying to look at traffic lights up above. It also reduces forward visibility when the car is descending a steep hill that then flattens out. Compared to the Model 3 which feels open, airy and liberating, it just feels repressive and claustrophobic. This sense is enhanced by the high doors (the windows do not extend downwards enough and the top of the door is too low). I had to lower the seat all the way which made me feel like I was sitting on a low sled and yet it did not solve these issues.

You must have a different idea of what luxurious means than I do. I could never get used to the closed in feeling of the Model S after driving Model 3's for 2+ years. And having important information displayed behind the steering wheel that rotates to control the cars direction is the definition of stupid. It worked better before power steering when wheels were huge skinny things but now that they are smaller diameter and must contain airbags, it's far from ideal.

 

[j6Lpi429@3j]

TBH I'm another one in the 'big screen in the model S plus a second screen makes it feel luxury' camp. I use the one behind the wheel a lot, and find it really helpful. Its one of the short list of things I'll miss if/when I swap for a model Y next year.

At the very least any new model S needs a bigger screen than the 3. Not many people are going to pay the whacking price difference just for a gratuitous amount of lugage space and theoretical higher max accel/speed.

TBH if they kept the S identical inside, but scaled it down the body dimension of the model 3 or Y I'd get a new one.

 

[Tslynk67]

10-Q up on IR.
0001564590-20-033670 | 10-Q | Tesla, Inc.

It's my impression that Tesla have got this out much sooner than usual.

 

[mickificki]

 

[LN1_Casey]

View attachment 569845

What's a secondary?

 

[The Accountant]

It's my impression that Tesla have got this out much sooner than usual.

I was thinking this too. Normally the 10Qs are published on the 29th or 30th of the month. This is a day or two early.

 

[The Accountant]

What's a secondary?

Stock offering.

 

[Zero CO2]

There is nothing inherently "luxurious" about having a display behind the steering wheel - in fact it's about the stupidest place to put important driving information, especially since steering wheels rotate while driving and most are now adjustable for better ergonomics. The only reason it seems like a natural place is because cars have had speedometers behind the steering wheel since before any of us were born. That doesn't mean it's better.

I've put a few hundred miles on two different Model S's and two things struck me:

1) The display behind the steering wheel is difficult to use. The steering wheel obscures it as it rotates and the best driving ergonomics with the adjustable steering wheel do not correspond to the line of sight to the display (at leas for me). There was only one steering wheel adjustment where I could see the entire display and this was too high for driving comfort. Luxurious? That's funny!

2) The inside ambience of the Model S is like a cave compared to the Model 3. I'm 6'-4" tall and the roof where it meets the top of the windshield intrudes into my driver space and reduces visibility upwards when trying to look at traffic lights up above. It also reduces forward visibility when the car is descending a steep hill that then flattens out. Compared to the Model 3 which feels open, airy and liberating, it just feels repressive and claustrophobic. This sense is enhanced by the high doors (the windows do not extend downwards enough and the top of the door is too low). I had to lower the seat all the way which made me feel like I was sitting on a low sled and yet it did not solve these issues.

You must have a different idea of what luxurious means than I do. I could never get used to the closed in feeling of the Model S after driving Model 3's for 2+ years. And having important information displayed behind the steering wheel that rotates to control the cars direction is the definition of stupid. It worked better before power steering when wheels were huge skinny things but now that they are smaller diameter and must contain airbags, it's far from ideal.

way OT ....I have never had a problem for 3.5 years and 50 K miles reading the MS display... i have never driven a M3 so i cant comment on your other points...and my next sedan is a plaid MS ... because it is just way cooler looking