StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Two points on that:
1) The year is not over yet.
2) The fine print says these are estimated timelines that are subject to delays.
-
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
Two points on that:
1) The year is not over yet.
2) The fine print says these are estimated timelines that are subject to delays.
2virgule5
Member
1) yep, have to agree on that
2) fine prints don’t exactly say that, and I maintain my preference for clear and non ambiguous communication on the order page (let’s have OEM playing with fine prints). No big deal either way.
I like to think bigger.
My hope, but of course not my expectation, is that the SEC figures they can damage their tainted reputation with an investigation that doesn't stop at USB. That they follow-up on all the TSLA related complaints filed and follow the information wherever it takes them. That by taking down the biggest network of anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-free-market TSLAQ scoundrels, liars and connivers, they can patch up their reputation which has been in shambles since sometime around the time Bernie Madoff started growing his pyramid scheme.
A guy can dream, can't he?
Somebody SO needs to write a book about this, and then turn it into a movie later.
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio as lead investigator, and Joaquin Phoenix as the mastermind behind TSLAQ.
I think they'll achieve the ~2TW and 15-20M vehicles produced by the end of the decade around 2030. Five years is way too early for this.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Well, come January 1st, the text will be same. Second time is the charm.
ps :
Tesla isn't terribly good at these. For the longest time the website listed Smart Summon under available, instead of coming up - well before it was available.
Last edited:
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Exactly, hence:
Is Tesla accelerating and decelerating transition to renewables?
Tesla's growth won't exceed doubling year on year. It's great for Tesla and maybe they will keep an increasing market share if buyers stay away from EVs because the best doesn't suit them etc. That way, Tesla will maintain their advantage for years.
I blame the consumer for not buying sub-standard product - sometimes you just have to eat étron.
Last edited:
Normally I avoid profanity but I really couldn't pick a more accurate noun to describe the interrupter.
On CNBC today, I believe the "DH" who interrupted Cathie Wood also asked questions about Toyota's market cap in order to try and demonstrate that Wood doesn't know the auto industry well enough. Cathie answered the question satisfactorily, and then the "DH" clearly was trying to set up a trap regarding Tesla's future market cap vs. some number that "DH" was going to spout off. Cathie saw the trap, didn't take the bait, and shut him down. To me, this was more fun than watching any football game.
Clearly the forces seeking to keep Tesla's stock price from running higher are scrambling to find all the FUD they can after Elon won his court case. The person in the MarketWatch article who said sell TSLA because of Musk surely had one heck of an article prepared about Musk that he couldn't publish because Musk won the case. Take a moment to reflect on the media carnival of FUD we'd have to endure for several days if Musk had lost the case. Mercy!
It also stated freeway to freeway navigation was coming in December 2016 well into 2017.
Sparky
Member
I'm have similar weighting except sold almost all spec stocks. There's not enough near term upside for me. 25% cash until I feel better about macro.
Note: The following is OT and anecdotal.
Stopped by one of the 3 local Tesla stores I frequent. Found a rep I know and was offered this:
1) For the first time since they had been there, this individual sold no Model S's this quarter. X's pretty good , 3's were still gangbusters and the day I was there was the last day to walk in and order a 3 and get it by Dec 31. Store and Delivery centers will be open until midnight New Year's Eve as in years past. Some people had been waiting many weeks for their 3's and getting antsy about the tax credit.
2) I have a Y reserved. I was told I could see it early next year. (I know, sales rep, large grain of salt). I said "but that's not the plan, it's mid-year earliest". Explanation according to this rep: Tesla corporate was expecting U.S. recession by now and planned the production of Y based on expected recovery mid to late next year. Recession didn't happen and now plan has changed to "let's roll out the Y ASAP".
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting spin on Q1,Q2 plans. I won't change my stock trading based on it tho.
Also, my most recent personal experience with service for my Model 3 was like this: Used the app to book an appt for wheel alignment, rotation and general service (our 3 has never had maintenance service after 33k mi and 2 years). App gave me appt for 6 days later at service center I chose. Got a call 2 days later from Tesla to confirm and I asked about HW3 install. I was told I qualify and they could do it at the same time but need to postpone by a week. Cool.
My most recent experience with my Solarglass roof install has been clumsy but progressing. I doubt they will get it installed this year but I'm fine with that. I will say, when I had a question, I just had to call and was talking to a person in 60 secs.
Message to me about the above is Tesla service and communication is getting better. At least in SoCal.
Last edited:
One question I posed in the Daily TSLA Trading Charts thread today was asking if anyone could figure out who were the sellers when 257K shares of TSLA changed hands in a pre-arranged trade in pre-market, 518K during the final minute of trading at 4pm, and 218K shares in another pre-arranged trade in after-hours trading. It's easy to figure out who the buyers of these trades were (shorts covering to continue reducing the short interest number as well as shorts covering after day-manipulations, long investors positioning for Q4 P&D report, etc.) but who would be selling in these numbers after TSLA has started it's climb at last after the CyberTruck event push-down and with Q4 P&D report numbers not much more than 3 weeks away?
I have been wondering about this too, and I believe I asked you about this 1 or 2 pages back. Somebody else came in and offered the 'market-close trade' as an explanation, but I didn't really buy that because I'd expect stock price to move if shorts buy a large number of shares during these points in time. It also wouldn't explain pre-arranged trades at other times of the day.
I don't know enough about this to answer the question, but Papafox, can you remember these types of pre-arranged trades happening in the past? If I'm not mistaken these are more recent appearances, correct? I don't think these showed up in your analyses a year ago.
We have seen pre-arranged trades many times before, but as I look back my recollection is that they are far more common when some type of pressure is being applied to TSLA, with higher than normal percent of selling tagged to short-sellers.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Isn't that how the share price is controlled and manipulated? Buying and selling by two parties who are from outward appearances independent of each other but are, in fact, not? I assume this happens both during regular trading hours and also outside regular market hours. They can just sell the same TSLA shares back and forth hundreds of times without any real transaction or gain or loss happening (as long as they trust each other to always zero out at some point).
I've always envisioned an individual hedge fund or other manipulator using algobots to sell in the necessary quantities to depress the stock in relatively low volume times of day and then cover (buy) when trading is more brisk in such a fashion that the combinations of the buying and the selling yields a net decrease in the share price. The idea would be to engineer a decrease in the stock price with a zero net change in the organization's short holdings. For example, today from 3 to 4pm we saw TSLA dip more than $2 into the close in relatively low volume. A manipulator would sell short sufficiently during that final hour to take a dip of less than $1 that would be associated with the macro dip and turn it into a dip of over $2. He could then cover in the final minute or after-hours and get a zero increase in the stock price associated with his buying because there's a willing seller at a moment when the transaction would not change the stock price. The question is, "who's that willing seller?" Another technique could be to look at the order book and see how much covering you could do without causing the SP to rise. The reverse would be to reference the order book and overload the book with selling per minute in such a way that you walk the stock price down. Look at many trading times with TSLA and the appearance is that someone is setting up a linear decrease in the stock price using very small stairsteps.
Edit: The gamesmanship of moving the stock price with the combination of selling and (later) covering can get complicated when you realize it's not all about volume. Sometimes it is about momentum by capping a climb through selling or starting downward momentum through selling. Sometimes it's about selling enough to hit a big whole number and trigger the stop loss orders for that number. Sometimes it's to take a piece of FUD and suggest that there's fear in the marketplace about the FUD by selling. Part of the gamesmanship is understanding what triggers other algobots to buy or sell and then using other people's algobots to enhance your strategy.
Trying to picture two entities selling shares back and forth with each other complicates the picture. Let me wrap my mind around the possible pros and cons for a manipulator working in such a fashion. Edit 2: My initial impression is that if you're trying to knock the price down, you want the fewest number of willing buyers, and so a team approach to selling and buying at the same time wouldn't be a viable concept.
Last edited:
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
OK, you asked the question. But I hope you don't believe the answer is actually "Yes". Because Tesla is either accelerating the transition or holding it up (from where it would be if they never entered the market). It can't be both.
Obviously, they are accelerating the transition. I do see what you're getting at but let's think about your claim that Tesla is making such a good product at such a low price-point that it reduces investment in EV's by other companies because they can't hope to compete.
First of all, I don't buy that premise, Tesla has scared the competition and greatly increased the incentive for them to invest in EV's. It's do or die.
But, just for fun, let's assume it's true that Tesla's excellence has slowed their competitior's investment into EV's. What would the logical response from a company like Tesla who wants to accelerate the transition? Throw their competition a little bigger opportunity? Kind of like an NBA player having a friendly game of Horse with a high-school bball player and leading him along only to win at the very end?
Playing like this, the obvious strategy would be for Tesla to make fewer cars and sell them at a higher price. This is what they did with the Roadster, the Model S and the Model X. But, guess what? It didn't get the competition off their comfy asses! Tesla was only a niche player that would never amount to anything. And, it wasn't sustainable because it needed a constant influx of investor money to stay afloat. That was a very smart way to enter the game but it was primarily a learning experience. Tesla paid their dues and learned the ropes of EV manufacturing so when they released their first high volume car it would be desirable and not cause the company to buckle under warranty expense. That would be an undesirable end of their adventure due to the cost of their rookie mistakes.
Currently, they have hit the sweet spot of production volumes and unit cost. And they can sell them at volume and make a small profit. Their product is reliable, practical and desirable. They could raise the price and sell lower volumes but then they wouldn't be making a profit. Do you really think they should try to just barely exist at the lower volume/higher pricepoint while they wait for others to catch up?
I don't think so. It's a dog eat dog world out there in automaker land and taking that approach would be disastrous. Once Tesla folded from being passed up, their competitors would go back to their more profitable ICE cars and trucks and just make enough EV's to avoid the bulk of emissions fines. The only way to fight this fight is with engineering and manufacturing excellence. Make EV's that the people want to buy, at the price they want to pay and force the competition to play the same game or die. Without the threat of bankruptcy, Tesla's competition will never excel at EV's.
Commodity investing (which is what buying Lithium mines is) is its own unique type of investment. Commodities are cyclical and you have to know where in the cycle you are. Yes, lithium was expensive for a while since demand grew from batteries. But then two things happened. Producers saw the high prices and started investing in new mines and capacity. And just as that was bearing fruit with new supply hitting the market, Trumps tariffs against China started biting, hurting the economy and thus reducing lithium demand. They are now predicting soft lithium pricing for a couple of years. The point is you need to stay on top of worldwide supply/demand whenever you invest in any commodity.
Meanwhile, over in Unsworth Vs Musk defamation trial there's news that after a weekend of ranting Twitter, Lin Wood has congratulated Elon's legals team and stated that there was no defamation and that the correct result was reached by the jury.
You can't make this stuff up, eh?
You can't make this stuff up, eh?
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
Well, if one of the entities doesn't really care about making money, only hurting Tesla, it would make more sense for that company to allow the MM's ability to depress as they can.
The oil companies have great incentive to keep Tesla low, and a few million here and there is nothing to them.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
There are loading docks on both sides of the building - but I think the angled/sawtooth loading docks on the other side are for the BIW lines.
But my guess is that there is so much overlap in final assembly of the Model Y and Model 3, that I'd expect the two lines to run in parallel and next to each other, and workstations to be 'mirrored' in a fashion - and maybe even shared and crewed by the same people, and the parts prepared and conveyed in unison. Given that throughput is about 1 car every 3-4 minutes, it's not a problem for supplies to cross the assembly lines - as long as the second line is still close to the loading dock and the unpacking area.
The Model Y shares 76% of the parts with the Model 3 - and I guess a large part of that percentage is the chassis/panels, which are assembled by robots. At the general assembly level, which is about ~70% of the factory footprint of total car assembly, I'd expect the part sharing factor between the Model 3 and Model Y final assembly lines to be as high as 90%, maybe more.
If that is true then it would be natural to line up the two assembly lines and build them in parallel, and only bifurcate the workflow where there's real differences.
The Model Y might still require a new building: a BIW body line next to the stamping shop. The new pile-drivers are close to such a location. This new Model Y BIW building would be relatively small, compared to the length of the Model Y final assembly line.
But even this layout isn't ideal: it would mean that the Model Y bodies would have to travel the whole length of the building to get into the paint shop. So either they build a second paint shop for the Model Y, or the current Model 3 BIW line has enough capacity to make the Model Y as well:
Note how the phase 3/4 building is a mirror image of the phase 1/2 building: the highest throughput loading docks are at the outside boundary of the factory, and the dense, heavy shipments of raw metal to the BIW ships are loaded via the saw-tooth loading bays in the middle of the factory.
Just ... slapping a Model Y building next to the stamp shop breaks all this current and future symmetry, disturbs the smooth flow of cars within the factory. This makes no sense to me. I think both the current BIW and the general assembly line has enough free factory space to host Model Y assembly.
Could be wrong though. Maybe @Krugerrand has some ideas about how they might approach this?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
