I... come on, man. You just jumped the shark.
-
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
I... come on, man. You just jumped the shark.
Those Model 3 deposits were a simple $1000 on your credit card and your name. The Model Y and Model 3 ORDERS is an order complete with version of car, color, and options. A bit more complex.
Within 20 minutes after the Y reveal, I ordered a Model Y. It took 3 attempts to finally go through. The site was getting hung up when I pushed the pay button. I had to check my credit card account to be sure I was not charged 3 times. But I found I was only charged once.
Last edited:
Pras
Member
Agree. We are seeing car deliveries, new products, FSD features, good feedback from site visits, all very tangible things. The demand doubts are also subsided. What are short not trying to see here? As someone (maybe the citron guy) said that while the world is distracted with all the theatrics around Elon, Tesla is killing the competition already.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Yes. Tesla used to talk about making 10k Model 3s per week in Fremont, but they changed that language last fall. They now call for a gradual increase in Fremont to 7k Model 3s per week by yearend. Plus another 3k/week in Shanghai once it's rolling in the Q4 of 2019 to Q2 of 2020 time frame. That's a total Model 3 run rate of 500k/year.
Their guidance implies 65k + 70k + 75k + 80k = 290k out of Fremont this year at the low end, maybe 310k at the high end. Plus another 0-20k out of Shanghai in late Q4.
Add another 70-100k Model S and X production for total 2019 vehicle production.
I consider it entirely possible.
What Canada is attempting now with the Model 3 Germany did a couple of years ago for the Model S.
Tesla dropped the base price by 2k € (and had to deal with the German legal system), but got to sell the Model S with incentives - and naturally, the buyer could choose to get various options with their Model S. That is, choosing from the entire set of Tesla Model S options.
So for Canada, the question is:
To what extent can Tesla's ability to actually deliver the base Model 3 be limited without being deemed not actually having it for sale there?
I am convinced Tesla will try to answer that question.
For me to go long again I need to see actual margins, no store closures and no firing but hiring of employees. Also I need to see sustainable model 3 demand which I'm not as confident of yet ...plus decent margins on the short range $35k version oh and a lessening of service and lack of parts complaints. If these get resolved soon I think I'll go back to calls.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Vielen Dank! @lklundin
Since the last Int'l VINs were registered on March 6, we can estimate at least 3 days to produce this batch (allow 1 day to load the ship).
This analysis lends further credence to the theory that Tesla is now registering VINs just before production occurs (In this case perhaps just 2 days in advance).
This bodes ill for Bloomberg, who have already been shown to be retroactively covering up serious flaws in their estimates. Carsonight posted the screenshots on DISQUS: (combined+annotated below)
Bloomberg silently updated their 2018Q4 production 'estimates' on Jan 2nd, 2019 after Telsa announced actual results. The revision by Bloomberg was exactly 600 cars per week for the production rate during Q4, raising their production 'estimate' by 8,146 cars total for the quarter.
3 days later, Bloomberg then claimed on their website that their 'estimates' had been correct all along (see claim below). Of course, shortz and bears used the old, busted BB numbers throughout Q4 to drag on the SP, then just 3 days later Bloomberg tried to claim their numbers had been right all along:
Bloomberg never actually prints a single number for their estimate of 2018Q4 production, rather you have to compute that from Bloomberg's estimate for total production minus Tesla's previous production announcements:
Bloomberg's estimate for 2018Q4 production was (147,539 - 94,269) = 53,270. On their website, they write: "Bloomberg's forth-quarter estimate was off by less than 0.5 percent of Tesla's reported production."
In fact, Bloomberg's production estimate before the announcement was 13.2% below Telsa's actual production numbers as announced on Jan 2, 2019. Again, math is hard:
53,270 / 61,394 = 86.8%
Three days after Bloomberg retroactively edited their numbers, they claimed only a 0.5% error instead of admitting to the 13.2% error they actually achieved. HINT: it's no longer an estimate AFTER the numbers are announced. That's not a forecast, that's a HINDCAST, and they were still out by 281 Model 3s after they were given the results by Tesla.
Carsonight also notes that Bloomberg pulled the same trick with the 2018Q3 Model 3 production estimates, which is why he made before and after screenshots of the 2018Q4 estimates. You can bet that he (and others) will be watching carefully to see what Bloomberg does with its 2019Q1 estimates.
Its time we call out the financial media who are misrepresenting their data, and hiding their own role in the deceit.
Regards,
Lodger
Last edited:
I doubt that would be the reason. I think the SEC and the store closings back and forth as well as the questions about demand are to blame for current price.
What I’d like to see, but probably won’t happen is for the judge to find in favor of Elon and order the SEC to file any further such requests, in order to protect investors from their actions.
It’s clear at this point that their initial request for a finding of contempt was, at best, poorly researched(for example, the fact that they appear to have just completely missed Elon’s statements during the conference call is inexcusable). I have no trust at all in them to refrain from making false statements material to investors at this point.
That is an extremely good question.
The answer is
"No. It is not accurate to say that II's are not able to make such purchases whilst the company is under SEC investigation. HOWEVER, it also CAN be the case that any particular investment management company has internal rules either prohibiting such or upping the due diligence required for such purchases. Another firm may have no such restrictions."
That stated, it also is the case that broad knowledge of SEC action - an inquiry, a court case, a fine, censureship and so forth - most definitely casts a pall on any company and on its stock price. Actionable, were the SEC movement either to be overturned or be found to have wronged the company or person in question? Aaaahhhh...ain't a gonna answer that one as a MOD wrote not many pages back - here: Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019 Investors' Roundtable that it's mostly inappropriate to do so.
Mike Smith
Active Member
Other problem: The Model 3 SR starts at ~$48k in Canada, not $46k. ($47,600) So they would have to drop it by $2,601, that is over 5%. So unless they really strip options out of the car I don't think that is possible. (And what is left to strip other than software?)
And I don't see that we have details about if the under $45k limit is before or after options. If it is after options then I say there is a 99.99999% chance that Tesla won't do anything.
How about make the air conditioning an option. It used to be that way 20 years ago on all cars.
Yeah, to heck with 20%, let's see 80%, right? Amirite?
Yeah, let's reduce production and S&P costs without reducing labour costs!
It's okay, lots of other people are also willfully blind to the world around them. No judgement.
I love how "fair" a comparison this is: Model Y starting at ~$39k while I-PACE starts at $69.5k and the model they "tested" cost $86,145. They should have compared the I-PACE to the Model X based on cost and since the Model Y doesn't exist yet (things that exist usually "win" against things that don't).
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
not sure of the dettails, budget just came out. It is most likely there to exclude Tesla. Just like what Ontario did. Quite ironic how Progressive Canada will do this. But fear not, they've painted themselves into a corner as the limit is set now. $1000. AC'd work as there's an additional $100 ac tax.
An order is a much more complicated process than a reservation. It almost certainly requires human processing for each order. An order will result in a change to the company’s accounting system in a meaningful way, ie. a sales order is created which will eventually be turned into an invoice, an accounts receivable, etc. No company would allow a $50,000 sales order to be input into their accounting system without manual review to make sure the data makes sense, wasn’t a hacking attempt, wasn’t likely fraudulent, didn’t have obviously spelling errors, etc.
Reservations, OTOH, are not input into the accounting system.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
