Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This is the exactly the reason I argue that Tesla can't do this alone. We need many many EVs on the road to stimulate investment on charging infrastructure. When half of the residential parking spaces have chargers, the EV market truely becomes the car market.

It is so ridiculous that people could think charging availability is going to be a bottleneck to EV adoption long term. What are we going to do, get to 40-60% EV penetration and then just stop leaving 0.5-2 million people dying per year from tailpipe emissions and failing to prevent global warming, just because nobody can be bothered to build charging ports on the streets and in residential parking spaces.

EV companies and electricity companies are both heavily incentivised to build out this infrastructure for profit motives alone. Landlords will be incentivised to build this infrastructure to broaden their potential tenants to EV owners. Governments should be incentivised to build out this infrastructure to stop its people dying for no reason, however I have least faith in governments delivering on this.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why they waited until after passing through the pinch point to expand the ABL. Maybe they didn't want to be accused of borrowing from Peter (ABL) to pay Paul (convertible bonds).

Other factors:
  • The Fed rate environment determines ABL expenses, and in January there were still Fed rate rises expected for 2019 - which pushed ABL costs up.
  • Recession expectations were all over the place, with big risks like China trade war and European trade war, or a technology sector recession which might have hurt California demand particularly badly. Car sales are very sensitive to recessions. Tesla didn't know what ABL levels to prepare for, and there's significant fees for unused credit lines, i.e. you really don't want to allocate too much ABL credit.
  • Low but nonzero probability: Tesla's banking partners were playing games ...
The moment most of these clouds cleared up Tesla went pedal to the metal and broadened the ABL lines and prepared for a smart end of quarter push in North America, with production going full tilt the whole time.

At least that's my impression. In ~2 weeks we'll know more.
 
Just bought 186 shares and now have 536 total across regular / IRA / Roth accounts. Please tell me I'm smart and this is not going to blow up in my face.

Nobody here is psychic. That said, most people here, by virtue of being bulls who believe that Tesla is emerging as the dominant force in a rapidly growing market that's going to define multiple of the world's major industries in the not-so-distant future (automotive, generation, grid services, general autonomy, etc), expect very strong long-term growth in this stock. If you fall into that group, then you should be happy with your purchase.

If you want more fine-grained control than "linear risk-reward with respect to SP, with a very long-term perspective", you'll need to go with options. But if stock alone makes you nervous, then you definitely don't want to be in options. That said, some options strategies are deleveraging (that is, reducing the risk, at the expense of reducing the reward), if you want to "insure" your stock. For example, you can buy PUTs at a particular price, 1 per 100 shares you own, to ensure that you never lose money if the stock goes below that price. You can pay for them with cash, by selling some of your stock (also reducing the amount you have to "insure"), or by selling covered CALLs (no more than 1 per 100 shares you own) which cost the same amount of money as the PUTs (selling covered calls means that you still gain as the stock rises, up to the strike price of the calls, but cease gaining after that). Such an "insurance policy" can be for the short term (if you're worried about something bad happening soon, but not later) or the long-term (if you're just worried in general).
 
Last edited:
Is this a true statement??????? can other people comment on this?

It's BS. Temps were in the low teen's here in the PNW for 2-3 weeks in a row in Feb and I never got up to 500 kw/mile in my 3 AWD. My daily commute is 12-14 miles going through hills and I averaged 360 kw/mile during those 3 weeks of below freezing temps.
 
It so ridiculous that people could think charging availability is going to be a bottleneck to EV adoption long term. What are we going to do, get to 40-60% EV penetration and then just stop leaving 0.5-2 million people dying per year from tailpipe emissions and failing to prevent global warming, just because nobody can be bothered to build charging ports on the streets and in residential parking spaces.

EV companies and electricity companies are both heavily incentivised to build out this infrastructure for profit motives alone. Landlords will be incentivised to build this infrastructure to broaden their potential tenants to EV owners. Governments should be incentivised to build out this infrastructure to stop its people dying for no reason, however I have least faith in governments delivering on this.

Charging is a solved problem. Garage charging, supercharging, workplace charging, parking lot charging... all of these will grow at the same pace as EVs take more market share. In China, they can add a 220V plug to every parking lot. I think charging infrastructure is the easiest part of this puzzle.

Autonomous driving is the steroid to the EV transition. I think we will see major updates in this area within the next 2 years. Then lots of legacy car companies will start to cancel their ICE vehicle programs. That will lead to price inflation for new ICE vehicles.

My view is, if everything stay constant as it is now, ICE can't compete with EV. However, EVs will continue to get better and cheaper, so ICE demand will drop very fast in the next few years.
 
Nobody here is psychic. That said, most people here, by virtue of being bulls who believe that Tesla is emerging as the dominant force in a rapidly growing market that's going to define multiple of the world's major industries in the not-so-distant future (automotive, generation, grid services, general autonomy, etc), expect very strong long-term growth in this stock. If you fall into that group, then you should be happy with your purchase.

If you want more fine-grained control than "linear risk-reward with respect to SP, with a very long-term perspective", you'll need to go with options. But if stock alone makes you nervous, then you definitely don't want to be in options. That said, some options strategies are deleveraging (that is, reducing the risk, at the expense of reducing the reward), if you want to "insure" your stock.

This is my approach. I have lowered the cost basis on my TSLA shares by about $35 per share via covered calls thus far, going back just three months -- that's even taking into account some missteps where I've taken some losses on those sold calls. I also carry some monthly put options at strike prices that should cover my initial investment in the event of a black swan event; I only wish I had bought them when the underlying was at higher prices (a mistake from which I've learned).
 
Checked this morning and Y prices were the same. Checked now and my AWD is $2.5k more.
Unless prices change again, I will consider this my early adopter discount ;)

Another thing I'm wondering-
Seems 3 AWD went up $1.5k, but Y AWD $2.5k.
Can this be a sign that they are seeing too many Y orders and try to anti-sell?

Just checked on my phone a minute ago, I don’t see a price increase for any version of the Y. Just looked at starting price for each config.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thekiwi
The apartment issue is self-solving over time.
I've lived in and/or had kids who lived in about a dozen apartment complexes over time. Every one had carports and/or garages available (for a fee) in addition to open lot parking. Every one I can recall was wired for lighting. So we aren't talking about a huge transformation here.

I know of apartments with no such parking, but they tend to be very low end or in dense urban settings where people will be better off with robotaxis, anyway. Workplace charging will also become a thing, especially in high-sun areas like the US southwest which will soon have excess mid-day solar.
 
My view is, if everything stay constant as it is now, ICE can't compete with EV. However, EVs will continue to get better and cheaper, so ICE demand will drop very fast in the next few years.


Ultimately the rate of improvement is faster for EVs than ICE. 5-6 years from now, the base model 3 will probably be equal to the dual motor long range 3... P3DL will probably have 400 miles of range and <3s 0-60.

Top spec model S will probably have >1000hp and 400+mi of range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobStark and GOVA
Checked this morning and Y prices were the same. Checked now and my AWD is $2.5k more.
Unless prices change again, I will consider this my early adopter discount ;)

Another thing I'm wondering-
Seems 3 AWD went up $1.5k, but Y AWD $2.5k.
Can this be a sign that they are seeing too many Y orders and try to anti-sell?
It could - it could also be them anticipating higher costs on the Y and trying to maintain consistent margins. I also think the Y will look a little more refined by the time it actually produces and Model 3 iterations will affect Y as well from now until 2020
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
I know it’s not a parallel because of the cost disparity, but how long after reservations were cleared for the S & X was leasing offered?
Might give a guide for when it’s offered for the 3 as an additional, and substantial, demand lever

About 10 months after the very first deliveries of the S, Tesla introduced a leasing program.
 
  • Helpful
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden and bdy0627
Fair points. To anyone looking to get a clearer picture of winter consumption, I recommend signing up for teslafi and looking at your 'temperature efficiency' over time. My daily commute is less than 5 miles one way, and I was getting terrible results (46% of rated efficiency) at 20° F. However, if I look only at drives longer than 10 miles, I get close to 70% efficiency at the same temperatures. I'm sure things would be better on an actual trip of 100 miles or more.

P.S. Unfortunately, that still wasn't enough to convince my wife that it's OK to take the Model 3 for a day trip to a ski area 90 miles away.

FYI I am sad that TeslaFi seems to have only about 2200 M3 cars signed up for their service, from what I can tell from the website. This is a terrific service, the statistics available are really helpful and easy to use, and IMHO, as a web-based service a way better idea than layering on 3rd party mobile apps, each instance of which may independently be polling your car. In fact I kinda wish Tesla would purchase TeslaFi and integrated it with the official Tesla app.

I am a customer of TeslaFi but not an employee and have no investment or stake or involvement in the company.
 
Last edited: