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

[OrthoSurg]

There might be a few who would still want to buy cars from the OEM that partners with Tesla, but I think the number would be very low. The OEM's would be tarnishing their brand and loyalty by licensing battery/autonomous tech from Tesla.
Imagine, Daimler comes out with a partnership deal that they are going to be putting BMW's engine in their cars. Would you really buy them or the makers of the real technology themselves?

However, I do see a scenario where fleets could buy Legacy OEM cars with Tesla tech, because it might be operationally profitable. Although, I would give this scenario a smaller likelihood

Wasn’t it the Mazda 6 that had a Ford engine under the hood?

 

[Nocturnal]

You know what TSLA needs? They need one more person to start a site or channel dedicated to them. If just one more person could parasitize an income off TSLA/Musk, then surely the word would get out about this company and the price could move higher!

That's not a parasitic relationship, but rather a symbiotic one.

 

[MABMAB]

That's not a parasitic relationship, but rather symbiosis.

Nah, there are so many they run together and offer little in differentiation. How many ANALists are there guessing numbers right now?

Do you ever go grocery shopping for stuff and there is too much on the shelf to choose from? Like cereal, or maybe say your spouse sends you out for "cooking oil" Picture that aisle, aren't there like 100 of them? It would be easier if there were just 2, kind of like peanut butter used to be (Jif, Peter Pan, and store brand). Now one has to ANALize things on your own to determine which one is better, poly, mono, or die trans fats, high smoke point, low flavor, specialty, blends, veergin, first press etc.. In the same way, there are too many people that offer little different and offer me nothing other than confusion.

 

[space_s3x]

2̶1̶ 25 Guns By Green Day

Do you know what's worth fighting for
When it's not worth dying for?

Is the survival German ICE industry worth fighting for? Is it more important than fighting Climate Change?

... One, twenty o̶n̶e̶ five guns
Lay down your arms
Give up the fight
One, twenty o̶n̶e̶ five guns
Throw up your arms into the sky,
You and I

It's time to take peace with the new reality. Quit fighting for the dying ICE industry when an alternative is inviting you to serve greater good of humanity.

... Your faith walks on broken glass
And the hangover doesn't pass
Nothing's ever built to last
You're in ruins

It's not easy to swallow your pride but a major disruption is about to take you down anyways. Send your resume to [email protected].

 

[Knightshade]

Also, in my opinion,, the driver will ALWAYS ultimately be responsible for the actions of the vehicle up to the point at which the driver is "locked out" and denied the ability to control the vehicle. Just like the pilot of an aircraft is responsible for the safe operations of his/her aircraft even when operating in auto pilot.

Dan

That's not how the laws in most states that already allow self driving cars work though- they generally say something like this (FL law cited)



the automated driving system, when engaged, shall be deemed to be the operator of an autonomous vehicle, regardless of whether a person is physically present in the vehicle while the vehicle is operating with the automated driving system engaged.



So under that law the driving system is the driver in the liability sense, even if there's a human sitting there while it drives itself.

Said driving system (or the vehicle itself if you prefer, independent of the driver) will need (again in FL specifically- varies by state) $300,000 in both bodily liability and property damage coverage for trucks that have gross vehicle weight of 44,000 pounds or more. It’s less for vehicles that aren’t as heavy.

Also, there's a requirement for a $1 million insurance policy for death, injury and property damage for cars that operate as taxis.




This is yet another Big Opportunity for Tesla- as they'd be able to leverage offering their own insurance once they feel confident enough in their self driving systems to move beyond L2.

 

[Curt Renz]

I realize this has a political bent, but the election is over and the article's focus is on how a new US government's policies might affect EVs including Teslas.

IAM Newswire - 2 hours ago: Biden Presidency Is the Boost EVs Need

 

[Tslynk67]

S&P doesn't care much about the price, though they may act in the interest of their largest customers just by habit.

Volatility certainly feels like it's being purposely squashed, but there's plenty of other logical factors capping things(like a $400B valuation). As always it's probably a combination of natural and manipulative causes.

Regardless, TSLA in the grand scheme will do what it wants. I know nothing about charts and technical analysis trading, but to me the TSLA chart now looks "coiled", either to pop or drop. Since it's unlikely to drop a lot, I think our next logical move is pop. Maybe on 4Q deliveries and 100% growth guidance.

Imagine what happens to our current chart if inclusion happens Friday at close. We'd literally almost double as everyone scrambles to buy, cover, and hedge all these calls. Stimulus followed by inclusion and I think you get that kind of squeeze.

A rational person would buy LEAPs and sell on the volatility when it comes I guess. Not advice.

I'm not convinced that buying LEAPS after S&P announcement is wise. Why do I say that, well the resulting squeeze, if there even is one - because this is not a given, would be relatively short-lived, and then the SP would fall back down again, might even fall lower than it was, we do not know. Sure, we all say "less shares in circulation = smaller float, higher prices", well right now the float isn't being used by any stretch of the imagination, who's to say it won't be the same afterwards.

And then if you did buy LEAPS, who in their right mind would then buy them back off you at the peak of a squeeze, knowing it's going to fall back soon? That would be a poor trading decision. Weeklies, yes that's another matter, they may need to be covered, but LEAPS, wait-and-see.

I think the best play on S&P is a series of ascending sell orders, starting at your personal minimum sell price and then going up X dollars for each tranche. Pick a less obvious staring number, say $772, to avoid psychological resistance points, and then either add an arbitrary number, say $57 to the next tranche, or multiply by a factor, say 1.07. Again, avoid 800, 850, 900, etc., everyone puts their sell orders there.

Then either buy that island we've been talking about, or rebuy as-and-when it drops.

Only caveat is that pre-set sell orders only execute in main market, some might want to get in on the action on the AH the day it's announced.

Just my own thoughts, not an advice.

 

[GOVA]

Kind of OT:

Just checked Wikipedia for Germany and Texas total areas.

Area of Texas - 268,597 mi²
Area of Germany - 137,988 mi²

 

[amolina]

Wasn’t it the Mazda 6 that had a Ford engine under the hood?

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Ford and Mazda had a long partnership from 1974 to 2015. Ford used Mazda's platform in many models and they both helped each other develop each other's cars. Most car users probably don't know this.

However, with Tesla getting such polarised media attention, BMW,Daimler loyalists would care if their platform is from Tesla. They would get curious and would definitely question their faith. I agree that people are going to yearn diversity, but I just don't see legacy auto makers acquiring Tesla tech and surviving.

 

[Ameliorate]

I'm not convinced that buying LEAPS after S&P announcement is wise. Why do I say that, well the resulting squeeze, if there even is one - because this is not a given, would be relatively short-lived, and then the SP would fall back down again, might even fall lower than it was, we do not know. Sure, we all say "less shares in circulation = smaller float, higher prices", well right now the float isn't being used by any stretch of the imagination, who's to say it won't be the same afterwards.

And then if you did buy LEAPS, who in their right mind would then buy them back off you at the peak of a squeeze, knowing it's going to fall back soon? That would be a poor trading decision. Weeklies, yes that's another matter, they may need to be covered, but LEAPS, wait-and-see.

I think the best play on S&P is a series of ascending sell orders, starting at your personal minimum sell price and then going up X dollars for each tranche. Pick a less obvious staring number, say $772, to avoid psychological resistance points, and then either add an arbitrary number, say $57 to the next tranche, or multiply by a factor, say 1.07. Again, avoid 800, 850, 900, etc., everyone puts their sell orders there.

Then either buy that island we've been talking about, or rebuy as-and-when it drops.

Only caveat is that pre-set sell orders only execute in main market, some might want to get in on the action on the AH the day it's announced.

Just my own thoughts, not an advice.

I would agree with you on most stocks but the liquidity in Tesla and Tesla options is generally very high especially during a squeeze event. There was no problem buying/selling options/leaps of any kind in Feb 2019. I bought some near the top with a small portion of profits and bag held those into the ground, don't care. I did extremely well with options at that time. Lots of people FOMO and buy at the wrong time.

I really like buying LEAPS given all the recent news and the current suppressed share price / implied volatility.

 

[Mo City]

IV @ 62. Converted 100 shares to 2 Jan 23 450 calls. If it drops might have to do a few more of these.

Please correct me, but if a Jan 21, 2023 call costs $147.00, breakeven is ~$560 and to match the gain of buying 36 shares instead is $640.00.

I guess $640 is likely by Jan 2023 but there is a significant risk involved.

Full disclosure: I'm an options rookie.

 

[Curt Renz]

Wolfe's Rod Lache maintains Tesla Peer-Perform (Hold) rating and raises price target from $440 to $450.

StreetInsider - this morning:Tesla (TSLA) PT Raised to $450 at Wolfe Research.

 

[Mo City]

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Ford and Mazda had a long partnership from 1974 to 2015. Ford used Mazda's platform in many models and they both helped each other develop each other's cars. Most car users probably don't know this.

However, with Tesla getting such polarised media attention, BMW,Daimler loyalists would care if their platform is from Tesla. They would get curious and would definitely question their faith. I agree that people are going to yearn diversity, but I just don't see legacy auto makers acquiring Tesla tech and surviving.

Loyal BMW and Daimler customers love the look and feel of their brands and would have no problem with Tesla powertrains underneath.

The biggest objectors would be unions for BMW and Daimler. They would completely flip out.

 

[FS_FRA]

Point of interest: Just got e-mailed by Tesla ([email protected]) offering InsureMyTesla insurance for my MS.

Strange.... it's not Tesla insurance (rather BavariaDirect, a subsidiary of a German bank) and it's not managed by Tesla either - in fact it's managed by an insurance broker.

Only interesting thing is that they state that thanks to Autopilot you receive a discount on their standard rate.

First review of the offer is not interesting - >20% higher than my current rate.

I wonder if Tesla Insurance will ever make it's way here.

 

[Green Pete]

Point of interest: Just got e-mailed by Tesla ([email protected]) offering InsureMyTesla insurance for my MS.

Strange.... it's not Tesla insurance (rather BavariaDirect, a subsidiary of a German bank) and it's not managed by Tesla either - in fact it's managed by an insurance broker.

Only interesting thing is that they state that thanks to Autopilot you receive a discount on their standard rate.

First review of the offer is not interesting - >20% higher than my current rate.

I wonder if Tesla Insurance will ever make it's way here.

I think Tesla will eventually provide insurance anywhere where it offers robotaxi services. I would think germany is on that list.

 

[Tes La Ferrari]

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Ford and Mazda had a long partnership from 1974 to 2015. Ford used Mazda's platform in many models and they both helped each other develop each other's cars. Most car users probably don't know this.

However, with Tesla getting such polarised media attention, BMW,Daimler loyalists would care if their platform is from Tesla. They would get curious and would definitely question their faith. I agree that people are going to yearn diversity, but I just don't see legacy auto makers acquiring Tesla tech and surviving.

There has been co-operation in the automotive power plant world for a long time, and it continues to do this day..

Aston Martin uses AMG engines in the new Vantage. The engine was the most coveted part of that car for many Aston Martin enthusiasts.

The Porsche Cayenne has used a VW 6 cyl engine for years - even before VW became the parent company.

The Toyota Supra & BMW Z4 share engines.

The Range Rover Evoque uses a Ford 4 cyl engine.

Aston Martin even went so far as to have not just a toyota yaris engine in one of their cars - but they just rebadged the whole car (from a Toyota IQ)

Aston Martin Cygnet | Aston Martin | Aston Martin

FYI - 0-60 in a neck snapping 11.88 seconds

...and the list goes on..


There is a ton of consolidation that has been taking place in the automotive world - particularly the high end space, as engines are expensive to develop - particularly when you have to amortize the cost over a relatively small number of units.

It's not too far off for manufacturers to license a Tesla skateboard and for them to put their own bodies on it. - Supercharging access would be a bonus for them - and nice profit centre for Tesla - that could be used to expand the network further.

Elon has previously said he's open to it.

 

[elasalle]

Please correct me, but if a Jan 21, 2023 call costs $147.00, breakeven is ~$560 and to match the gain of buying 36 shares instead is $640.00.

I guess $640 is likely by Jan 2023 but there is a significant risk involved.

Full disclosure: I'm an options rookie.

Cost is $141, because I already sold a Jan 21 600 CC against it as short term insurance.
Leverage is like 3.5 [Leverage = (Delta*SP – OP)/OP]

Play is to take profits from low to high IV, say from 60 to 90+. I likely will also be selling/rolling CC's as time goes - if things stay stagnant.
Overall still bullish so lot will depend on how SP behaves. If all goes well and SP spikes a lot I will be closing these a lot earlier then keeping it till expiration.
& yes it is Risky .. but this 100 shares were based on OPM (Other Peoples Money) acquired by selling CC.
Not an Options expert, but not a rookie either, but having some good profits means can take bigger bets cheers!!

 

[Dan Detweiler]

That's not how the laws in most states that already allow self driving cars work though- they generally say something like this (FL law cited)



the automated driving system, when engaged, shall be deemed to be the operator of an autonomous vehicle, regardless of whether a person is physically present in the vehicle while the vehicle is operating with the automated driving system engaged.



So under that law the driving system is the driver in the liability sense, even if there's a human sitting there while it drives itself.

Said driving system (or the vehicle itself if you prefer, independent of the driver) will need (again in FL specifically- varies by state) $300,000 in both bodily liability and property damage coverage for trucks that have gross vehicle weight of 44,000 pounds or more. It’s less for vehicles that aren’t as heavy.

Also, there's a requirement for a $1 million insurance policy for death, injury and property damage for cars that operate as taxis.




This is yet another Big Opportunity for Tesla- as they'd be able to leverage offering their own insurance once they feel confident enough in their self driving systems to move beyond L2.

That is for an "automated driving system". Nobody has one of those yet. So, like I said, until the driver is locked out of manipulating control of the vehicle in some way, it is a driver assist feature where the driver is responsible.

Dan

 

[Knightshade]

Cost is $141, because I already sold a Jan 21 600 CC against it as short term insurance.
Leverage is like 3.5 [Leverage = (Delta*SP – OP)/OP]

Play is to take profits from low to high IV, say from 60 to 90+. I likely will also be selling/rolling CC's as time goes - if things stay stagnant.
Overall still bullish so lot will depend on how SP behaves. If all goes well and SP spikes a lot I will be closing these a lot earlier then keeping it till expiration.
& yes it is Risky .. but this 100 shares were based on OPM (Other Peoples Money) acquired by selling CC.
Not an Options expert, but not a rookie either, but having some good profits means can take bigger bets cheers!!

Related question because I'd been thinking about the whole 100 shares vs 2 LEAPs thing.

The 100 shares you can sell CCs with no extra fuss, you own the underlying- and I've done plenty of that.

When selling a CC using a LEAP as underlying instead of real shares though- do they require you to have enough cash or margin available in the account that you could exercise the LEAP if needed to cover the call if it gets exercised?

 

[Knightshade]

That is for an "automated driving system". Nobody has one of those yet. [

Correct- nobody does.

Well, Waymo does, but only in 1 specific city in Arizona in a way that's not scalable, but otherwise nobody does.

T
So, like I said, until the driver is locked out of manipulating control of the vehicle in some way, it is a driver assist feature where the driver is responsible.

Dan

That's simply not correct.

If the car can drive itself (ie it meets the definition of a self driving system under the law) and that system is "on" then the CAR is the driver.

There's no requirement to "lock out" the ability for a human to take back over from the automated system in the law.... just the opposite- it explicitly says even IF there's a qualified driver in the drivers seat, it's still the CAR that's responsible as the driver when the automated system is on.