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

[kanweg]

Lol, I doubt even Ford buffed up the panels like that. This car is sitting on display in the Hemmings Museum, so I'd look at them.

Cheers!

The glare by the sun would be killing for other road users.

In my town there is a roundabout that had a SS piece of art on it (I’m a nerd and I’m being polite now). At certain times it was a major nuisance.

I don’t want to know how it would have been if it had been buffed. but then, it wouldn’t be possible to see the object, so that would have been a plus. (Don’t look at art with remaining eye)

 

[copyhacker]

s

So, am I in time to baselessly speculate that a battery factory will be built in Australia for battery storage?

(If true, please put it next to a coal mine and hire all their employees. Double whammy).

Piedmont is an Australian company, but they have a mine in North Carolina (in the Piedmont region, even). This is one of the reasons a deal with Tesla makes sense.

 

[Drumheller]

Some points, I learned from this:

- First of all the case is not closed. The judge has granted a number of summary judgements, most in favor of Tesla, 1 in favor of Tripp ($167 million damages claimed by Tesla due to harm of stock price is denied), which means the scope of the case has been reduced but there are still issues to resolve either via trial or settlement.

- While it is clear that Tripp has violated the law and acted in bad faith and malice towards Tesla (as the judge has ruled) by selling confidential information to the press (there is proof that Linette at least promised to pay for the information !), on the other hand Tesla has not been all 100% factual in their portraying of the case either:

1. Tripp threatening to go on a shooting rampage claim of Tesla has proven to be baseless
2. Claiming that Tripp caused $167 million damages because it caused the share price to drop 78 cents on a trading day is a stretch that the judge did not buy either. We all know the share price fluctuates dozens of dollar any day on no news whatsoever, so pinning 78 cent drop on a FUD article does not pass the sniff test.
3. The most interesting for me was the details behind Tesla's claim that Tripp has "sabotaged" their systems to obtain information. It turns out from the court filing, that what Tesla claimed about "sabotaging the OS of their computers to extract and send out information" was in fact no more than writing a few SQL statements to extract data from a database. Now, excuse me while I roll around the floor laughing for a few minutes ... Sorry Tesla, but writing SQL statements to query a DB is very different from sabotaging an OS! That is a PR-stretch (on par with some crazy media FUD) I was not expecting from Tesla. Yet, this point was actually granted by the judge to Tesla, so they certainly hired better lawyers than Tripp.

So in conclusion, the truth is (as usual) somewhere in-between what either party was claiming. Sure, Tripp was the bad apple here, but Tesla was not playing squeaky clean either.

Speculation: Tesla could have received a warning implying a possible shooting. If a bad actor was paying an employee for illegal info, it is possible that bad actor, after learning their employee was fired, could call in a fake suspected shooter situation in order to further discredit thr now fired employee. That makes it potentially easier for thr bad actor to disavow association with fired employee and claim said ex employee is mentally unstable.

I have no evidence of this. Simply providing a scenario where both tesla and Tripp are telling the truth in regards to the claim of a possible shooting situation

 

[EinSV]

Some points, I learned from this:

- First of all the case is not closed. The judge has granted a number of summary judgements, most in favor of Tesla, 1 in favor of Tripp ($167 million damages claimed by Tesla due to harm of stock price is denied), which means the scope of the case has been reduced but there are still issues to resolve either via trial or settlement.

- While it is clear that Tripp has violated the law and acted in bad faith and malice towards Tesla (as the judge has ruled) by selling confidential information to the press (there is proof that Linette at least promised to pay for the information !), on the other hand Tesla has not been all 100% factual in their portraying of the case either:

1. Tripp threatening to go on a shooting rampage claim of Tesla has proven to be baseless
2. Claiming that Tripp caused $167 million damages because it caused the share price to drop 78 cents on a trading day is a stretch that the judge did not buy either. We all know the share price fluctuates dozens of dollar any day on no news whatsoever, so pinning 78 cent drop on a FUD article does not pass the sniff test.
3. The most interesting for me was the details behind Tesla's claim that Tripp has "sabotaged" their systems to obtain information. It turns out from the court filing, that what Tesla claimed about "sabotaging the OS of their computers to extract and send out information" was in fact no more than writing a few SQL statements to extract data from a database. Now, excuse me while I roll around the floor laughing for a few minutes ... Sorry Tesla, but writing SQL statements to query a DB is very different from sabotaging an OS! That is a PR-stretch (on par with some crazy media FUD) I was not expecting from Tesla. Yet, this point was actually granted by the judge to Tesla, so they certainly hired better lawyers than Tripp.

So in conclusion, the truth is (as usual) somewhere in-between what either party was claiming. Sure, Tripp was the bad apple here, but Tesla was not playing squeaky clean either.

With one minor exception, the judge disagrees with you.

He threw out Tripp's counterclaims, finding that Tripp couldn't prove that Elon/Tesla's statements were false:

"Tripp cannot show actual malice. Indeed, the Court finds he cannot even meet the lower bar of falsity."

"The gist of the First Challenged Statement is true. Musk’s email included a number of statements about Tripp, but none of them were false."

"The Court addresses the Second and Third Challenged Statements together because Tripp’s argument is the same as to both statements—that Musk and Tesla used some inexact variant of the phrase ‘shoot the place up' in describing the report they received about Tripp, even though the Tesla call center employee who received the report never used that exact phrasing in passing the threat along, and even after Tesla learned Tripp was not a credible active shooter threat.(ECF No. 177 at 23-27.) But Tripp cannot prevail as to either of these statements because they were true—Tesla did receive a report."

"In sum, because none of the four statements he challenges were false, Tesla is entitled to summary judgment on Tripp’s defamation counterclaim."

And while the Court did find Tesla's theory that Tripp caused damage by causing the stock price to drop too speculative, it dismissed Tripp's arguments that he couldn't be on the hook for $260K in investigative costs for one of the claims, plus punitive damages. On punitive damages, the Court said:

"A material factual dispute as to whether Tripp acted with malice in taking information without authorization and sharing it with Lopez precludes summary judgment on Tesla’s punitive damages claim. Because of the agreements he signed when Tesla hired him, Tripp had a duty not to disclose Tesla’s confidential information.... Tripp’s duty gave Tesla a corresponding right to not have Tripp breach his confidentiality obligations. Tripp understood this, but nonetheless shared information with Lopez he knew he was not authorized to share with her. (ECF No. 174-1 (sealed) at 8, 18.) He also admitted he tried to get other employees to talk to Lopez (id. at 22), which was prohibited (ECF No. 174-14 (sealed)). Tripp specifically wrote to Uelmen, “[o]h, if you are helpful you will get some money, I GUARANTEE you. There is stuff going on that I cannot tell anyone…it is GOOD though.” (ECF No. 171-7 at 2.) Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Tesla as the party opposing summary judgment, a rational trier of act could reasonably find Tripp acted in conscious disregard of Tesla’s rights. It would therefore be inappropriate to grant Tripp’s Motion as to this issue."

Bottom line: the Court agreed with Tesla on almost every major issue.

And with Tripp's counterclaims thrown out the only thing left for trial are Tesla's affirmative claims for damages, punitive damages, a permanent injunction and attorney's fees. Not a pretty picture for Mr. Tripp.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279.217.0_2.pdf

 

[phantasms]

Macros slowly recovering, TLSA less so. Unexpected at this level. Thoughts from those smarter than me [everyone] ?

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Macros slowly recovering, TLSA less so. Unexpected at this level. Thoughts from those smarter than me [everyone] ?

The nas is down almost 2% and $TSLA is up 2.5% and $TSLA isn't recovering?

 

[ZsoZso]

I didn’t get that from reading the summary judgement. Where was that stated?

Page 23, lines 12-28:

As to the report of the active shooter threat Musk and Tesla continued passing along to reporters even after they learned it was not credible, the Court agrees with Tesla this report was relevant to Tripp’s credibility as a participant in the public debate about Tesla’s operations that he injected himself into.(ECF No. 193 at 11-13.) In some key respects, the dispute that spun into this case pits Tripp’s word against Musk’s. As noted, Tripp first sought out reporters to report on what he viewed as unacceptably high levels of scrap and unused robots in Model 3 production lines by leading with,“[o]n several occasions Elon [Musk] has flatout lied to the public/investors.”(ECF No. 175-2(sealed).)Because Tripp believes Musk is a liar, and has, at this point, repeatedly said so publicly, Tripp’s credibility is germane to this controversy as well. And even drawing all inferences in Tripp’s favor,Musk and Tesla passing on a report that Tripp may commit a mass shooting even after they learned he was not going to is an attempt to undermine Tripp’s credibility—to undermine, in turn,his claim that Musk and Tesla lied to investors by spending too much money to hit unrealistic Model 3 production targets.And that is the public controversy: Model 3 production. Even relaying the active shooter report to reporters after police determined it was not credible is therefore germane to the controversy.

So the judge says that it is relevant to establish Tripp's credibility, but it is clear that the threat was not credible and Tesla knew it before they published it.

 

[kanweg]

Martin Viecha invites questions for BD

https://twitter.com/martinviecha/status/1307004654866194438?s=21

 

[lafrisbee]

Looks like they might not resume trading until 9/22 pending some kind of announcement

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200918/pdf/44mrws13fml7c0.pdf

somebody's going to outperform TSLA...
I thought the guy in the piedmont video was trying to sweet talk Elon when he said such nice things about Tesla....I didn't think they were already going to share a child.

 

[S3XY]

The problem is the ID.3 disappoint in major German (Auto Motor Sport & Auto Bild) tests not only with quality and material e.g. cheap plastic but also with range, not to mention charging infrastructure and costs.

The ID.4 has the same technology and because of its form factor will not be better in range and efficiency but rather worse.

...

Its 6-12 months ago that VW stated that they will deliver all that a Tesla has for half the price. If we look at the facts today, a ID.3 is about 70 to +100% of a Tesla and has much less to offer.

Well, they'll be half right when they cut their pricing in order to unload them.

 

[JBRR]

Tesla Tells Us How It Keeps Beating Nearly Everyone in Range Game

"
While the first Supercharger added roughly 70 miles of range to a Model S in 15 minutes, the current Model S gains 160 miles in the same time period. Unsurprisingly, Tesla told Car and Driver that the next Model S will support even quicker charging. The company's current Supercharger V3 supports a peak rate of 250 kW, which is supported by the Model S, Model X, and certain variants of the Model 3. So expect quicker charging coming from either a V4 Supercharger or an update to V3. Expect, too, a supported charge rate above 250 kW coming from the Model S and eventually other models in the Tesla lineup."

 

[mrjinglesusa]

Macros slowly recovering, TLSA less so. Unexpected at this level. Thoughts from those smarter than me [everyone] ?

Stocks go up, stocks go down. Investing 101.

Also, TSLA is volatile and goes up and down for no readily apparent reason(s).

 

[lafrisbee]

With one minor exception, the judge disagrees with you.

He threw out Tripp's counterclaims, finding that Tripp couldn't prove that Elon/Tesla's statements were false:

"Tripp cannot show actual malice. Indeed, the Court finds he cannot even meet the lower bar of falsity."

"The gist of the First Challenged Statement is true. Musk’s email included a number of statements about Tripp, but none of them were false."

"The Court addresses the Second and Third Challenged Statements together because Tripp’s argument is the same as to both statements—that Musk and Tesla used some inexact variant of the phrase ‘shoot the place up' in describing the report they received about Tripp, even though the Tesla call center employee who received the report never used that exact phrasing in passing the threat along, and even after Tesla learned Tripp was not a credible active shooter threat.(ECF No. 177 at 23-27.) But Tripp cannot prevail as to either of these statements because they were true—Tesla did receive a report."

"In sum, because none of the four statements he challenges were false, Tesla is entitled to summary judgment on Tripp’s defamation counterclaim."

And while the Court did find Tesla's theory that Tripp caused damage by causing the stock price to drop too speculative, it dismissed Tripp's arguments that he couldn't be on the hook for $260K in investigative costs for one of the claims, plus punitive damages. On punitive damages, the Court said:

"A material factual dispute as to whether Tripp acted with malice in taking information without authorization and sharing it with Lopez precludes summary judgment on Tesla’s punitive damages claim. Because of the agreements he signed when Tesla hired him, Tripp had a duty not to disclose Tesla’s confidential information.... Tripp’s duty gave Tesla a corresponding right to not have Tripp breach his confidentiality obligations. Tripp understood this, but nonetheless shared information with Lopez he knew he was not authorized to share with her. (ECF No. 174-1 (sealed) at 8, 18.) He also admitted he tried to get other employees to talk to Lopez (id. at 22), which was prohibited (ECF No. 174-14 (sealed)). Tripp specifically wrote to Uelmen, “[o]h, if you are helpful you will get some money, I GUARANTEE you. There is stuff going on that I cannot tell anyone…it is GOOD though.” (ECF No. 171-7 at 2.) Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Tesla as the party opposing summary judgment, a rational trier of act could reasonably find Tripp acted in conscious disregard of Tesla’s rights. It would therefore be inappropriate to grant Tripp’s Motion as to this issue."

Bottom line: the Court agreed with Tesla on almost every major issue.

And with Tripp's counterclaims thrown out the only thing left for trial are Tesla's affirmative claims for damages, punitive damages and a permanent injunction.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279.217.0_2.pdf

ORRRRRR...a plea deal if he rolls on the other side.

 

[Bet TSLA]

Macros slowly recovering, TLSA less so. Unexpected at this level. Thoughts from those smarter than me [everyone] ?

The Nasdaq is currently down 202 points (-1.85%). TSLA is up 12 (2.8%). Chill. Be pleased.

Meanwhile I have to decide what to do with my 10 445 short puts expiring today. Break even is just under 420, so it's just a question of how greedy to be.

 

[ZsoZso]

With one minor exception, the judge disagrees with you.

You mean, the judge disagrees with me on one minor exception,
I said exactly that

The judge has granted a number of summary judgements, most in favor of Tesla, 1 in favor of Tripp

So where do you get the alternative-fact that judge disagrees with me on most points ?

The only point I disagreed with the judge was regarding the "sabotaging of the OS":

Sorry Tesla, but writing SQL statements to query a DB is very different from sabotaging an OS! That is a PR-stretch (on par with some crazy media FUD) I was not expecting from Tesla. Yet, this point was actually granted by the judge to Tesla, so they certainly hired better lawyers than Tripp.

And I will not back down on this one. I do not care what qualifications the judge has on operating system coding versus SQL statements, my BSc, MSc and PhD in computer science as well as my 40+ year of experience in software development stands by my judgement on this one.

 

[UncaNed]

Stainless steel is commonly cast in sizes comparable to auto frames using a variety of casting techniques. It doesn't break the machines but I think it might have too high of a weight/strength ration to be used extensively in a car frame (not to mention cost).

I bet the Cybertruck will probably use aluminum alloy pressure casting for some of the chassis. Corrosion potential of dissimilar metals is solvable using a variety of techniques.

What chassis? It's supposed to be a monocoque design, no? The "chassis" is the body. Isn't that the whole idea?

 

[mikevbf]

somebody's going to outperform TSLA...
I thought the guy in the piedmont video was trying to sweet talk Elon when he said such nice things about Tesla....I didn't think they were already going to share a child.

Who knows, it might be someone supplying VW like LG or even Northvolt. I could see other companies wanting to catch some of the battery day limelight announcing partnerships or even acquisitions down chain.

 

[Tslynk67]

Maybe take the two-person SS stamping discussion to a more technical forum/thread?

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279/gov.uscourts.nvd.131279.217.0_2.pdf

For those who want to read the actual court decision from the Tripp suit.

TLDR; Cut to the chase...

V. CONCLUSION

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before the Court.

It is therefore ordered that Tripp’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 154) is granted in part, and denied in part, as specified herein.

It is further ordered that Tesla’s motion for summary judgment on Tripp’s counterclaims (ECF Nos. 155, 162 (sealed)) is granted.

It is further ordered that Tesla’s first motion to seal (ECF No. 161) is granted.
It is further ordered that Tesla’s second motion to seal (ECF No. 183) is granted. It is further ordered that Tesla’s third motion to seal (ECF No. 195) is granted.
It is further ordered that Tripp’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 197) is

denied.
DATED THIS 17th Day of September 2020.

 

[mrjinglesusa]

Meanwhile I have to decide what to do with my 10 445 short puts expiring today. Break even is just under 420, so it's just a question of how greedy to be.

Well, if you believe "they" want TSLA at $445-$450 and can manipulate the SP to end where "they" want, I'd hold out for a little more profit.

See? Up another $2 since you posted! (2:09 pm)

EDIT: Now up another $1! (2:10 pm)

 

[Tslynk67]

There are charts other than TSLA and QQQ?

Yes, be sure to add $*sugar*, $**** and $OMFG to your list...