Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla’s S&P 500 Debut Is Set to Put $100 Billion in Trades in Motion

"Asset managers and trading desks across Wall Street have held virtual summits to debate the matter. The vote from many appears to be for the two-day option, partly because of Tesla's size, along with the potential for elevated volatility in the stock market........"

"Investors who had shared their opinion with S&P have offered another suggestion that appears to have earned broad support: breaking the trades up over two different quarters, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A longer break between the trades would help asset managers digest any sharp moves related to Covid-19 or other news the market doesn't take well and help keep funds in line with benchmarks, investors said.
"A stepped approach over multiple quarters helps with the liquidity challenges. There's good precedent for it," said Chris Johnson, head of ETF capital markets at Charles Schwab Corp., referring to MSCI's two-phased inclusion of China A-Shares to its emerging-markets index in 2018........"

What a bunch of kittens and etrons. I scoff at all of them. You make the bed, you lie in it.
 
Getting back to TSLA…

To HODL or not to HODL: that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the wallet to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous media
Shrieking overvalued bubble!
Or to sell, perchance to buy back lower.
Ay, there’s the rub.
For in that sale what lost gains may come
When we have shuffled off this rocket ship
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of guessing wrong.
Thus greed does make cowards of us all
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of regret
Unless we remember, O Brothers and Sisters
Where the ship is headed.

My Tesla Investment Thesis 2.0: Tesla's Monopoly Potential by @FrankSG


Timing the market is really hard.
I tried 4 times and failed 3 times.
Lost couple hundred grands of potential profit in the process and paid hundred grands of unnecessary taxes.
Might have helped Canadian society in general during covid by funding the CERB. That’s what I like to tell myself when I go to sleep.

The only reasonable thing I can tell you today is that if I sell all my share on Monday, there is a 75% probability chance the SP will double up the following month, it history repeats itself.
 
That's not really a mistake in anything- it's an example not tied to the brand.

If your premise is it won't be Ford selling those EVs- that doesn't change what I posted at all.

Who DOES produce them?

You need somebody that is not Tesla to produce over 20 million EVs in 2030 to get 50% of the entire new car market on EVs...

Because Teslas own 20 million by 2030 is only 20-25% of new cars sales in a year.

So who is it producing the other 20 million or so EVs?

Where are they getting their batteries?

The chinese
 
What a bunch of kittens and etrons. I scoff at all of them. You make the bed, you lie in it.

I think they will spread it out. If they don't, they're screwing S&P investors. If they include TSLA over two days it will cause a parabolic spiking event which will cause funds to possibly have to add at values like 1200, only to have it later settle down to 600 or so.

Personally, I want the spiking event. A move just to 750 ticks my 19 year old son's edu fund to the number I estimate we need to pay for his college. A little over 800 pays for my two younger kids (daughter with 10 years to go!). I'm looking forward to locking in those 4 year college expenses. Worse case scenario, TSLA keeps going up but college is paid for. Best case scenario, price settles back to 600ish and I begin to work on paying for grad school.

As nice as that would be for me, not to mention all the option traders positioned for big moves, it's screwed to S&P investors. If they spread it out incrementally over 6 months, they are exercising their fiduciary responsibility to those investors. They have no responsibility to us regardless of how much we may be rubbing our hands together over the possibilities.
 
Timing the market is really hard.
I tried 4 times and failed 3 times.
Lost couple hundred grands of potential profit in the process and paid hundred grands of unnecessary taxes.
Might have helped Canadian society in general during covid by funding the CERB. That’s what I like to tell myself when I go to sleep.

The only reasonable thing I can tell you today is that if I sell all my share on Monday, there is a 75% probability chance the SP will double up the following month, it history repeats itself.
Please sell! :)
 
I never understood how kids could spend so much time watching other people play video games online. What losers.

I just spent 15 minutes watching a video of a FSD beta car driving itself.

2zo1ki.jpg
 
No, those two are completely different propositions.

1. The statement: "Competition is coming, because the incumbents can create Tesla-killer vehicles any time they want to" is a silly self-contradictory statement, because Tesla has cars that are significantly better than the ICE cars at the same price point. This means, if any incumbent were to create a car competitive with Tesla, that car would be -- by definition -- significantly better than their own ICE cars at the same price point, therefore it would kill their own ICE sales long before it would touch the Tesla sales.

2. On the other hand, building up Li-ion cell production is not rocket science, there are several companies doing that and there were companies doing that long before Tesla started. Tesla battery tech is better and cheaper, but nobody claimed the other 20 million EV's cells had to be competitive with the Tesla cells. They just have to exist. That is a much lower bar to pass than making a Tesla-killer EV.

Just like as of today, Tesla has somewhere around a quarter of the EV market world-wide, which means there are more other EVs than Teslas and they have battery cells in them. So assuming that Tesla only doubles its market share to 50% of EVs and does not take over 100% of the EV market is not "Magical Thinking". Those other EVs will continue to be inferior, have worse efficiency, lower range, but they will exist, just like the e-Trons, i-Paces, Bolts and Leafs exist today and there are people buying them.

The rest of the cell producers do not need to "catch up" with Tesla, they just need to scale up slower than Tesla does. Currently, the vast majority of cells are not produced by Tesla but by someone else. So it is Tesla that needs to catch up and take over, which I am sure they will, I am just not expecting everyone else to completely give up.


Whats being missed is that with fsd the number of new cars needed will be reduced significantly. I dont know the ratio, but gyessing it could be one fsd car replaces 4-5 regular cars.
 
Apple has a huge advantage by regularly dropping old tech and somehow forcing everyone into the new tech. A 2020 Windows computer can be cajoled into running DOS Wordperfect. That sounds great for compatibility but it has a pricetag in CPU die space and throughput. Code for Windows looks like crap. Code for the new M1 is cleaner. So even if there was no process advantage, Apple would be ahead with the near clean sheet M1. With two generations of process advantage, the M1 is a killer. It brings in the profit that Intel or AMD would normally make in house.

Tesla mirrors some of the kinds of advantages Apple has above. No huge legacy of thousands of different ICE cars to support. No legacy factories and contracts to support. And most importantly no costly dealers to support.

Somewhat OT, but since it may affect how people invest in TSLA my 2 cents here. The Apple/ Windows aka Microsoft comparison is not the relevant issue to look at. And the Apple / Tesla comparison is tenuous at best. Elon would probably dismiss it jokingly as he only can.

TLDR: invest in other than AAPL, there are better alternatives both financially and ethically.

Apple is keen on preserving its territory - walled garden of devices and apps for its established clientele, mostly. Abusing its ownership of the iPhone store to charge exorbitant 30% tax on developers (who often offered their base version for free on Android).

Microsoft same, EXCEPT that it is has taken huge steps beyond its old comfort zone/ strategy (everything Windows, ha ha, bye bye Ballmer). Instead it has opened Windows to Linux big time, a threat to Apple - many Apple users like the Apple OS because it being a Unix variant it had it easy providing Unix tools and development environments.

One could argue that Microsoft should have developed an M1 like alternative, not. They rightly chose to use their resources developing their cloud offering, taking as big a bite out of AWS (the cash cow and tech achievement of AMZN), battling it out with Oracle, Google, IBM et al. Apple's answer on that front? iCloud? meh ... needs oCloud (for open cloud, not cloud for Apple devices only, tough one).

Windows vs Apple market share: 90 vs 10 % +- a few %. Apple will never run the tons of tech software that are running on Windows.

Microsoft probably could have done a deal re tech dev with Intel / AMD etc re basic hardware - maybe impossible/ too complicated.

The one company which hasn't executed/ done well is Intel. Much like ICE they decided to stick with their specialty (cookie cutter factories to produce their chips at hyper scale - gross simplification, I know). They declined to invest in cellphone tech, worst mistake ever.
And somewhat didn't keep up vs the Chinese chip makers (key to AMD's success).

My biggest gripe against Apple is their bonehead blindness to ethical issues they faced, and their reliance on keeping their customers ignorant of the realities of current computing tech. Ethical: couldn't save .1% of their d.rn profits to require their Chinese providers enforce basic labor laws, while they're making 20% or some such on hardware. Also docilely complied with the Chinese government, same as Yahoo re State surveillance. In contrast Google just refused to cooperate after trying hard to negotiate a compromise, and left China mainland out of principle.

The greatest accomplishment I will laud Apple for (Steve Jobs really) is having figured out a way, then forcing a break up of the crazy US cellphone carriers shared monopoly - first giving AT&T the iPhone exclusive as a first shot, dividing the consortium. The rest is history, it is easy nowadays to buy unlocked cellphones. That wasn't the case way back, if you remember.

Something our bought politicians and administrations haven't done as is their duty - had they prioritized the interests of the people and the right version of capitalism over their own personal gains.

Same that Tesla did for the EV/ energy industry.

Same as SpaceX's Starlink is hopefully going to do to the incumbent internet providers (also joint monopoly of sorts). The history of the internet is conveniently erased re-written. Recall that in the 90's the telcos were given huge incentives (add on to our phone bills) so they could invest and provide an internet connection nationwide to all. Short story version: they ended up NOT doing it of course, keeping the subsidies and getting out of their commitments by modifying their obligations post facto adding video or some such made up requirement.

For your amusement - this *is* Sunday, last day of rest before an epic TSLA episode. Go look for an Apple mission statement. LOL

Since there is already so much noise in this Forum discussion, let me add my own: there is NO way I can keep up with the torrent of comments here .. we need some sort of filter, keeping side discussions (like this one) out of the main thread.. OK if in secondary parallel streams for people who have the time...

To add something of value to the thread IF you have read so far: from what I have gleaned here and on Twitter and YouTube, the only new info first reported here by mickle is that there may well be continuous buying pressure for the next 42 days if you include secondary funds that need to buy just because their performance will now be compared to the S&P - which will now include TSLA.
Right now I predict a max SP in the range of 720 - 960 by year's end, possibly capped by a Stonk offering by the mother ship to prevent VW like weird gyrations.

Today's Sunday Nov 29. Tomorrow after hours the S&P drops its next announcement. I'm already all in @ 110%, only have a few Jan 21 500 and Sep 21 780 call options besides core shares, sigh

Let the fireworks begin!

upload_2020-11-29_9-55-45.png
 
Last edited:
It's not just fund managers that take time to absorb information and change their mind about something and act on it - humans, in general, don't naturally work like this. Most humans are not accustomed to absorbing complex information and immediately acting on it with real dollars. It takes time to soak in, ferment, and to assimilate new perspectives and ideas. Not everyone can make the transition from thinking Tesla is an automaker to accepting that Tesla is also a battery manufacturer (amongst other things). Most people don't know enough about Tesla to understand how they use first principles thinking to shorten the path to success and how likely Tesla is to succeed at battery making (and a lot of other things also). It takes time for ideas and new info to rattle around in their brains for a while before they start to understand and develop a new perspective based upon (for example) Battery Day. People are resistant to changing their world view and where everything belongs in that view.

Waves of buying and selling are driven by humans. And may I suggest that their behavior tends to not be very rational and machine like. Because they're humans. Tesla has been on a bull run that was kicked off when the S&P announced inclusion but ALL of the gains are not due to inclusion, that was just the catalyst that kick-started the wave of buying. These things take on a life of their own and you can be sure the info that was disseminated on battery day is kicking in and helping power the wave along with the original driver, inclusion.

It's not productive to try to attribute every movement of the share price to a particular thing or things as if the share price should react to each new piece of information nearly instantly, perfectly rationally and to the degree that thing or things justifies. Stock prices don't behave that way.
That's a good perspective.

I can see how there has to be something in the "investor's eye" which causes them to buy. And it could be that the investors decide to keep buying based on a multitude of prior "good news" that just wasn't big enough to start the buying. I believe that.

But there are still two things.
1) The buying is often so far beyond what it should be.
And even less understandable is
2) The buying stops abruptly. For no discernable reason. Nada! Like the day BEFORE the Split. It even lost 10%(guess). No news. Just a concerted effort of "profit taking" BEFORE the "expected" gains from the Robin Hooders piling in after the split.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capster
If they spread it out incrementally over 6 months, they are exercising their fiduciary responsibility to those investors

It seems if that was a concern they should have added ASAP as anyone with 2 working neurons could see what direction Tesla was going.

I have little sympathy for Wall street funds getting run over by a company many have actively tried to squish.
 
If they do spread it out over 2 quarters (unprecedented in S&P history, BTW), then there should be less of a squeeze. This would probably be better for longer term investors since it would be a much slower, more sustained rise in the stock, versus a vertical increase, high volatility, and a potential drop afterwards (a la a short squeeze). We'll find out after close Monday when the S&P committee announces their decision, although I'm sure Wall Street will get a sniff of the news and the price action will tell us during the day if it'll all be done in December or not.

Also, avoids the headlines with "Tesla drops 20%" with no indication the stock ran up 50% the week before.

For long term investors a spread out inclusion is best. Let the stock build a new base without huge spikes/drops which might scare away some retail investors. Do it in 5-6 tranches to avoid the speculators.
 
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
ARE Cybertruck supposed to be impervious to deer strikes? What a GREAT selling point that would be!

(from a poster who hit 3 deer before finally accepting that they have NO idea which lane they're supposed to be in)
 
If they announce inclusion to take place over two quarters, I’d expect a dip as calls are repositioned. Some of the current run-up is probably related to delta-hedging resulting from December call buying. Many big players will probably want to move some of their bets to the next quarter. You’ll recall the impressive dip we had following S&P non-inclusion as well as the “tech correction” when it was reported Softbank was unwinding options plays.

I doubt it would be very severe considering the overall buying pressure but there might be a relative/temporary sale. Not advice of course.
 
That the term "Osborne" had an origin that does not accurately reflect how the term is used today.

It would be like taking issue with saying a certain car is "Sky Blue" because the sky is rarely that color. :rolleyes:
It's weird watching you spending time refuting marginally OT things with someone I Ignored.