Krugerrand
Meow
This is ironic given what you posted about the meaningless stock split.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
This is ironic given what you posted about the meaningless stock split.
Agree. Even Ross Gerber, arguably one of the most vocal and most articulating Tesla bull analysist had an episode.
Last year when Tesla started to take off and reached a price of either 400 or 500, Ross's tune changed. For a couple of days he started to tweet stuff like: This is the once in a life time chance, don't let you profit slip away, Lock in your profit, etc.
Some people's response was spot on: "Ross, did you sell too early?"
I will be happy to let my Model Y with 5 kid seats on the Robo-taxis network for other parents.
right now I have a dodge caravan and a Model 3 and waiting for the 7 seater model Y, I am used to installing 3 kid seats in my Model 3 within a minute and we travelled with the kids and 4 kid seats we managed to install them in rental cars within 2 minutes. Kids are so used to the kids seats swap they they are helping us better than any grand parents could do.
just have to get used to it. Now they just get their seats out of my Model 3 without me even asking because they bring it in the Dodge Caravan after when my wife is using it during the day for groceries.
getting in and out couple kid seats and a stroller takes less than the time of getting the grocery out of the car when your used to it. That’s why I was reluctant to agree with Dave Lee’s point about parents wanting to pay $500 monthly for the privilege to own a car because of car seats, baby clothes, diapers and kid seat. I have all that in a bag and can do the swap in less than 2 minutes.
I would prefer to have no car at home and hail Robo-taxis for a monthly $50 subscription service than pay $500 monthly just to have a car parked in my driveway where the kids constantly play anyway.
I might be an outlier though, we live from walking distance to school, local market, restaurants and stores. We take the car only to go at Costco once every 2-3 weeks.
Disclosure: I am an early adopter and own all disruptive stocks that exist through TSLA and all ARK funds.
I think some of these points won't sink in until they are tried. People will be adamant they need their own car until they see one of their friends doing the same thing without one and then they'll give it a go.
Robotaxis will likely also adapt to meet the need too (as others have said). why cart around baby seats when you can just order a car that comes with one. There could be a myriad of optimisations to cart kids around if needed. Robotaxis with exrta screens, a tailgate for baby changing, a fridge for breastmilk. You might just rent one for the day rather than just the trip so you can leave things in the car if you really want. 100 little adaptations will be available to create a great solution.
I will be happy to let my Model Y with 5 kid seats on the Robo-taxis network for other parents.
right now I have a dodge caravan and a Model 3 and waiting for the 7 seater model Y, I am used to installing 3 kid seats in my Model 3 within a minute and we travelled with the kids and 4 kid seats we managed to install them in rental cars within 2 minutes. Kids are so used to the kids seats swap they they are helping us better than any grand parents could do.
just have to get used to it. Now they just get their seats out of my Model 3 without me even asking because they bring it in the Dodge Caravan after when my wife is using it during the day for groceries.
getting in and out couple kid seats and a stroller takes less than the time of getting the grocery out of the car when your used to it. That’s why I was reluctant to agree with Dave Lee’s point about parents wanting to pay $500 monthly for the privilege to own a car because of car seats, baby clothes, diapers and kid seat. I have all that in a bag and can do the swap in less than 2 minutes.
I would prefer to have no car at home and hail Robo-taxis for a monthly $50 subscription service than pay $500 monthly just to have a car parked in my driveway where the kids constantly play anyway.
I might be an outlier though, we live from walking distance to school, local market, restaurants and stores. We take the car only to go at Costco once every 2-3 weeks.
Disclosure: I am an early adopter and own all disruptive stocks that exist through TSLA and all ARK funds.
I think there are subtleties you're not accounting for.
Normally, I'd have been happy to use your Y with 5 car seats. Except yesterday, we took two grandparents, four kids, and me to the park. Is there even room to stow an unwanted car seat if all 7 seats in the Y are taken? We've also gone through all kinds of combinations of rear-facing seats, at least two varieties of front-facing seats, boosters with a back, boosters without a back, etc. What if we want the kind where the seat with the sleeping baby detaches from the in-car base and can be put into a stroller frame or carried around? It's not a given that a generic "5 car seats" would have worked.
So what if we use your "we can install our own seats" strategy -- and want to go to dinner. Does the restaurant need to provide secure storage for multiple car seats and a bag of spare clothes, diapers, and cleaning supplies for each family? Or what if we go to the mall (ha ha, like anybody does that any more) and we won't even be in the same place the whole time and might want to get picked up at the other end? Is there a penalty for having "our" robotaxi just park with all our crap and wait? Kind of defeats the purpose of 100% utilization, but I don't want to pay $50 in extra waiting fees just to not lug my crap through the mall.
Now we go on a highway trip, and a kid suddenly announces they urgently need to pee -- like, more urgently than the next exit. Can we have the robotaxi pull over somewhere on the side of the highway with enough space to be out of danger from passing traffic and a bit of privacy?
Then a kid throws up. Can we make it make an unscheduled stop, maybe on the shoulder of the next exit ramp or something, so we can clean up the kid and the car?
Or maybe it's close enough to our destination that we'll hang on for five minutes and clean up there. If we all get out at our destination, how does it know not to leave because we're still planning to clean it up, but we just have to attend to the kid(s) first? How does it know when we're done cleaning it up and it's OK to leave? It can't make eye contact and assess the situation like a taxi driver. Is it always going to be relying on us to "release" it when it's OK to go? I guess it will remind us in case we're forgotten? You can imagine the scene... one parent trying to herd the clean kids so they don't play tag right into the road, one parent cleaning and changing the screaming toddler out in the cold air because there's no warm table handy, you can't remember how to make the frunk open because it's not your car and the controls are different, everybody's surrounded by vomit and sort of freaking out, a kind soul slows down and opens their window to say "you look like you could use some help" and meanwhile the car's nagging "Are you done yet? Are you done yet?" The Chevy Chase movie script just writes itself...
All that stuff is solvable, but I think it will require some adjustments to our worldview, to the robotaxi software and vehicles, and perhaps to the facilities around us... I don't think it's near as simple as "other parents will robotaxi their cars, problem solved."
Would definitely be easier if Tesla made a minibus for lugging large families around.
LiveLong&Profit
Member
That may be a requirement.
On the other hand: Plenty of smart people have made compelling cases re. the operational cost-basis of ICE versus EV both as private individuals but especially as a fleet owner. I don't have the quotes ready, but the overwhelming consensus is that ICE vehicles have no chance competing against EVs as robo-taxis. It is not even close: EVs win hands down.
So, should it come to pass that some ICE entity should wish use a future DOJO cloud service that may be allowed.
Sooner or later they will discover that it is not really a solid business-case.
Tesla will just consider their money as a donation for furthering the mission.
They really don't. The skills I was taught in my MBA program are great for understanding the basics of how a company is valued, especially those in mature industries with no or low growth. Those models fail completely with a company like Tesla undergoing such a "crazy" event as inclusion. It's no longer a basic finance model, but also includes macroeconomics, human psychology, social trends, technological trends etc. Gary has been a steady Tesla bull but I'm not sure he really gets it.
Car seats are definitely a question I have around robotaxi. That's one of the reasons I don't see private ownership going away anytime soon. I'm at a point where I just have to deal with booster seats. Even those are a pain in the A to remove and reinstall as needed. (especially with how hard the brackets are to access in the 3) This is also why I'm planning/hoping to buy a few cybertrucks for taxi purposes. The extra interior volume and storage will help a ton with this stuff. Plus I won't have to worry about door dings and whatnot.
Frankly, even Elon is surprised at the stock valuation.
I am certain the high valuation pushes him to aim higher and further achieve.
It’s a very positive feedback loop.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Last edited:
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Tony Seba, for one, made the case that EV robotaxis will be 4-10x cheaper than car ownership. He expects the vast majority of miles driven to be via robotaxi by 2030
Around the 35 minute mark.
Good video to watch during your lunch break.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
Just had a sudden realization about robototaxis.
As someone who doesn't really need the extra income, and lives somewhere rural (not exactly an uber service in all these fields) I had always assumed that robotaxi would be useless for me, and people like me, who live in super-low density locations/.
But no.
EVERYONE in my village drives, as we have one bus per day (so yeah...there is ONE guy who uses it, he is the only one), and we all have cars. But actually, there are probably quite a few people using their car maybe once or twice a week maximum. Many are retired, and a lot of us get shopping delivered anyway. So unlike a city where our cars are 90% not being used, here its more like 99% unused...
If I could allow my robotaxi to be used only by a pre-selected list of people, I'd likely do it as a community service. Some old lady who lives a few doors from me and needs the car twice a week to pop to the nearby town to meet her friends... I'm fine with that. Why not?
Everyone focuses on the city-scenario where owning a car is inconvenient and robotaxi is the new uber. Thats true, but robotaxi could also be the new rural-car-club.
As someone who doesn't really need the extra income, and lives somewhere rural (not exactly an uber service in all these fields) I had always assumed that robotaxi would be useless for me, and people like me, who live in super-low density locations/.
But no.
EVERYONE in my village drives, as we have one bus per day (so yeah...there is ONE guy who uses it, he is the only one), and we all have cars. But actually, there are probably quite a few people using their car maybe once or twice a week maximum. Many are retired, and a lot of us get shopping delivered anyway. So unlike a city where our cars are 90% not being used, here its more like 99% unused...
If I could allow my robotaxi to be used only by a pre-selected list of people, I'd likely do it as a community service. Some old lady who lives a few doors from me and needs the car twice a week to pop to the nearby town to meet her friends... I'm fine with that. Why not?
Everyone focuses on the city-scenario where owning a car is inconvenient and robotaxi is the new uber. Thats true, but robotaxi could also be the new rural-car-club.
This exactly! Friends and relatives of mine opened 3 more Brokerage accounts at my prodding last week. One particularly bright enthusiastic couple - he's familiar with game theory (been looking fruitlessly for a game board graphic designer) - will most certainly trade their way up to Model Y ownership.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I see the "worries" and "concerns" have started.
1) There is no such thing as a concerning "too high a rise in SP". If the shares go too high, they will come back down. Problem solved. Those of us who are long-term holders have seen that happen in the past and are certain to see it happen in the future. It's called "volatility" and is not "concerning" at all if you are expecting it. This is why you don't want to think of shares as "money". Instead, think of them as fractional ownership of the company.
2) The market takes care of share price equilibrium - it's not management's job.
3) It would be great if Tesla raised more capital at $700-$800/share. But they know better than we how efficiently they can spend the cash they already have on hand and whether more could be deployed to speed the growth of production. So I'll let management deal with that.
4) The best answer is that S&P is likely to remain consistent within the S&P's original guidance as to how they implement the exact timing of inclusion. If so, TSLA would be 100% reflected in the S&P 500 Index by December 21. Of course, in real life, surprises are always possible and we have discussed those at some length previously. In the end, those kind of surprises don't matter to long-term investors (although traders could be killed by them). A long-term investor might actually benefit from inclusion spread over several quarters since it would spread out periods of guaranteed buying which would likely attract many more longer-term share holders at the front-end of the inclusion process.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Even Obsborne didn't actually Osborne themselves- there's a lot of urban legend around how much this actually happens.
Yes- his video has been discussed in this thread numerous times- real world #s are already behind his optimistic predictions- and his claims regarding how fast we moved from horse to car are way way off and seem largely based on 2 100+ year old photos from NYC that have already been largely debunked as informative of the actual speed of change.
(again you can find detailed discussion of this earlier in the thread- no point in rehashing it at length, but TLDR is he showed 2 parade pics about a decade (roughly 1900ish and 1910ish) apart showing almost all horses in the first and virtually all cars in the second suggesting the transition was that fast... when in real life there were still large #s of horses in use in NYC for another decade or two after his second picture...and in more rural areas horses were still in heavy use up through roughly WW2- his "car market share" chart weirdly uses "per mile" instead of "per person" for market share too which is a problem, if you used the normal definition of market share the change takes vastly longer than his chart suggests.)
It does if they need a car.
There's over 80 million new cars sold a year.
Lots of them are crappy even by ICE standards.
Nobody bought a Suzuki Esteem because it was an awesome vehicle with great resale value- but they still produced and sold em for years and SOMEBODY was buying them all those years..
Sometimes you need a car. Lots of sometimes in fact.
100% agree.... totally... which makes your next claim so weird.
Where do the batteries come from?
Not Tesla- they've already said they HOPE to be making enough (including continuing to need to buy them from partners) to replace maybe 20-25% of new car sales by around 2030.
And Teslas plans have them as, by far, the largest producer of batteries in the world in that time period.
So where does Ford- which is only making 50,000 Mach-Es in the first year due to lack of batteries- magically get enough to replace the roughly 3 million ICE cars that would be half their sales?
Over at GM- who some news stories claim is WAY ahead of Ford on this- they're actually building a battery factory.
A battery factory.
That might start making cells end of 2021... and will eventually produce a whole... 30 GWH of cells.
Enough for about 300,000 cars.
GM would need 12 times that to electrify half their annual sales
Where do they get the rest?
Where do all companies who don't even have a battery factory being built get them?
As I say- all of this is awesome news for Tesla investors... the gap is just going to grow the longer everyone else drags their feet- and insures Tesla will easily continue able to sell every car they can possibly make for years and years to come with no problem.
But it makes 50% EV sales by 2030 virtually impossible for the lack of cells if nothing else.
Last edited:
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I am fully aware of the history of the term "Osborne". You are repeating yourself and bringing up things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. However, the term is a real term with a real meaning and is often used to denote a specific thing that actually occurs to this day across many different industries. The term "Osborne" has been used accurately and correctly 100's of times on this forum. Taking issue with the circumstances surrounding the origin of the word leads nowhere.
Last edited:
Ugghhh...really wish it was a year from now and I was driving the cybrtrk I have on order. Then I wouldn't have a few thousand dollars of damage from the kamikaze deer that just intercepted my jeep in Nebraska. Also wonder if the truck would have been able to avoid the collision entirely or how exactly it would react to an animal sprinting from a dark ditch into the vehicles side
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
That's funny! I'll file this with:
1) It's impossible to land a booster rocket (as said by multiple rocket scientists)
2) Demand for Tesla vehicles will "dry up" once the tax credits go away
3) etc, etc, etc.
Virtually impossible? Why do you use qualifiers like "virtually" in a manner similar to Gordon Johnson?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Yes- in response to you repeating yourself.
It's like we have to debunk the same thing every month or two.
What did I bring up that's irrelevant?
I find the claim unlikely given literally everything I wrote was directly in reply to "things" that you brought up- even quoting your bringing them up as I responded to them.
Even more strangely your reply here doesn't appear to address about 98% of the post it's in reply to- as if you had no good answer to the various points made/raised and had to instead try and find some linguistic nitpick you disagreed with and just post about that?
Can you address the most relevant question challenging your idea though? Where do the other car companies get enough batteries for 50% market share of EVs by 2030 as you claimed they would?
That's funny! I'll file this with:
1) It's impossible to land a booster rocket (as said by multiple rocket scientists)
2) Demand for Tesla vehicles will "dry up" once the tax credits go away
3) etc, etc, etc.
Virtually impossible? Why do you use qualifiers like "virtually" in a manner similar to Gordon Johnson?
Ah! Magic hand waving is where all the legacy companies will get just as many batteries as Tesla will have in 2030!
Well argued!
Not only did I literally not say any of those things- in the "crap you deleted" section I said the opposite of them
I pointed out Tesla- which is way ahead of everyone else on battery production aims to be able to replace 20-25% of new car sales by 2030 and it's one of the reasons they'll continue to easily sell all the cars they can produce for years and years to come.
if you agree Tesla is way ahead of everyone- how do you magically think everyone will be caught up to Tesla in battery production by then?
You can't have both.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
