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.
Actually, right here in this very chair...

Seriously, since then my position has grown enormously, so a 10% drop in the SP would now (on paper) amount to something like a year's salary.

So just to prepare myself mentally for a swing of this magnitude, how often has the SP seen 10% drops within 1 trading day/night ?
‘something volatility something something’ — Elon Musk

As was mentioned up thread volatility — especially, I would add, induced volatility— does not equal risk.
 
Last edited:
Both the casting machine and the reduced wiring are things that can be applied to any of their cars retroactively as well as the others. It makes more sense to do it with the model 3 and Y first of course because of the volume. But it will definitely have an impact on the production rates, so is unlikely to be done until there is some slack. That said, I would expect to see this happen first on the model 3, at least the wiring. Once the Y is in full swing I would not be surprised to see the Osborn effect reduce demand for the 3 in the US and Europe. That could create some slack in the 3 production to allow these changes to be made sooner rather than later.

Still, has there been any indication that these changes are remotely ready for prime time? The casting change seems rather big and I would expect to see them building some number of prototype cars and lots of testing first.
Now, I could easily be wrong, and am not an engineer, certainly not in auto manufacture. But I believe I read something along the lines that the new wiring system will also include a change in low voltage systems from ~12V to maybe 48V, for things like headlights, power windows, wipers, sound -- not to forget the whole AP apparatus.

Thus I expect a change into new, shorter wiring to happen in connection to a major change in all models, certainly all built at the same facility.

Exactly when that happens takes a chrystal ball to divine, but I'm pretty sure we will notice it.

Has anyone taken a closer look at MIC M3 headlights, for example? Or other auxiliary suppliers?
 
Literally, here's Chowdhry's logic, as presented in the article:

BECAUSE: "On a relative basis, we saw much more Model S and Model X coming from the Production Area to Holding Area"

THUS: "We think, there is some burst in production of both Model S and Model X" (no consideration to the fact that the rate might simply be higher, because they've been selling more, as seen in the Q4 numbers??)

AND THUS: "TSLA will very likely announce that Model S and Model X have reached their end-of-life, and if anyone wants to buy these cars, for whatever reason, have up until June-July'2020 to buy one"


Logic Train a' comin!

... ding ding ding Ding Ding DING DIIIING DIIIIIIIIING DING Ding Ding ding ding ding......

Aw, dang, it didn't stop!
 
One thing Tesla is NOT going to do is shut the factory down in the very quarter that spooked some investors last year. Plus in their quarterly call they said Model Y production line wouldn't interfere much at all with the Model 3 line. Plus you don't SHUT DOWN a factory for China production...you would SWITCH production to Chinese performance Model 3s as needed.

This is actually really bullish. It could be that the demand for performance Model 3s is so high that they have to switch to making Performance 3's for China for awhile in Fremont. That could be a lot of performance Model 3s...and it could bode well for ASPs in Q1.
 
what do you guys think of this?
i think in the long run it is good for the mission and business coz model y and cyber* will be more profitable with lots of volume
might actually increase demand for model x and s.

Tesla (TSLA) Factory Checks Suggest Model S and Model X May Have Reached 'End-of-Life', Focus to Be Model Y, 3 and Cybertruck - Chowdhry

Trip Chowdry is an absolute buffoon who is assuredly one of the worst stock analysts who ever lived. Listen to nothing he ever says, even if it is positive.

his biggest claim to infamy was in March 2014 when he said if Apple didn’t release a watch “within 60 days” the company would “disappear”
 
Where do we see these "trading range boundaries," "resistance" and "support" levels I keep hearing about? Looks like a made-up excuse for every SP pause.

Are those "chartists"right? Or only as reliable as "annalists"?

As I see it, these levels are reflections of the overall market psychology as it relates to the specific stock. I am by no means an expert in it.

As a very rough example, if you open a free charting tool like Trading View for TSLA and use the monthly time scale, you can discern levels where the price has been strongly supported for years, like at $200. Support has been so consistent there as to be self-perpetuating. You would probably be fairly safe to enter the market whenever it reaches that level. Chartists who advise based on this kind of pattern recognition are 'right' enough to be worth listening to. It's a complex discipline, and they have many rules, often hard to intuitively relate to.

A resistance level can be the levels approaching previous ATHs.

Some chartists do not give much credence to underlying fundamentals, believing market psychology will override them. Of course they are only right until they are wrong. TSLA is now well above previous ATHs, and anyone insisting those resistance levels should have guided you were obviously wrong.
 
  • Helpful
  • Informative
Reactions: VQTRVA and hoang51
For people who are selling off half their shares, or considering doing so, as a deleveraging mechanism... Let us consider four options:

A) A person who sells half their shares at $490
B) A person who buys $400 Jun protective puts at an SP of $490 ($26x100), paid for by selling stock (5,3 shares per 100 shares covered)
C) #2, except that the puts are paid for by selling an equivalent number of $620 Jun covered calls.
D) No deleveraging

Let's check out your assets at some various SP scenarios at the end of June, for a total original number of shares X.

$0:
* A) $245 * X
* B) $379 * X
* C) $400 * X
* D) $0 * X

$100:
* A) $295 * X
* B) $379 * X
* C) $400 * X
* D) $100 * X

$200:
* A) $345 * X
* B) $379 * X
* C) $400 * X
* D) $200 * X

$300:
* A) $395 * X
* B) $379 * X
* C) $400 * X
* D) $300 * X

$400:
* A) $445 * X
* B) $379 * X
* C) $400 * X
* D) $400 * X

$500:
* A) $495 * X
* B) $474 * X
* C) $500 * X
* D) $500 * X

$600:
* A) $545 * X
* B) $568 * X
* C) $600 * X
* D) $600 * X

$700:
* A) $595 * X
* B) $663 * X
* C) $620 * X
* D) $700 * X

$800:
* A) $645 * X
* B) $758 * X
* C) $620 * X
* D) $800 * X

$900:
* A) $695 * X
* B) $852 * X
* C) $620 * X
* D) $900 * X

$1000:
* A) $745 * X
* B) $947 * X
* C) $620 * X
* D) $1000 * X

It of course gets more complicated when you're talking about scenarios where you'd buy back before expiry, but this complexity affects all choices. The real question, for people considering selling off shares as a means of deleveraging... do the expected returns for this strategy at different SPs really reflect your assumed probabilities for various events?

Remember that if your concerns are only about short-term events, protective puts get a lot cheaper.

ED: Minor error in the above... I forgot to account for the fact that in B), you have fewer shares that you need to protect due to selling some to pay for the puts, so the returns for (B) are slightly higher than listed above.

Thanks Karen, this is extremely helpful and crystal clear. Maybe the first time I clearly understood what is meant by buying puts to deleverage.

For me, I think B is the best option and easiest to follow, but I would rather not sell any shares to buy the puts. (I know that was just an illustrative example to explain the math). I would rather spend extra money to buy the puts as 'insurance policy'. In that case, what is better - longer term puts with lower strike price or shorter term puts with higher strike price? For e.g June 19' 2020 puts with strike price $400 cost about the same as Jan' 15 2021 puts with strike price $340. Which provides a better insurance policy?
 
Another way to look at this is the stock reached the goal of the investment, so it was cashed out.

I can see how an investor can sell if their investment thesis no longer holds (and a better opportunity appears) - or if there is a deadline for when the cash is needed (for e.g. real estate) - but in the latter case TSLA would seem to volatile. Or if in retirement, one could cash out a small percentage every year.

But setting an arbitrary profit and selling when that is reached regardless of the time and other circumstances seems not entirely rational.
 
I drove the latest Model S, X and 3. While Model 3 is a fantastic car, S and X are better if cost is not a consideration. S and X should continue to get demand, terminating doesn't make sense. What could happen is they end the current S+X, put the resources on Y and truck, later introduce the next generation S+X.

I'm still in the camp that the Plaid S will be the introduction of the next gen S. Next gen X might come later on in 2020 or in 2021. Considering the body kits and add on's they were experimenting with at the track testing, I think we'll see a new exterior and probably the long rumored interior introduction with the Plaid.
 
While Model 3 is a fantastic car, S and X are better if cost is not a consideration.

Considerations also may include size, efficiency, handling, etc.

"Better" is subjective but it's objectively true that smaller cars are easier to maneuver in tight urban areas and the 3 is the lightest and most effiecient Tesla available to date.

Still plenty of buyers prefer the S and X so I don't see any reason why it'd go away. Choices are good!
 
Last edited:
I drove the latest Model S, X and 3. While Model 3 is a fantastic car, S and X are better if cost is not a consideration. S and X should continue to get demand, terminating doesn't make sense. What could happen is they end the current S+X, put the resources on Y and truck, later introduce the next generation S+X.

they’re not doing that. This whole “S/X end of life” malarkey is 100% nonsense from an established moron. Ignore it and move on.