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

[Carl Raymond]

My parents got a tile roof quote and it was 59k. Solar roof is absurdly cheap in comparison. But hey if Tesla is in the business of giving it away at the expenses of margins because apparently there are an abundance of tiles laying for the purpose of the mission then sure. But are there spare tiles laying around?

I think Tesla are just playing the longer game. Volumes now are just a trickle compared to a few years hence. The loss of profit now soon fades to insignificance. Better to have people bragging about their beautiful roof - same price as a quality tile roof - only stronger and it wipes out your electric bill. Nobody likes seeing the price of their purchase fall dramatically, just weeks or months after they order. It leaves a trail of bitterness where there ought to be joy.

Edit: obviously the answer to margins is scale. Wright’s law yada, yada.

 

[Mike Smith]

So, I think I've busted Edmunds and their EV 'real world range' tester/author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here is the article from Tuesday claiming that Tesla's ranges are way over-rated by the EPA:

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Well that looked pretty grim, but it got me remembering - didn't Edmunds do a comparison of 'real world range' between the Model Y and the Taycan back in November 2020? Why yes, yes they did, and it was done by the same author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here it is:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

Hm, that's interesting - why is this article I remember from November 2020 now dated February 3rd, 2021? To the Wayback Machine!
Here is the archived version of the original article as posted on November 19, 2020:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

What's this? It's different! The testing methodology and result for his Model Y range has been altered! Apparently Jonathan didn't know the original article would be archived..

In the original article from November (near the bottom):

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between Tesla and other companies is that it makes more of its battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so manufacturers including Porsche place stricter limits on charging and use. Tesla leaves it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommends that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 90% for daily use.

The 90% charge is what Edmunds followed for its Model Y test as, again, it represents how the majority of Tesla drivers will use their car. Extrapolated out, Edmunds estimates that charging the Y's battery to its maximum capacity would have added 25 miles to its as-tested range.


That section of the article has now been changed to:

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between most luxury and mainstream electric vehicles is that luxury brands typically make more of a car's battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so some manufacturers place stricter limits on charging and use. Both Porsche and Tesla leave it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommend that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 80% to 90% for daily use.

In the interest of aligning our range testing with the EPA's estimates, which take 100% of the nominal battery capacity into account, Edmunds charges all electric vehicles to their maximum allowable capacity. You can view the real-world range for every electric vehicle Edmunds has tested here. For vehicles that have a suggested lower daily charge such as the Taycan and Model Y, there is an asterisk next to the range figure. For others without an asterisk such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the max range can be used on a daily basis.


So in the original article he says he charged the Taycan to 100%, but the Model Y to only 90%, because that's what they suggest in the manual for normal use. Apparently on February 3rd he realized that this was an obviously unfair way to compare the vehicles and he didn't want to risk losing credibility before releasing his new article, so he went back in time and actually charged the Model Y to 100% for the test he did last November! Comparing the altered article to the original we see he has also made up new results for the Model Y range:

Original version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by a whopping 70 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Altered version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by 55 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Looks like he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range. How generous of him! But, oh no, he screwed up. Looking further through the article we see:

Original version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 253 miles was slightly lower than the EPA estimate.

Altered version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 263 miles was lower than the EPA estimate.


So in one place in the article he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range, but here he's only giving them an extra 10 miles. Woops! Interestingly, in the original article he even states that if he had charged the Model Y to 100% it probably would have given the Model Y an extra 25 miles of range (makes sense since that's about 10%). In the altered version he only gives them 10 or 15 miles depending on where you look, so he is clearly biased against Tesla and wants to give them as little range as possible in his new made up numbers.

So unless I'm missing something, he's altered his methodology for a past range test and made up new numbers go with it. This is the same guy running these new tests, where he could be accelerating and braking in different ways for the different test vehicles, or just be making up numbers entirely.

By the way February 4th, the day he altered that old article? That was the day before all that unusual put option activity on Friday February 5th. He then released his new article on Tuesday. Someone made a lot of money on those puts!

 

[Chenkers]

Every size array they offer is $2.01/W right now(before incentives) How insane is that? The only reasons it's not highlighted and talked about more are the lack of marketing at the company level and the lack of sales at the ground level. Not that I want to see either of those boosted! Tesla is just far far ahead of the market and customer base.

As a point of reference it's interesting to compare these prices to what we see in Australia. Australia has a very well developed residential solar market with around 21% of homes currently having PV and this amount is rapidly increasing. The average cost of a 10kW system here works out to AU$0.98/watt (US$0.76/watt) after Federal Government incentives of around AU$0.525/watt. Cheaper systems can cost as little as half this price and there are further State Government based incentives that can lower the price even further (up to 50% off smaller systems). So the equivalent average 10kW system price in Australia before incentives works out to around US$1.16/watt. So as the US market continues to expand there should be opportunity for Tesla to lower costs further.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Cleantechnica.com | @ZachShahan, @avoigt : For Your Info

So, I think I've busted Edmunds and their EV 'real world range' tester/author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here is the article from Tuesday claiming that Tesla's ranges are way over-rated by the EPA:

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Well that looked pretty grim, but it got me remembering - didn't Edmunds do a comparison of 'real world range' between the Model Y and the Taycan back in November 2020? Why yes, yes they did, and it was done by the same author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here it is:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

Hm, that's interesting - why is this article I remember from November 2020 now dated February 3rd, 2021? To the Wayback Machine!
Here is the archived version of the original article as posted on November 19, 2020:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

What's this? It's different! The testing methodology and result for his Model Y range has been altered! Apparently Jonathan didn't know the original article would be archived..

In the original article from November (near the bottom):

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between Tesla and other companies is that it makes more of its battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so manufacturers including Porsche place stricter limits on charging and use. Tesla leaves it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommends that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 90% for daily use.

The 90% charge is what Edmunds followed for its Model Y test as, again, it represents how the majority of Tesla drivers will use their car. Extrapolated out, Edmunds estimates that charging the Y's battery to its maximum capacity would have added 25 miles to its as-tested range.


That section of the article has now been changed to:

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between most luxury and mainstream electric vehicles is that luxury brands typically make more of a car's battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so some manufacturers place stricter limits on charging and use. Both Porsche and Tesla leave it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommend that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 80% to 90% for daily use.

In the interest of aligning our range testing with the EPA's estimates, which take 100% of the nominal battery capacity into account, Edmunds charges all electric vehicles to their maximum allowable capacity. You can view the real-world range for every electric vehicle Edmunds has tested here. For vehicles that have a suggested lower daily charge such as the Taycan and Model Y, there is an asterisk next to the range figure. For others without an asterisk such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the max range can be used on a daily basis.


So in the original article he says he charged the Taycan to 100%, but the Model Y to only 90%, because that's what they suggest in the manual for normal use. Apparently on February 3rd he realized that this was an obviously unfair way to compare the vehicles and he didn't want to risk losing credibility before releasing his new article, so he went back in time and actually charged the Model Y to 100% for the test he did last November! Comparing the altered article to the original we see he has also made up new results for the Model Y range:

Original version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by a whopping 70 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Altered version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by 55 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Looks like he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range. How generous of him! But, oh no, he screwed up. Looking further through the article we see:

Original version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 253 miles was slightly lower than the EPA estimate.

Altered version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 263 miles was lower than the EPA estimate.


So in one place in the article he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range, but here he's only giving them an extra 10 miles. Woops! Interestingly, in the original article he even states that if he had charged the Model Y to 100% it probably would have given the Model Y an extra 25 miles of range (makes sense since that's about 10%). In the altered version he only gives them 10 or 15 miles depending on where you look, so he is clearly biased against Tesla and wants to give them as little range as possible in his new made up numbers.

So unless I'm missing something, he's altered his methodology for a past range test and made up new numbers go with it. This is the same guy running these new tests, where he could be accelerating and braking in different ways for the different test vehicles, or just be making up numbers entirely.

By the way February 4th, the day he altered that old article? That was the day before all that unusual put option activity on Friday February 5th. He then released his new article on Tuesday. Someone made a lot of money on those puts!

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

So, I think I've busted Edmunds and their EV 'real world range' tester/author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here is the article from Tuesday claiming that Tesla's ranges are way over-rated by the EPA:

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Well that looked pretty grim, but it got me remembering - didn't Edmunds do a comparison of 'real world range' between the Model Y and the Taycan back in November 2020? Why yes, yes they did, and it was done by the same author, Jonathan Elfalan. Here it is:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

Hm, that's interesting - why is this article I remember from November 2020 now dated February 3rd, 2021? To the Wayback Machine!
Here is the archived version of the original article as posted on November 19, 2020:

Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Testing EPA Range in the Real World | Edmunds

What's this? It's different! The testing methodology and result for his Model Y range has been altered! Apparently Jonathan didn't know the original article would be archived..

In the original article from November (near the bottom):

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between Tesla and other companies is that it makes more of its battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so manufacturers including Porsche place stricter limits on charging and use. Tesla leaves it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommends that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 90% for daily use.

The 90% charge is what Edmunds followed for its Model Y test as, again, it represents how the majority of Tesla drivers will use their car. Extrapolated out, Edmunds estimates that charging the Y's battery to its maximum capacity would have added 25 miles to its as-tested range.


That section of the article has now been changed to:

Max Battery Usage
A key difference between most luxury and mainstream electric vehicles is that luxury brands typically make more of a car's battery available for use. Electric vehicle batteries that are constantly charged to their maximum capacity tend to degrade quicker over time, so some manufacturers place stricter limits on charging and use. Both Porsche and Tesla leave it up to the owner's discretion and simply recommend that the max battery charge only be used for longer trips. Otherwise, it says owners should use a charge of around 80% to 90% for daily use.

In the interest of aligning our range testing with the EPA's estimates, which take 100% of the nominal battery capacity into account, Edmunds charges all electric vehicles to their maximum allowable capacity. You can view the real-world range for every electric vehicle Edmunds has tested here. For vehicles that have a suggested lower daily charge such as the Taycan and Model Y, there is an asterisk next to the range figure. For others without an asterisk such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the max range can be used on a daily basis.


So in the original article he says he charged the Taycan to 100%, but the Model Y to only 90%, because that's what they suggest in the manual for normal use. Apparently on February 3rd he realized that this was an obviously unfair way to compare the vehicles and he didn't want to risk losing credibility before releasing his new article, so he went back in time and actually charged the Model Y to 100% for the test he did last November! Comparing the altered article to the original we see he has also made up new results for the Model Y range:

Original version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by a whopping 70 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Altered version:

• TLDR: The Taycan beat the Model Y by 55 miles in our testing, yet the EPA says it should lose by 88 miles. So what gives?

Looks like he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range. How generous of him! But, oh no, he screwed up. Looking further through the article we see:

Original version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 253 miles was slightly lower than the EPA estimate.

Altered version:

The 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, an all-new electric luxury sport sedan, was way off from the EPA estimated 203 miles of range in Edmunds' real-world driving test. Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving, versus the EPA's 49 kWh/100 miles.

In contrast, the 2020 Tesla Model Y Performance with 21-inch wheels — the brand's newest small SUV — did exceptionally well in the EPA's test, earning a range estimate of 291 miles and a power consumption rating of 28 kWh/100 miles using the maximum range mode. While Edmunds saw comparable efficiency in its real-world test, at 28.4 kWh/100 miles, the overall range result of 263 miles was lower than the EPA estimate.


So in one place in the article he gave the Model Y an extra 15 miles of range, but here he's only giving them an extra 10 miles. Woops! Interestingly, in the original article he even states that if he had charged the Model Y to 100% it probably would have given the Model Y an extra 25 miles of range (makes sense since that's about 10%). In the altered version he only gives them 10 or 15 miles depending on where you look, so he is clearly biased against Tesla and wants to give them as little range as possible in his new made up numbers.

So unless I'm missing something, he's altered his methodology for a past range test and made up new numbers go with it. This is the same guy running these new tests, where he could be accelerating and braking in different ways for the different test vehicles, or just be making up numbers entirely.

By the way February 4th, the day he altered that old article? That was the day before all that unusual put option activity on Friday February 5th. He then released his new article on Tuesday. Someone made a lot of money on those puts!

Great find!

This comes on top of:

- Edmunds testing the Tesla models at lower temperatures than most of the other cars.
- Edmunds using 60% city driving and only 40% highway driving, which underexposes Tesla's highway efficiency (and ignores the fact that range anxiety mainly occurs during highway driving).
- Edmunds not testing the LR versions of Model S, Model 3 and Model Y (only Performance or SR+).

Who pays to keep the lights on at Edmunds? Clearly not Tesla.

 

[mrdoubleb]

So it looks like the Democrats have re-submitted the bill that would reform the 200k cutoff limit for EVs. Here is the part that matters for us:

Sec. 401. Modification of limitations on new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit (§30D). The provision expands the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit under Section 30D to apply a new transition period for vehicle sales of a manufacturer between 200,000 and 600,000 electric vehicles (EVs), under which the credit is reduced by $500. The provision replaces the current phaseout period (which begins at 200,000 vehicles) with a phaseout period that instead begins during the second calendar quarter after the 600,000-vehicle threshold is reached. At the start of the new phaseout period, the credit is reduced by 50% for one quarter and terminates thereafter. For manufacturers that pass the 200,000-vehicle threshold before the enactment of this bill, the number of vehicles sold in between 200,000 and those sold on the date of enactment are excluded to determine when the 600,000-vehicle threshold is reached. The provision extends the 2-wheeled plug-in electric vehicle credit through 2026. It also extends the 3-wheeled plug-in electric vehicle credit through 2026.

The way I read this (native speakers please confirm) is that

• 0-200k per manufacturer the incentive remains $7500
• 200k-600k it drops to $7000

Now, this in itself would not be good news for Tesla as I believe they may have already passed 600k cars sold in the US, however the bill says this: For manufacturers that pass the 200,000-vehicle threshold before the enactment of this bill, the number of vehicles sold in between 200,000 and those sold on the date of enactment are excluded to determine when the 600,000-vehicle threshold is reached.

• The way I read this: Tesla will start from 200,001 the day the law is enacted and will have 400k to go at $7k incentive per car.

Also of note, a new incentive is proposed for used EVs, which will help the Tesla CPO program:

Sec. 402. Credit for previously-owned qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles (§25E). The provision creates a new refundable credit for buyers of used plug-in electric cars from date of enactment through 2026. Buyers can claim a base credit of $1,250 for the purchase of qualifying used EVs, with additional incentives for battery capacity. The credit is capped at the lesser of $2,500 credit or 30% of the sale price. To qualify for this credit, used EVs must generally meet the eligibility requirements in the existing Section 30D credit for new EVs, not exceed a sale price of $25,000, and be a model year that is at least two years earlier than the date of sale. Buyers with up to $30,000 ($60,000 for married couples filing jointly) in adjusted gross income can claim the full amount of the credit. The credit phases out so that buyers with below $40,000 ($70,000 for married couples filing a joint return) in AGI may be eligible for a reduced credit. Buyers must purchase the vehicle from a dealership for personal use and cannot claim the credit more than once every three years. The credit only app

 

[Cobbler]

....

Admunds
I would give you gold awards if this forum would allow it! Great contribution!!

 

[OrthoSurg]

What is Hypothetically best move of someone with past success from selling some Tesla decided to buy high again at high entry 885 and over past weeks as price dropped, started buying dips using margin...break even price would be at 863 as of now. Curious how people here wanting might adjust. Keep in mind if Sp decreases to 760, this individual will have lost the gains from past success with Tesla and experience depression. Any hypothetical but serious answers are much appreciated!

When I bought at $805 just before March, it became profitable 6 months later

 

[mongo]

The way I read this: Tesla will start from 200,001 the day the law is enacted and will have 400k to go at $7k incentive per car.

Not quite, there is also the timing portion:

The provision expands the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit under Section 30D to apply a new transition period for vehicle sales of a manufacturer between 200,000 and 600,000 electric vehicles (EVs), under which the credit is reduced by $500. The provision replaces the current phaseout period (which begins at 200,000 vehicles) with a phaseout period that instead begins during the second calendar quarter after the 600,000-vehicle threshold is reached. At the start of the new phaseout period, the credit is reduced by 50% for one quarter and terminates thereafter.

Tesla starts out at $7k, and that stays active until the second quarter after their quarterly sales report accumulates 400k more sales (this will be tricky to do unless the new incentive is aligned to a quarter boundary). Then 50% ($3,750 or $3,500 depending on 50% of what) for one quarter.
So to max it out:
X quarters that sum to 399,999 cars domestically
Full speed quarter. Trigger point of >400k
Full speed quarter still at $7k
Full speed quarter at $3.5k (or $3.75)
End
So there is opportunity for many more cars with $7k off than just 400k.

 

[Aeon]

Great find!

This comes on top of:

- Edmunds testing the Tesla models at lower temperatures than most of the other cars.
- Edmunds using 60% city driving and only 40% highway driving, which underexposes Tesla's highway efficiency (and ignores the fact that range anxiety mainly occurs during highway driving).
- Edmunds not testing the LR versions of Model S, Model 3 and Model Y (only Performance or SR+).

Who pays to keep the lights on at Edmunds? Clearly not Tesla.

Sorry guys, I haven't been actively watching the thread for a while.
Has the discrepancy between EPA-Edmunds-Range-differences and EPA-Edmunds-EFFICIENCY-differences been discussed an evaluated here?
It's their main talking point that Teslas don't reach their EPA range. But their own data shows that the EPA efficiency is regularly beaten! Meanwhile most over EVs beat range AND efficiency ratings, sometimes even with inverted gaps.

https://twitter.com/AEONde/status/1359599422733172736

It seems that the main issue here is their testing to 10 miles indicated remaining range. Most Teslas would still run for 10-30 miles after indicated ZERO while most other EVs will shut down soon after 0 (see carwow or nextmove tests). EPA tests until the cars shut down or go to a limp-state that doesn't allow the target speeds anymore.
This should explain the discrepancy almost in its entirety (plus Tesla knows their tech better and leaves less room in the correction factors for the dyno runs. But is is then Edmunds basically lauding Porsche et.al. for sandbagging their EPA submissions..).

https://twitter.com/AEONde/status/1359768451519311876

 

[lascavarian]

CNBC reporting VW tapping MSFT cloud for self driving software.

 

[Nocturnal]

FYI The Bumble IPO is this morning so we might not have much interest from the trading crowd. Edit, plus weed stocks are on fire in part thanks to WSB.

 

[NooB_cat]

What is Hypothetically best move of someone with past success from selling some Tesla decided to buy high again at high entry 885 and over past weeks as price dropped, started buying dips using margin...break even price would be at 863 as of now. Curious how people here wanting might adjust. Keep in mind if Sp decreases to 760, this individual will have lost the gains from past success with Tesla and experience depression. Any hypothetical but serious answers are much appreciated!

Wait it out! With a very promising year ahead of it, Tesla WILL deliver and the share price will recover accordingly.
I also know of someone in a similar situation

You only lose or win when you close positions! Until then it's all just theoretical loss. Set stop loss as low as possible and HODL until you're in profit again. Oh and keep buying the dips if you can afford to, to help get to profit more quickly

 

[lklundin]

It seems that the main issue here is their testing to 10 miles indicated remaining range. Most Teslas would still run for 10-30 miles after indicated ZERO

Source, please.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Not quite, there is also the timing portion:


Tesla starts out at $7k, and that stays active until the second quarter after their quarterly sales report accumulates 400k more sales (this will be tricky to do unless the new incentive is aligned to a quarter boundary). Then 50% ($3,750 or $3,500 depending on 50% of what) for one quarter.
So to max it out:
X quarters that sum to 399,999 cars domestically
Full speed quarter. Trigger point of >400k
Full speed quarter still at $7k
Full speed quarter at $3.5k (or $3.75)
End
So there is opportunity for many more cars with $7k off than just 400k.

Yes, not disagreeing, I just didn't go into the phase out part as that's the same logic as before. I think the key is, that cars sold between 200k and until this goes into effect "don't count". Otherwise Tesla customers would not be eligible even under the new scheme as we are past 600k already.

 

[Dancing Lemur]

I don't know why Tesla needs to be so aggressive with pricing when it seems like production ramp is killing margins right now. There's a gigantic backlog of solar roof. There's zero reason to sell them at a loss right now.

I ordered my roof last July and have heard almost nothing from Tesla - no site assessment, no plan, no tentative install date. So I guess that’s because of a backlog...

Like all things Tesla, I’ve come to expect a great product and questionable service. I wish that wasn’t the case, but I gotta call ‘em like I see ‘em.

 

[MD70]

Can anyone provide a rough idea when the proposed new tax credit will become law?
I know the dems are doing something which means they only need a majority in the senate but I am not aware of the full process.

 

[Aeon]

Source, please.

If you refer to "Most Teslas would still run for 10-30 miles after indicated ZERO" i can't obviously source that generally and thought it's kind of common knowledge, but here are examples:

• 28km below zero:

• a number of older experiences with -17miles, -23km etc.: "No actual 'reserve' after ZERO" says Tesla rep.
• can't find when the Tesla went to zero indicated here, but they were driving in circles near the charger for quite a while:

If you refer to Edmunds test regimen:
Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Going below zero is obviously something you want to avoid but if there is this obviously a difference between Teslas and other EVs in that regard, then Edmunds going to 10 in those other EVs is much riskier already and their headline is extremely questionable.
One might also interpret all of this as: Tesla has precise EPA numbers but a reserve, while the others have the reserve already in their sandbagged EPA claims.

 

[UncaNed]

Can anyone tell me if 2025 expiration options are really a thing and if so how can I buy some? And what are "exercise prices"?

From Yahoo Finance: Musk’s Younger Brother Sells $25.6 Million of Tesla Shares

"Board member Antonio Gracias meanwhile bought about 50,000 call options expiring in June 2022 and 2025 with exercise prices of $52.38 and $68.56."

 

[Singuy]

I ordered my roof last July and have heard almost nothing from Tesla - no site assessment, no plan, no tentative install date. So I guess that’s because of a backlog...

Like all things Tesla, I’ve come to expect a great product and questionable service. I wish that wasn’t the case, but I gotta call ‘em like I see ‘em.

But people here believes it is better to have Tesla promise a lower price and not deliver for a year on a roof than to have a smaller queue with higher prices until production is fully ramped.. It's not like they had a master plan part one with a different model of business or anything. You know how Tesla customers all hate early adoption tax as if it's unexpected.

But I'm not the ceo of Tesla so not allowed to criticize the most negative margin product on their balance sheet.