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

[Webeevdrivers]

Make sure that original owner (CleanTechnica) is visible.

K. Thanks.

 

[brian45011]

Actually, it is essential to the security of PG&E's electricity supply, though not immediately (rather, by December 2020). This isn't disputable; it's a matter of public record through PG&E and CPUC filings, and the Trustee will respect that.

"Essential" is naive hyperbole. Re-organizations/receiverships are not about something two years in the future. They are about shedding near-term obligations to allow the entity to survive as a going-concern and gradually becoming able to repay its creditors--secured first then unsecured.

The saga of this is that PG&E was planning to pay a gas company (Calpine) to provide "reliability must run" status (i.e. grid security). CPUC rejected this and told them to find something else. They found these battery projects (which were, in fact, cheaper than paying Calpine) ,and they're explicitly classified as being grid security projects.

The Trustee can reject any contract, including one with Calpine. There are a myriad of short term options for maintaining grid reliability. Maybe hang out here California ISO to explore some of them?

It is true that if the Trustee thought that PG&E could get an even better deal, they could call for renegotiation -- but only if it can be completed within the original timeframe. If the companies represent that rebidding would cause a delay, then the projects will go ahead as scheduled. However, they won't call for renegotiation; they'll defer to the opinion of CPUC.

Time frames, along with everything else, are negotiable once a corporation files for protection. PUCs are about regulated utilities being allowed to pass on rate increases to customers; a reorganization is about the utility continuing as a going concern. There is no need for a return of and return on additions to the rate base (PUCs' bailiwick) if the capital expenditure is deferred until the bankruptcy court approves the reorganization plan.

Could. Won't.

There's a lot of much lower-hanging fruit for the Trustee. Common stockholders, preferred stockholders, bondholders, there's a *lot* of financial creditors to default on. Cramming all the bondholders into equity and mass-diluting the existing equity would allow the issuance of enough new bonds to cover the wildfire claims. They will try to avoid messing with operations.

No disagreement that equity holders are last in line in any reorganization/receivership/liquidation, but everything is fair game, particularly executory contracts for capital expenditures. Anyone who thinks TE's receipt of payments related to Moss Landing will not be impacted if PG&E does indeed file for protection may get an education.

 

[KarenRei]

It's not a 3 though. Depending on the level of advancement for Y: wire harness is practically gone, 12V battery and related systems are gone, motor costs reduce with the volume, R&D expense recuperation is less than 3, manufacturing line cost is less due to lessons learned from 3, plant overhead is less if utilizing GF1 along with reduced parts shipping costs.
Body assembly itself may be revolutionary. Market size may be larger reduced per unit fixed cost share.
Each vehicle line will be more efficient $$$ than the previous.

First off, saying "wire harness is practically gone" is just plain silly. Simplified, yes. "Practically gone"? Lol, no. Every single electronic component across the vehicle still needs to have at least one cable to it, and that cable needs to go.. "somewhere". The more you better utilize the combination and networking of data, the more you can combine signals, and the shorter your cable runs. But ultimately, no matter what you do, you have to have wires reaching into every part of the vehicle.

Secondly, the sorts of things you're talking about don't come close to the added costs of more batteries and a larger vehicle, let alone also having it dual motor by default.

Lastly, I'll repeat, they're not going to undercut the 3 like that, and 3 prices are not going to drop that fast.

This whole thing is just an extreme case wishful thinking.

 

[kbM3]

It's not a 3 though. Depending on the level of advancement for Y: wire harness is practically gone, 12V battery and related systems are gone, motor costs reduce with the volume, R&D expense recuperation is less than 3, manufacturing line cost is less due to lessons learned from 3, plant overhead is less if utilizing GF1 along with reduced parts shipping costs.
Body assembly itself may be revolutionary. Market size may be larger reduced per unit fixed cost share.
Each vehicle line will be more efficient $$$ than the previous.

In addition, Elon claimed the Model Y will be a manufacturing revolution.

Y will be physically larger, which comes with more expense. It will burn more energy, meaning 250 miles is probably closer to LR than SR, or at least MR. Yet they're talking about starting it at $35-40K? With dual motor?

No. Not going to happen unless they've radically reduced the Model 3 price too.

Just from a simple logic basis, they're not going to sell such an obviously superior vehicle in terms of price to features side by side with the Model 3, as they'd kill the 3's sales. The only way this could possibly hold up would be if they were to dramatically cut the 3's price. But that much, that fast? Seriously, seriously doubt that.

Model Y is not obviously superior. I would take a 3 all day long. I love performance sedans.

But, I get what you’re saying regarding features for price. I just love my 3

 

[AlexS]

I don’t have any contact with him except TMC, but I remember that sometime in september he said that he had only few weeks time for stock to rise above 320 or he loses everything. Of course I hope he got out of it.

I just double checked, it was not day before earnings, it was Oct 9 when price was at the bottom I talked to him(@Mario Kadastik ) on FB. So I am sure he is more than fine now. And when he will get his Model 3-s I'll talk to him (if I remember correctly he had 5 cars reserved). I don't want to bother him too much.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Any ideas on what Elon is going to do in China this week?

Elon Musk on Twitter
"...visiting soon for the groundbreaking of Gigafactory Shanghai!"

 

[Buckminster]

In addition to The Oatmeal's background on Nikola Tesla, I've always appreciated this comparison to Edison.

I naturally prefer the comparison to Brunel:

Both Engineers first but commercially successful.

Starship of day:
SS Great Britain, the first propeller-driven, ocean-going, iron ship, which, when built in 1843, was the largest ship ever built

Worked on the forerunner to Hyperloop
Atmospheric railway

Both into tunnels in a big way plus mass transportation.

He was also a smoker:

 

[gora321]

Which statements are yours?
The Tesla Story Through The Eyes Of Tesla Shorts & Obsessive Critics | CleanTechnica

Mod: copyrighted content deleted for violating terms of service; it was virtually unreadable as copy-and-paste anyway. Don't do this. @ZachShahan is one of our friends, so just click the link to read it. --ggr

Understood. I respect Zach and I put the link at the top as info of ownership. I have imagined as a quote.

 

[Cartegena]

In 2018, Forbes ranked him as the most powerful and influential person in the world, dethroning Russian President Vladimir Putin who held the accolade for five consecutive years.[20][21][22]"

Cycle of life. Youngun's replace the fossils Michelle Obama voted most admired woman, bumps Hillary Clinton: Gallup

 

[Unpilot]

They need to hurry up with the shutdown deal and the China deal and every other damn deal we've been promised so my portfolio can recover from the Great Depression of 2018

So I take it your tired of “winning”...sorry could not help myself.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Because Tesla has been selling "FSD-ready" cars for about 2 years now and they'd even been selling the FSD package itself. If they move the goalpost again and say "Sorry, it's actually HW 3.5 that's required for FSD", even before HW3 is released (and thoroughly tested), then they lose a lot of credibility in my opinion and they could use a bit of humbleness.

Wow jumping rush to judgement. Do you always assume this much? Who has said 3.0 wont be adequate for FSD? Do you believe that once FSD is achieved the system will never be improved? All progress will stop because goal achieved?

 

[Smokey4141]

Oh, I can google. What you provided looks to be a reliability report, not customer satisfaction. @KarenRei is specifically talking about Customer Satisfaction (obviously). Too - my link was also for 2018. See the chart. But I think you might know that.


View attachment 365864

Ironically, that chart was PUBLISHED at the end of ~2017~... I'm pretty sure Karen was already aware of ~that~ chart...
And I'm ~sure~ Karen was asking for something published towards the END of ~2018~, which I linked her to...
She can correct me if I mis-interpreted what she was looking for...

But, I give... You win... Roll with whatever makes ~you~ happy...

Nice looking puppy for your avatar though... He looks like a great best buddy!

 

[Unpilot]

Well I guesse when Fox News tell the potus to end the shutdown he will.

Do you think it will be told to him from “The five”...or “Fox and friends”?

 

[Smokey4141]

Just like Munro said about panel gaps, millennials don't care about CR's reliability ratings.

That is probably true... Not sure that's always wise....but....probably true...

 

[gringotuanis]

Do you anticipate the shutdown to drag out forever? I don’t.
And yes, the Mexico and Canadian issues were ironed out, they’re small potatoes compared to what the Chinese will yield and do for the US economy.

Already, Xi has offered over $1 trillion on the table. Both presidents are eager to put this behind them, the Chinese more so than the US.

Chinese economy is not doing well. They'll be coming to the table soon, though, I think they're already sitting at it. The shutdown will be over within a week or two I bet. It's no biggie just political posturing on both sides. The need for security is obvious. Obama and Hillary advocated for a wall within the last decade or so, but the Dems seem to have forgotten that.

 

[mongo]

Tl;dr My point is not so much that Y will be that cheap, rather that using the cost of 3 as the benchmark for Y is not necessarily valid.

For baseline, this is what I was adddressing:

so $35-40k for what's essentially a 3MRD, when $35k is the target for a 3SR?

I don't see that as plausible, unless Tesla's found some sort of massive breakthrough to get the SR RWD Model 3 down to $25-30k.

My issue was with the comparison on 3 cost to Y cost as if they are directly linked, which they are not.

Y will be physically larger, which comes with more expense. It will burn more energy, meaning 250 miles is probably closer to LR than SR, or at least MR. Yet they're talking about starting it at $35-40K? With dual motor?

No. Not going to happen unless they've radically reduced the Model 3 price too.

Just from a simple logic basis, they're not going to sell such an obviously superior vehicle in terms of price to features side by side with the Model 3, as they'd kill the 3's sales. The only way this could possibly hold up would be if they were to dramatically cut the 3's price. But that much, that fast? Seriously, seriously doubt that.

Price point is a seperate issue from cost. More metal in the same number of pieces is just a raw commodity price increase (steel being sub $800 a ton). Depending on aero coefficient and cross section, pack size would need to be bigger kWh wise. With improvements on the cell and pack cost, that could mean an LR size at a current MR price point. As parts get cheaper, Tesla could also drop 3 pricing.

First off, saying "wire harness is practically gone" is just plain silly. Simplified, yes. "Practically gone"? Lol, no. Every single electronic component across the vehicle still needs to have at least one cable to it, and that cable needs to go.. "somewhere". The more you better utilize the combination and networking of data, the more you can combine signals, and the shorter your cable runs. But ultimately, no matter what you do, you have to have wires reaching into every part of the vehicle.

Secondly, the sorts of things you're talking about don't come close to the added costs of more batteries and a larger vehicle, let alone also having it dual motor by default.

Lastly, I'll repeat, they're not going to undercut the 3 like that, and 3 prices are not going to drop that fast.

This whole thing is just an extreme case wishful thinking.

Again, I'm not talking about price points, I'm saying that the Y cost when it comes out is not directly linked to 3 pricing now or then.

Yes, there will be wires connecting all components. However, harness cost is based in large part on number of circuits. Going to a low wire count common bus harness versus 10s to 100s of star topology circuits is a non trivial cost save. Especially if the harness production and installation becones highly automated.

 

[gringotuanis]

That is probably true... Not sure that's always wise....but....probably true...

Umm because CR is motivated by money or something, because I've hardly found a single accurate review for quality on there. I take their reviews with a grain of salt as I've found several instances where they plain suck or lie. I'm a millennial, which means I can use google and do better internet research than boomers. CR is full of fraud.

 

[gringotuanis]

Because Tesla has been selling "FSD-ready" cars for about 2 years now and they'd even been selling the FSD package itself. If they move the goalpost again and say "Sorry, it's actually HW 3.5 that's required for FSD", even before HW3 is released (and thoroughly tested), then they lose a lot of credibility in my opinion and they could use a bit of humbleness.



Last week it was only 14k from reservation holders. This means up to 10k completely new orders over the weekend (they opened everything on Friday?). Not bad imo.

Plus does anyone know how big a market Europe is? It sure seems like a small car market to me. Compared to the US and China is it Peanuts?

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Plus does anyone know how big a market Europe is? It sure seems like a small car market to me. Compared to the US and China is it Peanuts?

Just slightly smaller than the US car market, which is a lot smaller than China’s car market. So if Europe is peanuts, the US is hazelnuts.

 

[Smokey4141]

Umm because CR is motivated by money or something, because I've hardly found a single accurate review for quality on there. I take their reviews with a grain of salt as I've found several instances where they plain suck or lie. I'm a millennial, which means I can use google and do better internet research than boomers. CR is full of fraud.

I'm not agreeing with all your points, nor disagreeing with some as well, but fraud seems a bit strong....
And also appreciate that CR was around before there even was a Google, or the public use of the internet to do searches that we all do so easily nowadays...
Getting the small (but thick) year-end summary edition of CR was a highlight of the year! LOL
And sadly, I'm old enough to know.... :-/

But also consider that, if what you say about CR and fraud is true, why would anyone here, or anywhere, care what they have to say?
Just a thought...