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

[Silent Ludicrosy]

The financial media is pretty annoying and I couldn't find the details of the acquisition to calculate arbitrage.

Media says $4.75 per share at $218 million total. What I want to find out is, how many shares of maxwell per tesla shares since it is an all stock transaction. Anyone?

Amendment No 1
“This Schedule TO relates to the offer by the Offeror to exchange for each outstanding share of common stock of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maxwell”), par value $0.10 per share (“Maxwell common stock” and such shares of Maxwell common stock, “Maxwell shares”), validly tendered and not validly withdrawn in the offer, for a fraction of a share of Tesla common stock, par value $0.001 per share (which we refer to as “Tesla common stock” and such shares of Tesla common stock, “Tesla shares”) equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $4.75 by the volume weighted average of the daily volume weighted average of the trading price of one (1) share of Tesla common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market for the five (5) consecutive trading days immediately preceding the second trading day prior to the date of the expiration of the offer, subject to the minimum, together with cash in lieu of any fractional shares of Tesla common stock, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes. In the event that the Tesla common stock price is equal to or less than $245.90, the minimum will apply and each share of Maxwell common stock validly tendered and not validly withdrawn in the offer will be exchanged for 0.0193 of a share of Tesla common stock. “

 

[ZsoZso]

While it is very exciting to see all the records broken in the last week of the Q (such as in Norway now), this whole end-of-quarter delivery madness is bothering me.

We all know (unlike analysts and journalists) it is standard operating procedure for Tesla to focus on making cars for overseas delivery early in the Q, put them on ships, then shift focus to NA cars and there is a huge push to deliver everything in the last weeks of the Q. This is all to reduce cars-in-transit for the quarterly report, so financials look better.

I get that this made a lot of sense earlier when Tesla was in need of capital raise. However, Elon has stated about a year ago that they do not intend to raise more capital from WS as they have shifted from investment (money "burning") stage to money generation stage, so they are now able to self-finance the growth. Indeed, Q3 and Q4 last year has proven that.

Yet, they continue to replay delivery hell each quarter end, which makes no sense to me. Trust me, I know from first-hand experience how bad it feels to the customers. I can imagine it is just as bad or worse for Tesla employees involved. Why don't they finally bite the bullet and take the hit in quarter-end optics for having a large number of vehicles in-transit and simply spread deliveries evenly ?

The removal of the hectic end-of-Q madness would improve customer experience, it would lower pressure on employees, make logistics simpler, ultimately cheaper: instead of peak usage and payment of extra carriers, they could spread the work evenly and have less idle time.

So why continue this bad practice for financial "optics" that no longer matter, when the alternative would actually save money in the long term ???

 

[KarenRei]

Netherlands deliveries finally starting to go vertical. Quarter-end surge, as expected, since they're so close to Zeebrugge.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Officially 5000 Model 3 in Norway
View attachment 390828

And a lot more to come. According to this tally, which seems pretty reliable, solid orders stood at almost 7600 (two weeks ago, so probably more now). And that is just for P and LR AWD. It will multiply when LR RWD, SR+ and SR become available, and when Model 3 becomes suitable for a tow hook.

 

[jbcarioca]

...

Tesla does have the die shop in Michigan to make dies, but it’s not nearly a big enough place to make all the dies. Not even close, so Tesla has to have outside die sources. That can add time. Logically, you’d build the copy dies in Asia somewhere to reduce time and expense just on the shipping side of things.

Also, Elon did not suggest that all stamping would be at GF-3 before the end of 2019. 'stamping' could include some small, light parts as well as the major body/chassis panels. It would not be a stretch to see them import things like the body pan and difficult body panels while initially stamping other parts.

Frankly I know I have no knowledge any more than anyone else. I do know Tesla regularly does things faster than others, more innovatively than most and vastly faster than most. I am also quite confident that everyone involved wants some Model 3's leave GF-3 factory does and be delivered before 2019 ends. All of our debate is about how in the world they can achieve that feat.

OTOH, just imagine if one of those gigantic presses was ordered the day they knew there would be a new factory. Imagine a major paint line was ordered at the same time. Imagine Grohmann has been building even more of those speedy lines than we know. Imagine both the major robotics suppliers had been in the mix. If all that had happened they just might do the entire thing before year end. That is imagining on the order of John Lennon, probably...but it might be possible.

 

[lklundin]

And a lot more to come. According to this tally, which seems pretty reliable, solid orders stood at almost 7600 (two weeks ago, so probably more now). And that is just for P and LR AWD. It will multiply when LR RWD, SR+ and SR become available, and when Model 3 becomes suitable for a tow hook.

I am keeping an eye on the Norwegian Tesla forum at elbilforum.no.

Bergen which had a shipment of Teslas arrive this morning has one buyer with a scheduled delivery there this Saturday at 20:00 - Saturdays the Service Center there normally closes at 16.

So end of quarter deliveries in Norway will continue into the week-end.

PS. The ship "City of Amsterdam" has already left for Ålesund, with its ETA there 23:00 tonight. That's halfway to Trondheim, where a number of buyers are waiting impatiently for their Model 3 to arrive, so some may take delivery there also this weekend.

 

[KarenRei]

(BTW, in case anyone is freaking out about how today's TSLA strength is fading, I recommend checking out the sort of macros we're operating in today)

 

[Mars ☰mperor]

How many I-Pace and e-Trons registered in Norway in March?

I don't believe there are dedicated websites, or public surveys for any other brand's sales number.

 

[jerry33]

So why continue this bad practice for financial "optics" that no longer matter, when the alternative would actually save money in the long term ???

Because the numbers still matter to employees and shareholders.

 

[shrspeedblade]

While it is very exciting to see all the records broken in the last week of the Q (such as in Norway now), this whole end-of-quarter delivery madness is bothering me.

We all know (unlike analysts and journalists) it is standard operating procedure for Tesla to focus on making cars for overseas delivery early in the Q, put them on ships, then shift focus to NA cars and there is a huge push to deliver everything in the last weeks of the Q. This is all to reduce cars-in-transit for the quarterly report, so financials look better.

I get that this made a lot of sense earlier when Tesla was in need of capital raise. However, Elon has stated about a year ago that they do not intend to raise more capital from WS as they have shifted from investment (money "burning") stage to money generation stage, so they are now able to self-finance the growth. Indeed, Q3 and Q4 last year has proven that.

Yet, they continue to replay delivery hell each quarter end, which makes no sense to me. Trust me, I know from first-hand experience how bad it feels to the customers. I can imagine it is just as bad or worse for Tesla employees involved. Why don't they finally bite the bullet and take the hit in quarter-end optics for having a large number of vehicles in-transit and simply spread deliveries evenly ?

The removal of the hectic end-of-Q madness would improve customer experience, it would lower pressure on employees, make logistics simpler, ultimately cheaper: instead of peak usage and payment of extra carriers, they could spread the work evenly and have less idle time.

So why continue this bad practice for financial "optics" that no longer matter, when the alternative would actually save money in the long term ???

My hope, and this is clearly only hopeful speculation on my part, is that they have chosen to do so in an effort to try to hit that small profit for 1st quarter. Although anything will get spun negatively, a small profit still sounds better than a LOSS! It has the advantage of moving up SP500 inclusion as well assuming they remain profitable throughout the year which guidance seemed to indicate would be easier after Q1.

 

[Fact Checking]

What is the "worst case scenario" ruling that the judge can issue in your opinion?

So I think if the judge had any inclination to rule against Elon, she'd have insisted on an evidentiary hearing and asked him. I find it hard to imagine any scenario in which she'd rule against Elon without taking his "intent" into account.

"Intent" in this case is argued by the parties under the topic of "willfulness" and "diligence".

Here are the 4 rounds of motion, answer, reply and sur-reply and their handling of the 'willfulness' and 'diligence' arguments for anyone who wants to double check my assumptions and conclusions:

Motion by the SEC:

Motion for Order to Show Cause – #18 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com

The SEC argues that the court can just find Elon in contempt without examining willfulness (intent):

"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt. Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984)."

"A violation of a court order need not be willful in order to find contempt. Donovan, 726 F.2d at 59."
​

Answer by Team Elon:

Response to Order to Show Cause – #27 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com

Team Elon lines up half a dozen citations in a powerful showing of case law that totally eviscerates the SEC's willfulness argument:

"In assessing a party’s diligence, courts in this District generally require a showing of intent, sometimes amounting to willfulness, before a party will be held in contempt. Jeri-Jo Knitwear, Inc. v. Club Italia, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 457, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“I can not, however, conclude on the total record before me that defendants’ conduct is of that flouting willfulness to have earned the denomination ‘contemnor.’”); Wojnarowicz v. Am. Family Ass’n, 772 F. Supp. 201, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“While the Court is troubled by the mailings and the potential damage that may come to plaintiff therefrom, it finds no ‘willfulness’ on the part of defendants and concludes that the mailings were mistakes from which no malevolence may be presumed.”)."

"Moreover, Musk consulted with Tesla’s Disclosure Counsel after posting the 7:15 tweet. Id. ¶ 12. Out of an abundance of caution, Musk posted another tweet at 11:41 p.m. ET. Id. This is precisely the kind of diligence that one would expect from someone who is endeavoring to comply with the Order, and it is certainly not the type of “willful flouting” of judicial authority that is often required to justify a contempt finding. See Robert Half, Inc. v. Romac Int’l, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 223, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that an “inadvertent” violation “is not such a willful flouting of the court’s authority so as to warrant a finding of contempt”); Wojnarowicz, 772 F. Supp. at 202 (refusing to find party in contempt upon a party’s first time violation of a court order that could reasonably have been a mistake); Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distribs., Inc., 346 F. Supp. 2d 384, 393 (E.D.N.Y. - 17 - 5491445Case 1:18-cv-08865-AJN Document 27 Filed 03/11/19 Page 24 of 33 2004) (refusing to hold party in contempt without further factual development about whether the “violations were de minimus, inadvertent and/or promptly cured”)."
​

If the court accepts Team Elon's arguments and case law citations then to find Elon in contempt of violating the settlement at minimum 'lack of diligence' has to be shown.
​

Reply by the SEC:

Reply to Response to Motion – #30 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com

Silence on "willfulness", the SEC's argument abandons "Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd.". (!)

The reason: they cited the wrong case law IMHO, and Elon's team cited the correct one that requires intent, generally at least on the level of "lack of diligence".

So instead of just withdrawing their motion the SEC instead just changes their legal argument and now claims that Elon was "not diligent" in a handful of other tweets:

"Musk made no diligent or good faith effort to comply with the pre-approval provision of the Court’s order."
"While Musk professes to take seriously his obligations to comply with the Court’s order and the Tesla Policy, his actions speak much more loudly: he has not diligently sought to comply with either."
​

The SEC's argument rests on mischaracterizing the other tweets, which as @KarenRei pointed it out as well were innocuous. Importantly the SEC doesn't even attempt to claim that these tweets contained material information.

By going this way the SEC effectively concedes the point:
​

Sur-reply by Team Elon:

Reply to Response to Motion – #33 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com

"The SEC also fails to show that Musk has not diligently attempted to comply with the Order. The SEC now points to other tweets (rather than the 60 Minutes interview) that it suggests possibly also should have been pre-approved. These tweets, which include statements denying untrue rumors and repeating well-known safety information, prove Musk’s point. Since the Order was entered, Musk has not tweeted material information regarding Tesla. It is because he has been complying with the Order, not defying it, that these tweets have not required pre-approval."
​

Total K.O. for the SEC. Checkmate. The SEC got fragged and Team Elon wins the Superbowl.​

The only way the SEC could have developed their accusation of lack of diligence was by perhaps cross-examining Elon Musk - but they didn't request it as it's a double edged sword: with Elon present the judge might actually witness it first hand how diligent Elon is about pretty much everything, and how wacky and petty the SEC's position really is in the general scheme of things ...

The judge did not request Elon to be present either - which pretty much closes the door on willfulness and diligence, IMHO.

So to me, at this point, the main open question is the extent of the SEC's loss: will they lose just on materialness, or also on constitutional grounds?

(Anyway, keep in mind that I'm a Tesla fan who is not a lawyer and that I could be wrong about this, and that court proceedings are often unpredictable. Also heads-up to @TNEVol who is a lawyer, who is much more cautious in his assessments of this case and who might disagree with me here.)

 

[aubreymcfato]

I am keeping an eye on the Norwegian Tesla forum at elbilforum.no.

Bergen which had a shipment of Teslas arrive this morning has one buyer with a scheduled delivery there this Saturday at 20:00 - Saturdays the Service Center there normally closes at 16.

So end of quarter deliveries in Norway will continue into the week-end.

PS. The ship "City of Amsterdam" has already left for Ålesund, with its ETA there 23:00 tonight. That's halfway to Trondheim, where a number of buyers are waiting impatiently for their Model 3 to arrive, so some may take delivery there also this weekend.

FWIW, we already know that some deliveries are done during the weekend: both Saturday and even Sunday.

 

[KarenRei]

I don't believe there are dedicated websites, or public surveys for any other brand's sales number.

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

Tesla Model 3: 4198
Volkswagen Golf: 808
Nissan Leaf: 644
Bmw I3: 634
Audi E-tron: 596
Jaguar I-pace: 366
Hyundai Kona: 323
Hyundai Ioniq: 302
Tesla Motors Model X: 264
Renault Zoe: 247
Nissan Nissan E-nv200: 215
Kia Niro: 172
Tesla Motors Model S: 150
Kia Soul: 103
Opel Ampera-e: 59
Volkswagen Up!: 53
Fiat 500 Electric: 42

... and so increasingly minor players. 9287 total this month.

 

[Mars ☰mperor]

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

Tesla Model 3: 4198
Volkswagen Golf: 808
Nissan Leaf: 644
Bmw I3: 634
Audi E-tron: 596
Jaguar I-pace: 366
Hyundai Kona: 323
Hyundai Ioniq: 302
Tesla Motors Model X: 264
Renault Zoe: 247
Nissan Nissan E-nv200: 215
Kia Niro: 172
Tesla Motors Model S: 150

Norway is magical!
Someone should really get this data from China, would be fascinating. Albeit China is one of the most opaque entity when it comes to government disclosure

 

[humbaba]

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

Tesla Model 3: 4198
Volkswagen Golf: 808
Nissan Leaf: 644
Bmw I3: 634
Audi E-tron: 596
Jaguar I-pace: 366
Hyundai Kona: 323
Hyundai Ioniq: 302
Tesla Motors Model X: 264
Renault Zoe: 247
Nissan Nissan E-nv200: 215
Kia Niro: 172
Tesla Motors Model S: 150

As far as the e-tron goes, the recent article mentioned here had quote from Audi that they were producing 150 units per day so the e-tron registrations represent ~4 days of production. While Tesla's production is not known with any certainty, comments seem to indicate that it is in the ~6k/wk range which suggests that the M3 registrations represent ~5 days of production.

Given the level of uncertainty it seems that both are being sold as fast they can be made in rough proportion to production rates. That said, I'm not sure there is any equivalence in the European/ROW split between Tesla and the e-tron. If, as I suspect, e-tron has a delivery weight for Europe while Tesla still appears to be delivery weighted for the US then that suggests the e-tron will not scale its sales in the same way that the M3 has.

Regardless, I like seeing the increased EV adoption -- whether that be Tesla, e-tron, i-pace, bolt, leaf, etc.

 

[Gavyne]

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

Tesla Model 3: 4198
Volkswagen Golf: 808
Nissan Leaf: 644
Bmw I3: 634
Audi E-tron: 596
Jaguar I-pace: 366
Hyundai Kona: 323
Hyundai Ioniq: 302
Tesla Motors Model X: 264
Renault Zoe: 247
Nissan Nissan E-nv200: 215
Kia Niro: 172
Tesla Motors Model S: 150
Kia Soul: 103
Opel Ampera-e: 59
Volkswagen Up!: 53
Fiat 500 Electric: 42

... and so increasingly minor players. 9287 total this month.

When you put it in that perspective, it's just crazy to see how well Model 3 is doing above those other popular cars. Imagine that, an American made car that Europeans want to buy for a change. And what do we do in the States? Instead of praising this great American success story, we're too busy trying to harm it and wish it to fail. smh

 

[Freder Reeve]

Or have millions of Tesla investors mad at you for giving the judge a negative impression of Tesla supporters?.. Please either behave or don't go.
Otherwise... if nobody here can dissuade you from wanting to go and misbehave in the courtroom... please at least do so while wearing a TSLAQ hat and a Shorty Air Force shirt

Since we're discussing this topic, I'm now expecting a false flag scenario. The TSLAQ crew will just hire actors, give them pro-tesla gear and (ranting lunatic) scripts.

 

[EVNow]

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

Tesla Model 3: 4198

While these numbers are great - I think we still need to figure out what the steady state numbers are. Only when the steady state numbers are known will the "demand issue" bear argument get quashed.

Just as Q1 / Q2 numbers in US will establish the steady state demand.

 

[KarenRei]

As far as the e-tron goes, the recent article mentioned here had quote from Audi that they were producing 150 units per day so the e-tron registrations represent ~4 days of production. While Tesla's production is not known with any certainty, comments seem to indicate that it is in the ~6k/wk range which suggests that the M3 registrations represent ~5 days of production.

Given the level of uncertainty it seems that both are being sold as fast they can be made in rough proportion to production rates. That said, I'm not sure there is any equivalence in the European/ROW split between Tesla and the e-tron. If, as I suspect, e-tron has a delivery weight for Europe while Tesla still appears to be delivery weighted for the US then that suggests the e-tron will not scale its sales in the same way that the M3 has.

Regardless, I like seeing the increased EV adoption -- whether that be Tesla, e-tron, i-pace, bolt, leaf, etc.

It's important to note that this is the E-Tron's first "real month" in Norway, same as the Model 3. And while Model 3 is only available in its most expensive variants, the same is not true for E-Tron.

 

[Bobfitz1]

Check out this satellite image of Gigafactory 1:

In the top left corner there is a huge parking lot - built in May last year, which is mostly unused...

Any thoughts on why 7 months after starting to install PV panels on GF1 Tesla has stopped adding to the first section?
PV on building appears to be only 10% complete. I thought Panasonic was producing substantial volume of older style
panels at GF2.