You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Model S and X wait times have also been updated to 10-14 weeks in North America.
We're at 342 because Tesla stock has turned into a casino with people gambling. Fundamentals around the company's value will present themselves again in 3 weeks when Q3 numbers are out
The war against whom or what?
Shorts?
Climate?
Indexes?
Human extinction?
OEMs?
If the S&P's goal was to get Tesla to improve liquidity ahead of inclusion, it doesn't actually matter whether they do it before the announcement or not, since the index funds can't buy in advance, so those shares are in the market as part of the float now. I don't agree that S&P inclusion is off the table, nor that Tesla was tricked.Wait wut?
If they thought a catalyst was going to happen in a couple of days, they would have waited until after the catalyst to sell the shares.
They sold the shares before S&P announcement.
Why would they sell before if they were expecting inclusion?
Your logic makes absolutely no sense.
If GM is doing all the work, what value does Nikola bring to the table? The renderings?
Nikola is more like a company building a PC clone by outsourcing everything, while Tesla is more like Apple taking advantage of vertical integration. I don't see how anyone can compare Tesla and Nikola.
Yup!
The war against whom or what?
Shorts?
Climate?
Indexes?
Human extinction?
OEMs?
Stay humble.
This too shall pass.
Not sure what this boards obsession with nikolas failure is.There's nothing wrong with "gambling" on S&P inclusion IMO. It's a perfectly understandable event where shares must be purchased. Believing the SP is going to go up due to lack of available shares is sound fundamental market thinking.
The casino feel is at least half caused by small retail investors who want to invest in Tesla regardless of price. We can call that foolish, but it's not really gambling. Nikola on the other hand......
Of course they are real profits, but not generated directly by the manufacturingRegulatory credits are a viable source of income, as they are a cost on GM, Ford and FCAU's balance sheet, if they were to say "these aren't real profits" then they're rewriting accounting rules, which would be a very dangerous precedent.
wish I knew more about building , how is this all planned and executed.I just love these videos - Giga Berlin:
with stockprice at $343, levered up in my trading account by switching all common shares to Jun 2021 300 Calls. Gives me about 2.1x leverage.
breakeven around $412.
IV high and thus expensive but do I believe we will see $412 again only after Jun 2021? No.
now at a total delta of 13,600 across my trading acct and core shares. At beginning of year, was at about 900. hail volatility.
Interesting. So basically it's the same shell game NKLA has already been running.Well according to Karen's analysis, $NKLA are effectively paying $GM $2.7b - above my pay-grade to understand it all:
https://twitter.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1303309538444152832
This might be a blow out bottom. Just wish the volume was a little higher.This sell off is just getting steeper danm
You can post this again next year after split #2.Buying leaps with the same strikes I bought last year feels like Groundhog Day.
What does "À la guerre comme à la guerre" mean?
8 Answers
Gérard Briais
, knows French
Answered June 20, 2017 · Author has 4.2K answers and 12.3M answer views
Frenchman here.
Sorry but the primary meaning of this expression which dates from the 17th century is quite different from what the two previous answers have suggested:
In war times, resources and means are very often limited, and it is necessary to do so with the few resources available for the tasks of everyday life. So in critical situations, you have to do with what is available and not rely on outside help.
Nowadays, A la guerre comme à la guerre is still used in derisory way to highlight the negative aspects of a situation.
So the correct answer would be: Do with what you have.