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.
Am I reading the room right that some folks here are stressing? Come on guys, this isn't the $700 from last spring. We may spend a little bit in the mid-upper 700s (3500+) but then we will wake up one day and realize that Tesla went up another 30% over a week or so. The new Model S/X and Plaid+ are going to drive so much money to the bottom line. This year we will see two huge factories come online, with model 3/Y made in Berlin, crazy Chinese demand, and huge stainless steel billboards rolling out of Austin. Plus it's going to rain 4680s. We already won, now we are just trying to run up the score.

Edit, and Papa Biden is going to have Tesla solar and energy storage working overtime over the next 4 years minimum.


I agree 100%. Makes me appreciate my lazy buy and hold strategy that applies to most of my TSLA holdings.

Thanks @Nocturnal.
As a buy and HODLer, the only thing I'm stressing about is not having more dry powder ready and trying to figure out what else to sell so I can buy more TSLA.
 
Am I reading the room right that some folks here are stressing? Come on guys, this isn't the $700 from last spring. We may spend a little bit in the mid-upper 700s (3500+) but then we will wake up one day and realize that Tesla went up another 30% over a week or so. The new Model S/X and Plaid+ are going to drive so much money to the bottom line. This year we will see two huge factories come online, with model 3/Y made in Berlin, crazy Chinese demand, and huge stainless steel billboards rolling out of Austin. Plus it's going to rain 4680s. We already won, now we are just trying to run up the score.

Edit, and Papa Biden is going to have Tesla solar and energy storage working overtime over the next 4 years minimum.


I agree 100%. Makes me appreciate my lazy buy and hold strategy that applies to most of my TSLA holdings.

Well said. The only thing that has changed is the future has gotten even brighter. I bought the dip and will continue to HODL.
 
It’s all good. We’ll get it back next week!
So it's all good now? :rolleyes:

upload_2021-1-29_19-53-17.png
 
Just in case no one posted it yet

Thursday Ark Invest bought 66,943 and Friday 108,996 $Tsla shares

A correction is often around 3 days long

Seems there has been a lot of interest to keep it below $800 for Friday, likely related to Options but next week I would not be surprised to see the train driving in the other direction again

I'll also be selling a call out as a lure for the SP next week as well, as my put expired ITM. Either way, stonks. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustMe
I was ribbing @AudubonB a bit there. But let’s consider it.

In reality 1000, 1036 and 1050 are equally precise numbers. Psychologically maybe not.

Yet, if a person has a model that spits out 1036 and that model is their best effort, should they then round the forecast down or up to imply something about precision at the expense of reducing whatever accuracy that forecast may have?

Given that analysts are numerically rated in public and that the ones that aren’t shills probably care about their ratings, I would expect such analysts to say "no" and go with their best guess.

(And, to preempt all you cut ups out there, I know "it’s only a model." :p )
Without forgetting this is light-hearted conversation, here are two points to consider:
1. You write that 1000, 1036 and 1050 all are equally precise. That statement is pedantically correct...and otherwise wrong. The reason is the died-in-the-wool mathematical pedant would under these circumstances write “1E3” if he’s suggesting “a thou”, or 10E2 if he’s suggesting “ten Franklins” or, if he’s both pedantic and full-frontal loony, then the otherwise really never to be seen 100E1<===But see addendum below!...BUT AT THE SAME TIME demonstrating that the rest of his data justify those 1, 2 or 3 significant digits.
So, in real world shorthand, the convention is to substitute zeros when you are demonstrating that you have those 1, 2, or 3 significant digits.

Dead horse flogging done there.

2. How should the analyst present his data? No, I cannot agree with your conclusion that, effectively, “1036 is what the model spits out so that is what we’ll present.”
Rather, the useful and correct methodology is to use error bars to indicate to what precision your data exist.
When I left the world of the chemistry lab, where I ground out my PhD, and joined Wall St, I presented my analyses thusly. I do understand the exigencies of that world are such that academia’s “Publish or Perish” dictum is replaced by “Publish Now, Tomorrow and Next Week, Too”, so with the outlier exceptions like some of ARK’s work, if I recall correctly, we won’t see this from Wall St.

But. But. But: if you can’t show error bars, show zeros. That’s the way to avoid this Mod’s wrath.

*ADDENDUM: yep, that's really never to be seen. But if you really, truly, want to Mobius-flip your way through the wormhole and out into the alternative NeverNeverLand, you could write E2E1.

Yes. THAT is how Mr Musk ought to guide for this year: "We're hoping to produce and deliver E1E1E1E1E1E1 vehicles over the next 4E0 quarters".

That'll get 'em.
 
Last edited:
Rob was discussing this on his webcast today as well. I thought it was so obvious I just thought no one found it worth mentioning it. Less weight, better drag but almost same range. Has to be less batteries in the new one.
It will also give the car better handling, the base model may handle as well as the Taycan on curves now.
 
Without forgetting this is light-hearted conversation, here are two points to consider:
1. You write that 1000, 1036 and 1050 all are equally precise. That statement is pedantically correct...and otherwise wrong. The reason is the died-in-the-wool mathematical pedant would under these circumstances write “1E3” if he’s suggesting “a thou”, or 10E2 if he’s suggesting “ten Franklins” or if he’s both pedantic and full-frontal loony then the otherwise reallly never to be seen 100E1...BUT AT THE SAME TIME demonstrating that the rest of his data justify those 1, 2 or 3 significant digits.
So, in real world shorthand, the convention is to substitute zeros when you are demonstrating that you have those 1, 2, or 3 significant digits.

Dead horse flogging done there.

2. How should the analyst present his data? No, I cannot agree with your conclusion that, effectively, “1036 is what the model spits out so that is what we’ll present.”
Rather, the useful and correct methodology is to use error bars to indicate to what precision your data exist.
When I left the world of the chemistry lab, where I ground out my PhD, and joined Wall St, I presented my analyses thusly. I do understand the exigencies of that world are such that academia’s “Publish or Perish” dictum is replaced by “Publish Now, Tomorrow and Next Week, Too”, so with the outlier exceptions like some of ARK’s work, if I recall correctly, we won’t see this from Wall St.

But. But. But: if you can’t show error bars, show zeros. That’s the way to avoid this Mod’s wrath.

It seems the idealism that may have led you to a PhD doesn’t appear to have abandoned you as a result of your Wall Street time. That is a gift.

After my doctorate, I had the experience of condensing lots of information into tiny morsels to be fed to C suite executives who had precious little time. Perhaps that gave me a different perspective about how to communicate and what most folks will actually take away.

Or, wrt the analysts: "needs must when the devil drives."

Though I disagree that a scientific standard for communicating about numbers is the most effective way to go here, I agree that this is a dead horse. It is particularly so to me as I give such forecasts zero weight anyway.

Hmmm, perhaps it is harder to be irked by a horse if it is not just dead... but also weightless. ;)

Cheers
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: SunCatcher
It will also give the car better handling, the base model may handle as well as the Taycan on curves now.

Yes it also would not surprise if the weight was also more central, resulting in better handing.

When they dropped the 75 kWh Model S/X to make all 100 kWh packs, I always wondered if that move constrained production volumes.
For some reason Model S/X hasn't been at the 25k per quarter run rate for sometime, that could be demand, but it could also be cells.
Regardless a smaller pack using fewer cells means more cars/Powerwalls can be made.

The other question I have is if they have optimized the wiring harness. if they have been able to use less raw material in the wiring harness, then like the batteries that is a cost savings, a weight savings and an efficiency gain.

I also think they would have made a number of improvements to optimize the build process from experience gained over the years.

So it is likely there are costs savings which add to margins, some of those savings have been spent on upgrades like the rear screen and a better stereo system and the Plaid drive. But overall the end result is significantly better car, that cost the same or less to build IMO, at least for the base model.
Plaid drive might cost significantly more than a single rear motor, but it delivers improved performance that more than justifies the upgrade.
 
Last edited:

Lol, wishful thinking! Tesla has announced 10% higher installed capacity for S/X, which most likely uses a 10% smaller bty pack. (doh!)

This is economical use of a scarce resource: bty cells. Tesla IS NOT going to get better margin out of more Powerwalls than more Models S/X.

The same contracted number of Japanese 18650 cells will instead produce about 20% more profit in the refreshed S/X. That's just good business.

Cheers!
 
Anyone else thinking there is likely to be some Osborne effect with the 4680? I have been warming up to a MY, but I think I would wait for the 4680s... They never really said what the max charge rate was, but I have a strong suspicion that the improved thermal performance and tabless design will offer even higher charge rates (which is probably why they didn't mention it). The stiffness and weight efficiency of the structural pack.... If I wanted the plaid MS/MX I would just wait for the plaid+ with 4680s for the reasons above. I can't be alone, but maybe it just doesn't matter while Tesla is supply limited....
 
*ADDENDUM: yep, that's really never to be seen. But if you really, truly, want to Mobius-flip your way through the wormhole and out the alternative NeverNeverLand, you could write E2E1. Yes. THAT is how Mr Musk ought to guide for this year: "We're hoping to produce and deliver E1E1E1E1E1E1 vehicles over the next 4E0 quarters".

That'll get 'em.
You forgot the leading 0x
It's needed when interacting with C level executives.
:D
 
Lol, wishful thinking! Tesla has announced 10% higher installed capacity for S/X, which most likely uses a 10% smaller bty pack. (doh!)

I totaled missed that, thanks for mentioning it. It confirms my suspension and really cements in that they reduced the pack size to 90kWh.

But they actually announced that they increased S&X production capacity by more than 11%. ;)
 
Anyone else thinking there is likely to be some Osborne effect with the 4680? I have been warming up to a MY, but I think I would wait for the 4680s... They never really said what the max charge rate was, but I have a strong suspicion that the improved thermal performance and tabless design will offer even higher charge rates (which is probably why they didn't mention it). The stiffness and weight efficiency of the structural pack.... If I wanted the plaid MS/MX I would just wait for the plaid+ with 4680s for the reasons above. I can't be alone, but maybe it just doesn't matter while Tesla is supply limited....

The cars are always going to get better.

Faster charge rates might be software locked and/or require Supercharger V4.

But in addition to tab-less Berlin and Austin are going to have the new fancy paint-shop, which Elon has already stated can result in nicer looking cars.

I will not be surprised if Fremont Model Ys are exported when Austin is fully ramped, all US customers might want a Austin Model Y, the other alternative is an Austin Model Y with 4680s and fancy paint costs a bit more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gillfoto
I totaled missed that, thanks for mentioning it. It confirms my suspension and really cements in that they reduced the pack size to 90kWh.

But they actually announced that they increased S&X production capacity by more than 11%. ;)

More than 11% probably includes 4680s in Plaid+, and then probably eventually all Model S/X.
Going all 4680s when they can, further reduces cost, allows pack weight to be more central and hence will improve handling.
It probably also allows for faster Supercharging, eventually.

So there is always something better coming down the pipeline and that something better may have better margins.

Once all Model S/X is 4680, the 18650s can go into Powerwalls and everyone will be happy.