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

[HG Wells]

Anybody notice how slow the brokers websites are ?
Takes forever, sometimes 30 seconds to bring up a Tesla buy or sell screen.
Was not like that a week ago.

 

[Rashomon]

I think while there might be some energy density improvements from the new cell technologies, I believe the main advantage is on the mass production scalability side. Announcements in that area won't Osborne existing cells.

I.e. I believe what Elon is going to announce are new approaches to production, new scales of production and lower capex per unit of production capacity - which will be very interesting to growth-investors but shouldn't concern buyers of the current vehicles.

Cost reductions often come from energy density improvements. It costs roughly the same to make a high-energy cell, but you need fewer of them in a pack. So count on both energy density changes and manufacturing efficiencies to be discussed. I sharply increased my Tesla holdings after CyberTruck was announced, the pricing of which implied breakthrough battery costs.

 

[jeewee3000]

Anybody notice how slow the brokers websites are ?
Takes forever, sometimes 30 seconds to bring up a Tesla buy or sell screen.
Was not like that a week ago.

Not sure if serious.

Just checked with my broker, seems fine.

 

[Dare]

Elon’s new techno song is pretty good, but I worry that he’s losing focus on the important stuff.

Important stuff like Teslaquila. All this stock ticker watching is making me thirsty, man.

Has anyone deciphered the cover? Mars through a porthole? Cake pan? Turntable? What’s the white circle in the center?

 

[ReflexFunds]

Speculation:

Will Tesla introduce their in-house better battery cells abruptly or gradually? By replacing all current cells or supplementing them? The consensus here seems to be gradually-by-supplementing. I tend to disagree. Consider the Osborne argument.

If Tesla announces dramatically better battery technology coming SOON, won't that hurt sales of cars with the inferior batteries? Even if only Plaid S/X and Semi get the new batteries first, won't a substantial number of 3/Y buyers assume they are coming to 3/Y and wait?

If I was a tech company with dramatically better tech in the pipeline, I would quietly test it, make damn-sure it is ready, sneak it into all my products, and THEN announce it. This is exactly what Tesla did with their first self-driving hardware.
All Tesla Cars Being Produced Now Have Full Self-Driving Hardware
Will Tesla do this again with their super-batteries?

Possibly supporting evidence:

1) The Maxwell, Hibar, and Jeff Dahn acquisitions occurred quite awhile ago. And presumably Tesla started testing the desired technology long before they paid for it.

2) Tesla has the ability to software-limit battery performance and unlock it later. Could cars start getting the new batteries in secret?

3) Tesla announced greater range for Model Y but not Model 3. Why one and not the other? Was it because Model Y can't be Osborned? (because it's not being delivered yet)

4) Tesla didn't promise profitability this quarter due to ramping up new products. Could those products include new batteries?

5) Tesla has proven ability to keep secrets (FSD hardware, Cybertruck design, etc.) and move faster than anybody expects.

6) Rumors of a major S/X refresh last year reportedly did hurt sales until Elon quashed the rumors. So Tesla is quite aware of the Osborne problem.

7) Battery Day is now promised for April, which presumably means after the Q1 Production/Delivery Report in early April but before the Earnings Report in late April. Isn't this the perfect time to wow the market and explain that Q1 earnings will be weak because of ramping costs, not weak sales?

8) Elon has bet the company on new technology before.

9) Anything else?

Possibly contradictory evidence:

1) To my knowledge, no one has reported new battery equipment or production. (But see #5 above.)

2) Maybe abrupt introduction is higher risk than gradual. (But see #8 above.)

3) Anything else?

Importance to investors:

Maybe not much. We already know TSLA has a megaton of positive catalysts coming soon: Shanghai ramp and expansion, Berlin construction, Model Y ramp, Solar Glass ramp, Semi launch, Full Self-Driving updates and revenue recognition, Fiat-Chrysler payments, tax allowance credits, S&P 500 inclusion, bond upgrades, and haloes from Crew Dragon and Starship and Starlink and Boring tunnels and Lord knows what else Elon delivers.

But a possible April announcement that all Tesla models have dramatically better batteries NOW (in April), not later, seems one more reason for TSLA longs to hang onto their heinies and their shares.

I think its very unlikely Tesla throws away battery capacity. As Elon has said multiple times, battery capacity and excellent engineering talent are the two fundamental constraints on growth rates.
LG and Panasonic are likely going to remain on long term contracts, for CATL however I think there's a chance Tesla signed a short term deal to accelerate growth in 2020 and 2021 and make use of unused cell capacity in China after the collapse in marketwide EV sales vs targets following the subsidy cuts last year.

I do think ideally Panasonic's cell lines can be upgraded with some of Tesla's in-house cell breakthroughs including Maxwell electrodes etc.
However I'm not sure Tesla would want to share its technology so closely with a third party. I think this upgrade would be much easier if Tesla buys Panasonic's GF1 business and its another reason i'd really like to see this acquisition in the coming months - particularly now that Tesla's share price growth makes acquisitions far cheaper than before.

I think Tesla's battery improvements are going to be primarily focussed on reducing cost rather than improving customer's features, and there's also room to continue improving the chemistry in the current cells alongside Tesla's next generation product.
I think the 1 million mile battery is primarily useful for Robotaxis, Semi and grid storage.
I do think however the new battery designs are likely to also allow a faster charge rate - perhaps an average charging curve that gets much closer to the maximum 250kW on the V3 superchargers.
Many of the breakthroughs Maxwell and Dahn have been working on do point to higher energy density in cells, but I think this may just mostly lead to less cells per car. And also they may trade off some of this improved energy density for better longevity. For example Maxwell tech may allow a higher cathode % per cell (and hence higher energy density for like for like chemistries), however this might be offset by moving to chemistries with lower cathode energy density (lower Nickel %) but higher cycle life and or higher charge rates. So cathode % up, but cathode density down - this could lead to cells with flat energy density vs the current tech, but much better cycle life, better charge rates and much lower production cost. But its also very possible that this does still balance out as higher cell energy density too.

 

[Rashomon]

Cost reductions often come from energy density improvements. It costs roughly the same to make a high-energy cell, but you need fewer of them in a pack. So count on both energy density changes and manufacturing efficiencies to be discussed. I sharply increased my Tesla holdings after CyberTruck was announced, the pricing of which implied breakthrough battery costs.

And, of course, battery cost dropping sharply will improve margins on M3 and MY, and allow price reductions to tailor demand.

 

[Tslynk67]

Is Gordon Johnson insane? After watching a couple of clips he seems very ...um...insane.
Classic spewing of "fact's" and stringing together many statistics in a oddly confrontational manner.

I think he needs help.

He's a paid shill - there's documented history of him being specifically employed to spew garbage. I'll see if I can find a reference to that...

 

[Tslynk67]

Been flying all day...(almost called in rich...probably will next week)
You folks sure do post a lot.

Of course I read almost every post.

But man after that run the stock has been as flat as my GF stomach.

Looking forward to getting home so I can dust off the crystal ball.

You have a Giga Factory? and it has a stomach??

 

[Chickenlittle]

I think its very unlikely Tesla throws away battery capacity. As Elon has said multiple times, battery capacity and excellent engineering talent are the two fundamental constraints on growth rates.
LG and Panasonic are likely going to remain on long term contracts, for CATL however I think there's a chance Tesla signed a short term deal to accelerate growth in 2020 and 2021 and make use of unused cell capacity in China after the collapse in marketwide EV sales vs targets following the subsidy cuts last year.

I do think ideally Panasonic's cell lines can be upgraded with some of Tesla's in-house cell breakthroughs including Maxwell electrodes etc.
However I'm not sure Tesla would want to share its technology so closely with a third party. I think this upgrade would be much easier if Tesla buys Panasonic's GF1 business and its another reason i'd really like to see this acquisition in the coming months - particularly now that Tesla's share price growth makes acquisitions far cheaper than before.

I think Tesla's battery improvements are going to be primarily focussed on reducing cost rather than improving customer's features, and there's also room to continue improving the chemistry in the current cells alongside Tesla's next generation product.
I think the 1 million mile battery is primarily useful for Robotaxis, Semi and grid storage.
I do think however the new battery designs are likely to also allow a faster charge rate - perhaps an average charging curve that gets much closer to the maximum 250kW on the V3 superchargers.

Panasonic May be bought out cheaper at gf1 than people think. Panasonic claimed they lose money there and they are at risk of losing their only customer there. I believe writing on Wall with purchase Hibar and new tech coming out. Original purpose of promoting the use of sustainable energy still in place but also lure of incredible financial success will likely make them less likely to share new battery tech

 

[Beltsbear]

View attachment 506290

Has anyone deciphered the cover? Mars through a porthole? Cake pan? Turntable? What’s the white circle in the center?

The pic is of an audio CD with center hole cutout.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Today is options expiry day: open interest is 378,000 contracts, which is very large and reflective of the split bear/bull opinion about earnings.

Here's the summarized open interest for all open expiries, as of today:

2020/Jan/31:  PUTs:   202,053 ; CALLs:   176,763
2020/Feb/07:  PUTs:    62,425 ; CALLs:    80,234
2020/Feb/14:  PUTs:    21,325 ; CALLs:    18,996
2020/Feb/21:  PUTs:   239,701 ; CALLs:   115,669
2020/Feb/28:  PUTs:    11,044 ; CALLs:    14,859
2020/Mar/06:  PUTs:     2,203 ; CALLs:     3,115
2020/Mar/13:  PUTs:       124 ; CALLs:        50
2020/Mar/20:  PUTs:   170,994 ; CALLs:   105,195
2020/Apr/17:  PUTs:    18,880 ; CALLs:    20,087
2020/May/15:  PUTs:    28,694 ; CALLs:    24,720
2020/Jun/19:  PUTs:   209,438 ; CALLs:    66,877
2020/Jul/17:  PUTs:    13,055 ; CALLs:    10,899
2020/Aug/21:  PUTs:    11,170 ; CALLs:     5,075
2020/Sep/18:  PUTs:    29,615 ; CALLs:    13,340
2020/Oct/16:  PUTs:     6,148 ; CALLs:     2,977
2021/Jan/15:  PUTs:   241,426 ; CALLs:   114,423
2021/Mar/19:  PUTs:    15,868 ; CALLs:     9,907
2021/Jun/18:  PUTs:    25,764 ; CALLs:    26,236
2021/Sep/17:  PUTs:     2,670 ; CALLs:     2,782
2022/Jan/21:  PUTs:    37,363 ; CALLs:    31,601
2022/Jun/17:  PUTs:     9,398 ; CALLs:    17,049
      total:  PUTs: 1,359,358 ; CALLs:   860,854

('1' in the open interest table above represents a 100 shares size standard Nasdaq TSLA options contract.)

Here is an update to options open interest presented in a slightly different format than usual - instead of just posting today's open interest, here's the change in the open interest during the trading day yesterday, split into a put and a call side for easier reading:

In the first table there's the changes to the call open interest:

   January 29                                      January 30
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   CALL   490:   2,003 |##                         CALL   490:   1,712 |##             
   CALL   500:   3,214 |###                        CALL   500:   2,176 |##             
   CALL   510:   1,976 |##                         CALL   510:   1,784 |##             
   CALL   520:   1,564 |##                         CALL   520:   1,191 |#               
   CALL   530:   1,890 |##                         CALL   530:   1,709 |##             
   CALL   540:   3,223 |###                        CALL   540:   2,549 |###             
   CALL   550:   2,923 |###                        CALL   550:   2,576 |###             
   CALL   560:   4,478 |####                       CALL   560:   4,086 |####           
   CALL   570:   5,319 |#####                      CALL   570:   4,431 |####           
   CALL   580:   6,112 |######                     CALL   580:   4,547 |#####           
   CALL   590:   6,504 |#######                    CALL   590:   5,121 |#####           
   CALL   600:  12,938 |#############              CALL   600:   9,941 |##########     
   CALL   610:   5,599 |######                     CALL   610:   4,621 |#####           
   CALL   620:   4,014 |####                       CALL   620:   3,918 |####           
   CALL   630:   6,224 |######                     CALL   630:   6,451 |######         
   CALL   640:   6,852 |#######                    CALL   640:   5,877 |######         
   CALL   650:   9,868 |##########                 CALL   650:  12,429 |############   
   CALL   660:   6,690 |#######                    CALL   660:   9,099 |#########       
   CALL   670:   3,013 |###                        CALL   670:   5,942 |######         
   CALL   680:   4,311 |####                       CALL   680:   5,663 |######         
   CALL   690:   1,462 |#                          CALL   690:   2,765 |###             
   CALL   700:   7,519 |########                   CALL   700:  10,496 |##########     
   CALL   710:   2,582 |###                        CALL   710:   2,628 |###             
   CALL   720:   3,503 |####                       CALL   720:   3,443 |###             
   CALL   730:   3,763 |####                       CALL   730:   3,298 |###             
   CALL   740:   3,080 |###                        CALL   740:   2,664 |###             
   CALL   750:   3,984 |####                       CALL   750:   4,554 |#####           
   CALL   760:     792 |#                          CALL   760:   1,118 |#               
   CALL   770:     593 |#                          CALL   770:     773 |#               
   CALL   780:     599 |#                          CALL   780:     676 |#               
   CALL   790:     797 |#                          CALL   790:     998 |#               
   CALL   800:   4,504 |#####                      CALL   800:   4,465 |####

A fair portion of the lower strikes were rolled forward or exercised, and a number of $650+ short term weekly bets were made. These would expire worthless if TSLA closes below $650.

The put side is even more interesting:

 January 29                                      January 30
 PUT   490:   4,436 |####                        PUT   490:   3,768 |####           
 PUT   500:  17,128 |#################           PUT   500:  13,988 |############## 
 PUT   510:   5,352 |#####                       PUT   510:   4,787 |#####           
 PUT   520:   8,413 |########                    PUT   520:   7,630 |########       
 PUT   530:   6,551 |#######                     PUT   530:   5,852 |######         
 PUT   540:   6,671 |#######                     PUT   540:   6,205 |######         
 PUT   550:   5,377 |#####                       PUT   550:   5,264 |#####           
 PUT   560:   4,075 |####                        PUT   560:   3,467 |###             
 PUT   570:   4,418 |####                        PUT   570:   4,172 |####           
 PUT   580:   3,419 |###                         PUT   580:   4,231 |####           
 PUT   590:   2,676 |###                         PUT   590:   3,457 |###             
 PUT   600:   2,006 |##                          PUT   600:   7,524 |########       
 PUT   610:     364 |                            PUT   610:   4,224 |####           
 PUT   620:     196 |                            PUT   620:   5,459 |#####           
 PUT   630:     220 |                            PUT   630:   8,656 |#########       
 PUT   640:     165 |                            PUT   640:   5,539 |######         
 PUT   650:     718 |#                           PUT   650:  11,269 |###########     
 PUT   660:     809 |#                           PUT   660:     848 |#               
 PUT   670:     276 |                            PUT   670:     317 |               
 PUT   680:      23 |                            PUT   680:     125 |               
 PUT   690:      40 |                            PUT   690:     105 |               
 PUT   700:     233 |                            PUT   700:     291 |

Around 50k bearish put contracts were established yesterday in what was effectively vacuum before.

The combined open interest for only today looks like this:

 PUT   550:   5,264 |#####               |   CALL   550:   2,576 |###                 |
 PUT   560:   3,467 |###                 |   CALL   560:   4,086 |####                |
 PUT   570:   4,172 |####                |   CALL   570:   4,431 |####                |
 PUT   580:   4,231 |####                |   CALL   580:   4,547 |#####               |
 PUT   590:   3,457 |###                 |   CALL   590:   5,121 |#####               |
 PUT   600:   7,524 |########            |   CALL   600:   9,941 |##########          |
 PUT   610:   4,224 |####                |   CALL   610:   4,621 |#####               |
 PUT   620:   5,459 |#####               |   CALL   620:   3,918 |####                |
 PUT   630:   8,656 |#########           |   CALL   630:   6,451 |######              |
 PUT   640:   5,539 |######              |   CALL   640:   5,877 |######              |
 PUT   650:  11,269 |###########         |   CALL   650:  12,429 |############        |
 PUT   660:     848 |#                   |   CALL   660:   9,099 |#########           |
 PUT   670:     317 |                    |   CALL   670:   5,942 |######              |
 PUT   680:     125 |                    |   CALL   680:   5,663 |######              |
 PUT   690:     105 |                    |   CALL   690:   2,765 |###                 |
 PUT   700:     291 |                    |   CALL   700:  10,496 |##########          |
 PUT   710:      33 |                    |   CALL   710:   2,628 |###                 |
 PUT   720:      54 |                    |   CALL   720:   3,443 |###                 |
 PUT   730:      34 |                    |   CALL   730:   3,298 |###                 |
 PUT   740:      33 |                    |   CALL   740:   2,664 |###                 |
 PUT   750:      29 |                    |   CALL   750:   4,554 |#####               |

Put contracts are now almost as heavily present in the $600-$650 range as call contracts, and there's a lot of incentives for call writers to keep the price below $650. The $650 barrier observed yesterday was partly maintained from the delta hedging required by the 50k new short contracts established.

Should $650 break decisively, the delta hedging feedback loop outlined by @ReflexFunds in previous posts should help the price propel up - but there's a similar volatility enhancement on the way down as well.

High volumes like we have post earnings report tend to limit the influence of the MMs.

 

[Dare]

The pic is of an audio CD with center hole cutout.

I figured it was something simple...thanks.

 

[Fobble]

TSLA open shorts drops to 17.5% after Q4 earning from ~19% previous week.
Below is a summary report from CNBC:

• Investors betting against Elon Musk’s electric-auto maker Tesla collectively lost more than $1.5 on Thursday after its solid earnings, according to data firm S3 Analytics.
• Tesla short sellers are now down more than $5.2 billion this year in mark-to-market losses after losing $2.89 billion in 2019.
• Since the stock’s June low, Tesla shorts have covered 19.11 million shares, worth $11.1 billion, and are down $12.43 billion in mark-to-market losses.

 

[j6Lpi429@3j]

Disagree. I'd say we need a factor of four to end all discussions once and for all (half the price and double the capacity per volume or mass). Cycle count seems to be no issue right now anymore with a large enough battery.

People can eventually be persuaded by their friends that yup, current electric car range is fine given your tank starts full each morning.
There is no easy way to persuade people used to paying $15k for a car that cars now cost $35k.

Make the cars cheaper, not faster, and not longer range. The market for really AFFORDABLE electric cars is way bigger than the market for the current model 3. The model 3 is seen as an affordable luxury car to most drivers in the UK.

 

[Tslynk67]

Gang, I had a bright idea today, which I posted in the Options Strategy thread, bit given that most of you would not venture there I post a link and reproduce below (please answer in the thread though if you have advice): Options trading strategy/advice

Thanks to options, looks like I'm likely to get around $100k to play with in my trading account, slightly up from the $3k I started with

I was thinking how to grow this quickly and came to the following strategy:
- every week - likely Friday, sell a covered put (just 1x100) slightly below the trading range for the following week = pocket the premium
- using Opricot as a guide, most of the time the option will expire worth less
- if it is exercised, I buy the stock, then sell a covered call with similar parameters = pocket the premium
- when exercised, switch back to put

Seems foolproof to me? I cannot lose.

Convince me I'm wrong...

 

[Prunesquallor]

TSLA open shorts drops to 17.5% after Q4 earning from ~19% previous week.
Below is a summary report from CNBC:

• Investors betting against Elon Musk’s electric-auto maker Tesla collectively lost more than $1.5 on Thursday after its solid earnings, according to data firm S3 Analytics.
• Tesla short sellers are now down more than $5.2 billion this year in mark-to-market losses after losing $2.89 billion in 2019.
• Since the stock’s June low, Tesla shorts have covered 19.11 million shares, worth $11.1 billion, and are down $12.43 billion in mark-to-market losses.

For context, Exxon-Mobile 2019 revenues: $275 billion. Acceptable business expenses?

 

[EinSV]

I mean if you look at MSFT/AAPL/GOOG - they have 100B in cash. Tesla should get to that level before thinking of buying back shares.

As I said in my previous post, I agree with you about buybacks. Seems like a waste of time to even discuss it since there is a zero percent chance it happens any time soon.

I think you are making too much of the cheap loan to build GF3 and reuse of Model 3 expensive capex for Model Y. Lets see how much GF4 costs.

I believe a large portion of the $TSLA investment community is missing something very fundamental about Tesla's business, which is that capex per vehicle is plummeting and will soon be far lower than traditional ICE auto manufacturing.

This is not a one-off, it is a clear trend that will transform the business, making it much easier to continue to scale quickly while being cash flow positive.

Here's some support for this belief:

• Tesla had only $1.3B in capex in 2019 (below projections), and in the Q3 report forecast only $2-$2.5B/Y in capex for 2020 and 2021, while planning to grow 50%+/year
  • $1.3B in capex in 2019 allowed capacity to grow from 350K/year to 640K/year
    
  • If Tesla grows 50% per year, revenues in 2021 will increase by $30B/year v. 2019 ($55.4B v. $24.6B), with an expenditure of only ~$5B in capex, which is crazy efficient
    
  • Since Elon did not answer the capex question on the call this week, capex projections could change when the 10K comes out but even if it goes up to $3-4B/year it will be a drop in the bucket compared to the increased revenue over the next two years from GF3, GF4, Model Y, Cybertruck, etc.
• Cybertruck will require radically less capital than a traditional truck
  • Sandy Munro says roughly 1/6 of F150 capex depending on volume
    
  • Sam Korus of Ark estimates $4,340 per unit capacity v. $14,000 for a typical ICE Sam Korus on Twitter
• EVs are much simpler to build than ICE
  • Per the Sam Korus tweet linked above even traditional auto mfrs believe EVs will require only 1/2 the capex per unit as ICE
  • Pierre Ferragu reported that Model 3 production had radically fewer steps than traditional auto (40 v. 130-200) Tesla Model 3 Production Process Simplicity: 40 Steps In 90 Minutes
  • Since Model 3 was Tesla's first mass produced EV and many mistakes were made (typical for a first effort) it should be easy to improve dramatically on Model 3 Fremont capex in future factories and future vehicles (including Model Y)
• Wright's law applies to capex. As Tesla moves up the experience curve capex per unit is expected to drop, and it isn't hard to imagine radical capex improvements from the very first effort to mass produce EVs in history (Model 3)
  
• Elon, Zach and Jerome have all repeatedly emphasized the importance of finding ways to become capex efficient, including again on the call this week. Tesla has proven to be very good at cost cutting and they have been laser focused on reducing capex per unit production as well.

The other thing to note is that often manufacturers improve their sales to capital ratios by outsourcing as much manufacturing as possible (Apple is a good example). But Tesla is using far less capex per vehicle than legacy while being far more vertically integrated, which makes it an even more impressive feat. Signs point to it becoming even more vertically integrated with potentially bring cell production in-house which will increase capex needs, but the Maxwell process should also drastically reduce the amount of capital needed to build cells.

Generating much more revenue per dollar capex will have many benefits for Tesla, including obvious ones like reduced costs, better cash flow, less need for external capital, and a better balance sheet. Having less capex invested per unit production will also give it much more flexibility to continue to innovate rapidly and update its production processes without being handcuffed to expensive equipment.

I think it's likely that in a few years Tesla will generate as much revenue per dollar capex as many tech companies. While some of this is due to it selling software bundled into the car, it is also due to improved capex efficiency. Of course the two overlap to some extent -- for example one way to radically reduce capex is to put everything on a screen, and not have to buy the equipment to build and assemble a bunch of moving parts. Software and AI in the manufacturing process can also radically reduce capex as more productivity is generated from robots and other manufacturing equipment.

Tesla's capex efficiency is yet another reason (of many) it should not be valued like a traditional auto company.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Panasonic May be bought out cheaper at gf1 than people think. Panasonic claimed they lose money there and they are at risk of losing their only customer there. I believe writing on Wall with purchase Hibar and new tech coming out. Original purpose of promoting the use of sustainable energy still in place but also lure of incredible financial success will likely make them less likely to share new battery tech

I think you may be right. The question would be more about the Osaka plant. During the last ER call they were asked when S/X will move to 2170. Not only did they confirm, again, for the 100th time it is not happening/not important as the chemistry is the same between the old and new cells, but they also said (I think ti was "new JB"), that they would not want to give up the Japanese cell capacity. They seemed pretty determined to keep using those factories for S/X as they need everything else for 3/Y and the upcoming products.

So, going with your logic, they either buy those facilities as well, or S/X don't get the updated tech, which would leave them behind 3/Y and further decrease sales.

 

[elasalle]

Panasonic May be bought out cheaper at gf1 than people think. Panasonic claimed they lose money there and they are at risk of losing their only customer there. I believe writing on Wall with purchase Hibar and new tech coming out. Original purpose of promoting the use of sustainable energy still in place but also lure of incredible financial success will likely make them less likely to share new battery tech

Musk flew to Japan. On C/C he stressed the Panasonic partnership.
So I think there are on good terms, and IP might be shared going forward. cheers!!

 

[elasalle]

Wall Street Investor vs Retail Investor