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

[X Fan]

To be honest, they should be continually looking to save money and become as lean as possible, that's not the problem, the problem is the necessary "10 months" comment.

I'm just pissed because I don't have any spare cash to buy more right now...

+1...I learned very early in my career working at a Tech company that prudent cost management should be way of life vs. just crisis oriented. It shaped how I managed the rest of my career.

Of course, Tesla should not scrimp in areas that will drive future success (ie important R&D) so there is a balance required.

FWIW: I wish Elon was a better wordsmith in his internal letters. The Wall St. sharks always have FUD loaded to bear and use these moments to double down on their attack.

 

[SO16]

Those objections don't make sense. Even in the worst case bankruptcy scenario somebody would come in and buy out Tesla and then continue to support the vehicles.

In many cases, it’s just an excuse. Oh well.

 

[Garlands]

Just wanted to let people know some items i have been tracking:

Teslike model 3 tracker spreadsheet:
From Jan1st- Feb 16th: 32 entries. Total Q1 entries: 271 Total Q2 entries so far: 280

Google Trends Tesla Model 3 in the US: At a sustained level similar to the highest levels between Oct-Dec 2018.
Google Trends Tesla Model 3 International: Highest levels ever

Reddit Teslamotors subreddit: adding 500-1000 users a day members a day.

Bought 50 more shares today.

 

[humbaba]

with respect to the accident, I was focused on the text of the report and failed to notice the screen shot. For it to be included it must be relevant to the accident and the Tesla is fast approaching the intersection with no semi in view. The obvious conclusion is that the semi driver raced out from behind the trees and braked (the NTSB notes that the semi slowed while blocking the lane). Take a look at that picture and consider that you are traveling at highway speed (68mph in the report, but even at the posted 55mph).

For the semi to pull out in front of the Tesla in that time frame it must have approached the intersection at reckless speed with disregard for the right of way traffic.

And yet, the text of the report makes it sound like an autopilot fail.

@Chocochip do you still think AP is relevant? What was it supposed to have done? Can it alter the laws of physics?

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Why are people still blaming Elon for their loss on the 420 tweet? The stock recovered by December. If people didn’t sell then, that’s on THEM!

Absolutely correct on that one. Moreover, anyone who bought right after the 420 tweet, didn't do that because they believe in Tesla or its mission, but because they thought they were assured of making a quick buck.

 

[lklundin]

Since TMC has gotten me quite a bit of helpful advice over the years, I just wanted to inform everyone that I expect to not post here for now.

With my Model 3 order cancelled and being fully invested in TSLA without any prospect of a profitable sale anytime soon, there is little point for me to spend time on TMC.

Good luck to all of you.

-Lars.

Lars Kr. Lundin on Twitter

 

[Nocturnal]

Yeah. Notice that the preliminary report doesn't say anything about how close the Tesla was when the semi tractor-trailer started crossing. The semi "slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla's path." The 10 seconds and 8 seconds are not relative to when the semi blocked the Tesla's path and it was irresponsible of the NTSB to include the time of AP engagement without indicating how close the Tesla was when the semi pulled out in front of it.

In other words, the report is written to give the impression that the accident was the Tesla's fault without providing any facts to support that impression.

Compare that to other preliminary reports and the bias becomes apparent.
HWY19MH001-preliminary-report

So despite being preliminary they address the crossing vehicle's role in the accident when a Tesla is not involved.

To me it's clear that the trucker was at fault. He crossed a highway knowing that cars would stop for him because he was in a big truck.

Order of fault Trucker > Tesla Driver > Autopilot And let's toss in the US government for not mandating the simple safety feature that would prevent this from happening to anyone. It's just so critical to not regulate trucks and save the industry a thousand bucks a trailer.

Edit, assuming that he did cross while the Tesla was in reasonable range and it wasn't a case of a mechanical failure etc.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

New S and X versions not yet shipping is another huge negative,

Guys, can we move on? They started shipping already. People have already taken delivery of them.

 

[elasalle]

Reshuffled, all my Jan 21 Calls are under 350 now.
Was strange to see calls in 500-600 range ... couldn't bear it ...

 

[Drax7]

Guys, can we move on? They started shipping already. People have already taken delivery of them.

Just check the model s forum, one guy reported delivery so far.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

I hear you. I think after the profitable Q3 surprise and Elon promising cash flow positive from now on, many here (including me) got fooled into believing we would see $400 before end of the year. Then came the $420 private tweet and everyone was upset they would be forced out of the opportunity to see TSLA in the $1000-$1500.

The SEC problems and roller coaster that followed in December, in hind sight, had a few good selling opportunities, but the sentiment here was still buy on the dip.

Today, many, including myself, are deep underwater because of this. As someone who had faith in the company from the very beginning and supported the mission, it is easy to feel let down by Elon.

The 420 announcement was in August, well before the Q3 ER.

 

[X Fan]

Since TMC has gotten me quite a bit of helpful advice over the years, I just wanted to inform everyone that I expect to not post here for now.

With my Model 3 order cancelled and being fully invested in TSLA without any prospect of a profitable sale anytime soon, there is little point for me to spend time on TMC.

Good luck to all of you.

-Lars.

Lars Kr. Lundin on Twitter

Sorry you've become so unhappy....the Model 3 is a superb vehicle and would provide fantastic transportation for you. The old saw: "cut off your nose to spite your face" may apply here.

btw: always enjoyed your contributions.

 

[Matias]

and...?

He's optimistic. That's what he said.

Dan

Yep. And when you asked what miss people where talking about, there’s is your answer.

 

[UnknownSoldier]

If TSLA gets below $200 I might buy in before 3rd or 4th quarter earnings if they look like they might turn a profit. At this point there is no bottom and nothing that could continue to support share price.

 

[Chocochip]

So... no other vehicle has anti-collision technology? Really?

So it doesn't matter if the semi pulled out in front of the Tesla with <1s of timing? BTW this would be entirely consistent with the preliminary report. The 8s and 10s timings are not relative to the semi pulling out in front of the Tesla. In fact, the sole reason for their inclusion appears to be to mislead.

You are missing the point I was trying to make. This is not about whether a driver not using any assistive system would have been able to avoid this particular collision. This is just about perception. And the perception of this crash is this: driver of Tesla Model 3 gets killed when driving straight into crossing trailer without any avoidance manoeuvre (braking or swerving) applied as the top of the car gets sheared off; the car was being driven in AP mode at the time. These are the facts of the situation, and most people read them and see a causal link there. The fact that we are investors and therefore super-sensitive to any news related to Tesla - and particularly to the negative ones - doesn't mean that people who see that correlation are against the company. Would you expect the fact that the car was on AP to be somehow withheld? Do you feel that this detail is not relevant to the outcome of that event? If so, please understand that you have a positive bias towards the company and it's products, and are therefore not the best qualified to decide how this should be reported.

Think about this example: man dies of lung cancer at age 50; he had been a heavy smoker for the past 20 years. There is always a chance that his smoking habit is not exclusively responsible for him developing lung cancer (although it definitely didn't help), and the man simply had a high genetic predisposition to develop lung cancer. But most people would instantly see a causal relationship between those two facts. It's as simple as that.

I agree that any road accident that a Tesla is involved in is given disproportionate importance and journos (heh!) try hard in many cases to create a sometimes inexistent link to AP being active and malfunctioning, but this is not such a case.

 

[Huskyf]

Macros becomes positif Down Jones -Nasdaq ect... TSLA$ started to slowly going up

 

[voip-ninja]

Guys, can we move on? They started shipping already. People have already taken delivery of them.

Isn't part of the refresh people are expecting the updated interior with the landscape orientation display?

 

[Nocturnal]

You are missing the point I was trying to make. This is not about whether a driver not using any assistive system would have been able to avoid this particular collision. This is just about perception. And the perception of this crash is this: driver of Tesla Model 3 gets killed when driving straight into crossing trailer without any avoidance manoeuvre (braking or swerving) applied as the top of the car gets sheared off; the car was being driven in AP mode at the time. These are the facts of the situation, and most people read them and see a causal link there. The fact that we are investors and therefore super-sensitive to any news related to Tesla - and particularly to the negative ones - doesn't mean that people who see that correlation are against the company. Would you expect the fact that the car was on AP to be somehow withheld? Do you feel that this detail is not relevant to the outcome of that event? If so, please understand that you have a positive bias towards the company and it's products, and are therefore not the best qualified to decide how this should be reported.

Think about this example: man dies of lung cancer at age 50; he had been a heavy smoker for the past 20 years. There is always a chance that his smoking habit is not exclusively responsible for him developing lung cancer (although it definitely didn't help), and the man simply had a high genetic predisposition to develop lung cancer. But most people would instantly see a causal relationship between those two facts. It's as simple as that.

I agree that any road accident that a Tesla is involved in is given disproportionate importance and journos (heh!) try hard in many cases to create a sometimes inexistent link to AP being active and malfunctioning, but this is not such a case.

It doesn't mean that, but it does mean they are ignorant of the situation.

 

[Cobbler]

This is me today after seeing the SP drop

 

[Big Blue 1011]

Those objections don't make sense. Even in the worst case bankruptcy scenario somebody would come in and buy out Tesla and then continue to support the vehicles.

As a bankruptcy lawyer, I can tell you that the consequence of a bankruptcy filing on current shareholders would likely be the very definition of worst case scenario. In almost all such cases, debt gets converted to equity in a newly formed entity and current equity gets wiped out.

Envision many different scenarios. Bankruptcy should not be one of them.