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 expect GM to go bust (if the economy drops a bit) with their attempt to get into EV's strongly - but if you look at cars like the EQC - it shows Mercedes know how to make a compelling EV - 450 mile range is impressive! Shows competitors are catching up.

Uh the EQC has a 220 mile range.

And all of the Daimler EVs are fat pigs that weigh at least 1000 pounds more than comparable Teslas.
 
It seems to me that the Optimus Sub Prime development project is not closely aligned with mission of Tesla. Some will disagree of course.

One of the most commonly pushed reasons why we cannot adopt sustainable energy quickly but must do it over a multi-decadal period is because the job is too big. It would cost too much and we can't afford to do that. So we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuel gradually, very slowly.

Robot labor that transforms the economy solves that nicely. Formations of robots would be relatively cheap to mass-produce but could be used to cheaply install and maintain huge solar and battery facilities in the desert. They could lower the cost of solar cell production and allow factories to be placed in areas of sparse human labor. Domestic robots could be trained to open/close windows and shades as needed to maximize or minimize solar heat gain/loss to reduce energy demand. Supercharging the economy with cheap robot labor would remove the biggest reason people say we must wean ourselves off oil slowly. The benefits to the economy and humanity are so great they cannot be separated from the mission.

Certainly, robots will have their own division within Tesla, separate from the auto division, but there is no practical or fundamental reason why it would be beneficial to spin robots off into a separate company. History is full of successful conglomerates with widely varying business segments.
 
So you are going to believe or invest on rumor sourced from Twitter?

The Business Roundtable's campaign to kill BBB

The Business Roundtable did not seek to work with the White House or Congress to make BBB more business-friendly. Instead, it launched a public campaign to kill the bill, arguing it would be catastrophic for the American economy.

While Barra became chair of the Business Roundtable on January 1, 2022, she has been a member of its leadership for years. And the campaign has continued after Barra assumed her new position.

When the White House released a framework for BBB in October 2021, the Business Roundtable released a statement claiming it "would seriously undermine U.S. growth, competitiveness and jobs and make it harder for companies to invest in innovation and workers." When the House passed BBB in November 2021, the Business Roundtable released a statement saying it was "disappointed that the House of Representatives voted in favor of one of the largest tax increases in history on American job creators" and that the legislation would "erode America’s competitive standing and favor foreign competitors over American businesses and workers."

The Business Roundtable's opposition extended far beyond press releases. The organization spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Facebook ads designed to create "grassroots" opposition to BBB.

Why the White House is playing along

It's clear why CEOs like Barra would attend a White House meeting. They want to appear dedicated to tackling climate change and other important issues. They don't want the reputation for undermining popular policies.

But why would the White House invite CEOs that have relentlessly attacked the President's agenda and present them as supporters and partners? In part to generate headlines like this:


This gives Biden's agenda the appearance of momentum. But, if these CEOs don't actually support his agenda, is this a smart strategy? One of the reasons why BBB has stalled is the aggressive opposition by corporate lobbying organizations that represent the CEOs that were in the room today with Biden.
 
Borrowing on margin is far different than borrowing for a house.

As long as you make payments the bank cannot force you to either pay off the mortgage or have your home repossessed, just because the value of your home dropped.

Your financial institution can take your stock if the share price drops. They can also unilaterally change the margin requirements and tell you to either pay up or have your shares sold. In fact several people reported TD Ameritrade just raised margin requirements from 40% to 60% on 100% Tesla portfolios.
Agreed. In this case though I'm referring to simple borrowing via personal loan, serviced from affordable monthly income rather than on margin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbM3 and wtlloyd
maybe we should consider getting rid of the useless uptick rule too

again, not too hopeful on that front
When ppl simply want to sell, the uptick rule doesn’t help the stock from more falling.. yesterday what we saw were sellers, seems to be same today.. big blocks. Would have to be large institutional sellers and funds at this point.
 
I expect GM to go bust (if the economy drops a bit) with their attempt to get into EV's strongly - but if you look at cars like the EQC - it shows Mercedes know how to make a compelling EV - 450 mile range is impressive! Shows competitors are catching up.
No it doesn’t. It means that If they want to take losses on every car and sell only low volumes, they can get decent range.

That’s not catching up.
 
I am an investor in Tesla’s “Master Plan.” Elon’s statement’s have altered the path of that plan.

As a shareholder, I would like to see a full-throated, compelling, persuasive description of his vision.

Me too - BUT - I think there is none - there's two plans now.
IF (biiig IF) FSD works this year then full throttle RoboTaxi Plan with dedicated new vehicle architecture and Tosla Bot focus.
IF FSD keeps hitting local maxima - stay on Model 2 route and scale to 20M cars a year by 2030 and see if FSD get's solved along the way.

Which one is it? To me, the FSD 2022 story doesn't feel right - but let's see - I would have preferred to just not talk about those scenarious in the earnings call and just stay on MasterPlan Part Deux course for now
 
50% growth with just Fremont and Shanghai? That is kinda drastic vs everyone’s 22 predictions. I think 1,8-2 M is on order. New factories will mind blow

50% just from Fremont/Shanghai is only 1.4m between them.

Considering that Tesla averaged 1.2m last quarter that’s only +100k each, and new SX haven’t finished ramping yet. Easy peasy.
 
I agree completely. As a group of fanboys, we understand where EM comes from, but he completely fumbled the messages (which then completely overshadowed the unbelievable year of growth in production and profit). There is a separate medium for his aspirations like AI day, Batttery day etc…
The fanboy in all of us are coming up with all kind of excuses/rationale to ease our disappointment of the disastrous results of the Q4 call!
Bingo, EM should have taken a page from CEO Barra's playbook. When they asked about the $25K, start talking about the efficiency and production numbers that will come from AUS and BER. How it will lead to even better numbers in future quarters. Or take a page out of every other Automaker out there," we do not discuss future products" (and yes, Elon has used that one before). Can't spin positive news as negative, if you give something POSITIVE!

Instead we get a condescending lecture on Jetsons robotics and an often delayed FSD. Go over to the Model Y and 3 sections of this forum. Where the majority talk of pride in their new Teslas. They are not going to rent their cars out to have strangers do who knows what inside of there cars.

I guess its cool one day we can all aspire to be Hertz.