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.
I'm personally fine with it, but it wasn't clear guidance which is a change from what Tesla has done in the past. That is the point that he is making. To me it was clearly sandbagging, but I can see how others don't view it as that.

He's had an awkward transition from bragging to sandbagging which is annoying for my short term gains. Not really complaining as I am a diamond handed goof...most of the time.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see it so much as sandbagging as just giving the target in percentage rather than absolutes. It is only a target, after all.

Plus what was said earlier about how a percentage doesn't lend itself as easily to the irrational whims of the GJs of the news world.

Anyone who can do simple math can produce a solid number. Which, of course, excludes the talking heads. :rolleyes:

And your statement of it only being a target misses the point of the guidance. Production and deliveries factor heavily into models being made for Tesla, especially those that are valuing more as an automaker than anything else. If they don't have guidance or vague guidance compared to what they are used to, they are going to have trouble building a valuation model. Just look at how Gary Black built his model, was about growth going forward and IIRC he was over 875k deliveries in 2021... when the is vaguely cut back to 750... it blows up his model.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Artful Dodger
It's really sad when people who used to be fans turn in order to profit from clicks and controversy. I know Ben listened to that podcast and he knows that Greg's comment is nonsense. Greg is the same dumb dumb that argued with me that the FSD computer being able to recognize and display things like traffic signals meant nothing.

Capture5677.JPG
 
And your statement of it only being a target misses the point of the guidance. Production and deliveries factor heavily into models being made for Tesla, especially those that are valuing more as an automaker than anything else. If they don't have guidance or vague guidance compared to what they are used to, they are going to have trouble building a valuation model. Just look at how Gary Black built his model, was about growth going forward and IIRC he was over 875k deliveries in 2021... when the is vaguely cut back to 750... it blows up his model.

Tomatoes, tomahtoes.

Anyone who wants a number can multiply by 1.5 and build their models to their heart's content. I don't understand how the issue of whether this is being said in absolutes or percentages makes any significant difference.

It isn't as if the board would say anything precise, like, "We are expecting to sell 769,420 vehicles in the coming year, xxx of this model, xxx of that model, xxx of this energy product, xxx of that one, etc."

What difference does it really make to someone modeling? Those analysts who are valuing Tesla more as an automaker than anything else won't have it right anyway, will they?

I rather like the idea of the analysts getting their hat handed to them over and over until they begin to understand Tesla is different and may not fit their traditional models anyway.
 
It's really sad when people who used to be fans turn in order to profit from clicks and controversy. I know Ben listened to that podcast and he knows that Greg's comment is nonsense. Greg is the same dumb dumb that argued with me that the FSD computer being able to recognize and display things like traffic signals meant nothing.

View attachment 636201
Not 100% sure if Ben like it because he thought Elon was full of *sugar* or he liked it because the comment is like a satire where memes are generated. Reminds me of that one tweet that said "Elon is the world greatest that delivers."
 
Tomatoes, tomahtoes.

Anyone who wants a number can multiply by 1.5 and build their models to their heart's content. I don't understand how the issue of whether this is being said in absolutes or percentages makes any significant difference.

It isn't as if the board would say anything precise, like, "We are expecting to sell 769,420 vehicles in the coming year, xxx of this model, xxx of that model, xxx of this energy product, xxx of that one, etc."

What difference does it really make to someone modeling? Those analysts who are valuing Tesla more as an automaker than anything else won't have it right anyway, will they?

I rather like the idea of the analysts getting their hat handed to them over and over until they begin to understand Tesla is different and may not fit their traditional models anyway.
You say hat, but maybe a qualifier needs to be exchanged for that? :p
 
  • Funny
Reactions: 2daMoon
It's really sad when people who used to be fans turn in order to profit from clicks and controversy. I know Ben listened to that podcast and he knows that Greg's comment is nonsense. Greg is the same dumb dumb that argued with me that the FSD computer being able to recognize and display things like traffic signals meant nothing.

View attachment 636201

Who is that nobody?

Almost nothing he quoted Elon as saying there is true. He didn't say SpaceX was going to Mars this year, or that the Roadster is shipping this year. He also said you don't need computers to make nuclear weapons, which is true, because we didn't have much in the form of computers in 1945...
 
Greg is a Tesla hater so it's not satire.
The satire comes from how you feel personally. I personally think Elon is a because his promises are big and half the time sci-fi. If personally I think he delivers than it's more satire. If I didn't think he delivers then he's just a snake oil sales man. I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt and put him in that he liked it for the satirical reasons.
 
Tomatoes, tomahtoes.

Anyone who wants a number can multiply by 1.5 and build their models to their heart's content. I don't understand how the issue of whether this is being said in absolutes or percentages makes any significant difference.

It isn't as if the board would say anything precise, like, "We are expecting to sell 769,420 vehicles in the coming year, xxx of this model, xxx of that model, xxx of this energy product, xxx of that one, etc."

What difference does it really make to someone modeling? Those analysts who are valuing Tesla more as an automaker than anything else won't have it right anyway, will they?

I rather like the idea of the analysts getting their hat handed to them over and over until they begin to understand Tesla is different and may not fit their traditional models anyway.

That is how many finance people model many companies though (not saying it is right or wrong and I don't mind them having to look at companies differently), and if they can't create their models or justifications... we can't act surprised when they sell or lash out like Gary is. He was pretty detailed in how he modeled out EPS and discounted back based on certain sales growth. When he doesn't get guidance to support that growth, his model has to retreat. He's still projecting heavy growth, but that took off a chunk from where he was before.

I agree those that model just as an automaker are missing the point, and this is a flaw in their reasoning. Them selling from not being able to model or evaluate the company does have an impact on all of our share prices. Long-term, the models don't really matter. What Tesla sells in Q1 is unlikely to drastically change what the company is in 2025, but these short term guidances do have an impact on the short term pricing action. IE if Tesla stated they were planning on selling 900k-1m in 2021, even if they knew they may not hit it and would be tough... we are probably looking at a 950-1000 share price today instead of 800.