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

[Tes La Ferrari]

Tesla Model Y Deliveries Will Start Soon in Israel, as Batch of 2K Cars to Arrive in Mid-February

Photo: Norsk elbilforening/YouTube Tesla Model Y sales will start soon in Israel as the vehicles are already on their way. A batch of 2,000 vehicles from the manufacturer, including Model Y, will arrive in mid-February, after which the first deliveries will begin.Tesla sold a whopping 6,300...

www.tesmanian.com

TL DR: "Tesla sold a whopping 6,300 vehicles in Israel in 2021 and has no intention of slowing down its takeover of the local auto market. Based on information from a Chinese source, Globes said that another 2,000 vehicles will arrive in the country this month. The ship should moor off the coast of Israel in mid-February, which means that the first deliveries should occur in late February to early March."

 

[ZsoZso]

Only 20.....Bearish if you ask me:

View attachment 763957

Definitely not a sign of progress. Only 20 EVs by 2025 ?
That's a 30% drop from 2021 Q4, when they had put 26 EVs into the market!

/s
I know they meant models, not individual cars, but my interpretation above could end up being closer to reality by 2025...

 

[kbM3]

Did she say this? So, 400k this year? Is that how folks are reading this?

"GM said that the Silverado, Equinox, and Blazer EVs will all begin deliveries in 2023. The three vehicles will contribute to GM’s plan to deliver 400,000 EVs in North America in 2022 and 2023."

General Motors emphasizing faster electric vehicle launches after positive 2021 earnings

General Motors (NYSE: GM) is gearing up for a major shift in 2022 thanks to its evolving electric vehicle program, planning for record profit levels that could surge the company into a more well-rounded placement in an increasingly competitive sector. The automaker is preparing for faster...

www.teslarati.com

I read it as 400k over both years combined.

 

[jbcarioca]

...

Thus, the difference between individual investors and investors in aggregate. As a group, I agree options traders will lose. At the individual level, we very much disagree.

Excellent. You prove the point. Many individuals think they can outsmart a system designed to extract value from them.
The shareholders of all the market makers thank you.

 

[StealthP3D]

So my buddy and I are in a heated debate. He’s of the opinion that’s it’s impossible to beat S&P long run and that if you do it’s just dumb luck. What would you say to him? Oh and on top of that he’s saying that it’s not dumb luck if you are a professional investor.

I would tell your friend there is nothing inherently wrong with having friends that have difficulty grasping reality.

His belief probably stems from Warren Buffet's famous 10-year bet with a fund manager. But the bet required the fund to be diversified and include the regular 1.5% fund fee. Investors that beat the S&P500 consistently tend to be less less diversified, and they don't have to worry about fees eating into their gains.

IMO, the primary reason most individual investors don't beat the index is due to trying to time the market, not due to them trying to pick the best stocks (although many find that difficult to do as well).

 

[AudubonB]

At least 20 ? They already beat that by 6 last quarter.

How - pray tell - will I stop this shaking in my boots?

Try stopping laughing so hard. Might help?

 

[Discoducky]

Did she say this? So, 400k this year? Is that how folks are reading this?

"GM said that the Silverado, Equinox, and Blazer EVs will all begin deliveries in 2023. The three vehicles will contribute to GM’s plan to deliver 400,000 EVs in North America in 2022 and 2023."

General Motors emphasizing faster electric vehicle launches after positive 2021 earnings

General Motors (NYSE: GM) is gearing up for a major shift in 2022 thanks to its evolving electric vehicle program, planning for record profit levels that could surge the company into a more well-rounded placement in an increasingly competitive sector. The automaker is preparing for faster...

www.teslarati.com

Found the transcript. General Motors (GM) Q4 2021 Earnings Call Transcript | The Motley Fool

Here's what was actually said, which is 400k in the next two years is my read.

"And we have set a target to deliver 400,000 EVs in North America over the course of 2022 and 2023."

 

[EVDRVN]

I read it as 400k over both years combined.

So they only need to deliver a handful in 2022 to make the statement valid. By that measure Tesla could deliver one CT in 2022 and say the same about a CT launch. Very Rivian like.

 

[Unpilot]

Found the transcript. General Motors (GM) Q4 2021 Earnings Call Transcript | The Motley Fool

Here's what was actually said, which is 400k in the next two years is my read.

"And we have set a target to deliver 400,000 EVs in North America over the course of 2022 and 2023."

I have a feeling that they will miss that target.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JEDs4UCx8fwr6ltoGE/giphy-downsized-large.gif

 

[henchman24]

So... what Tesla will soon do in a quarter this year (maybe even Q1), is what GM is stating for all of this and next year.

 

[Discoducky]

I have a feeling that they will miss that target.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JEDs4UCx8fwr6ltoGE/giphy-downsized-large.gif

Totally do-able, standard hockey-stick Q/Q growth. Throw in the towel, GM will take massive market share! /s

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

And stepping back even further, what will define success for 2022 in the hedge fund world? Looking at actual 4Q earnings it nearly has to be big tech. How else will one beat the S&P?

These guys already made a killing shorting TSLA and other QQQ components in January, logically now they can turn around and put those winnings to use acquiring shares in the companies most likely to show insane earnings growth at year-end.

Certainly not everyone will do it, maybe just a few at first, but I think we'll see a stampede rotating back into tech once a certain percentage of hedge funds reverse course. I think it's already happening and will end when these GOOG numbers trickle into everyone's models by Monday.

You'd be hard-pressed to convince me it's not everyone's #1 goal to acquire cheap shares in big tech companies in early 2022.

I 100% think that the pushdown/sell off on tech in general is a money grab for shares. So much money has been sitting on the sidelines waiting for a correction to happen and get a "entry" point to start buying in.

My comment was more geared toward hedge funds that play in options(and thus push the stock around for those options), MM's, shorts who use Puts to create selling pressure, etc....To me, the period of wild TSLA volatility is coming to a close and that even they recognize it as such. Otherwise, it's hard for me fathom why they would even remotely let Tesla's forward P/E compress to the point that it's at.

Let's say the share price gets capped in the 950-1000 range until Q1 earnings where Tesla prints a GAAP EPS of $3. Well then the forward P/E gets compressed to 60. At that point, the stock will be forced higher by 20-25% higher because Q2's GAAP EPS will increase by another 20-25%, if not more. Repeat for Q3...and then Q4.......and practically every quarter for the next 8 straight quarters. In this dynamic, the stock price gets extremely easy to predict because there's very little compression buffer. Therefore, put option activity is going to dry up and the spread of options strike prices, especially on the put side, will tighten up.

I'm not saying options volume in TSLA disappears or anything like that, but I do see it diminishing quite a bit. Just take this weeks options for example, you have strike range of $650 Puts to $1150 Calls. In 6 months, I don't think you see anywhere near a spread like that.

 

[JRP3]

Of course we knew this:

Lawyers for the billionaire chief executive officer of the electric-car maker said in a court filing Tuesday that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund had indeed agreed to support his attempt to take the company private.

“Elon Musk’s August 7, 2018 tweet informing the public that he was considering taking Tesla private was entirely truthful,” the CEO’s attorney Alex Spiro said in a heavily redacted filing. “Mr. Musk was considering taking Tesla private at $420 a share. Funding was secured. There was investor support.”

Musk Says His Tweet About Taking Tesla Private Was ‘Entirely Truthful’

(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk says his 2018 tweet about planning to take Tesla Inc. private was “entirely truthful” and that investors who claim the missive was fraudulent are wrong.Most Read from BloombergAlphabet Stock Split Aimed at Bringing Google Shares to MassesTeen Who Demanded $50,000 From...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[[email protected]]

Found the transcript. General Motors (GM) Q4 2021 Earnings Call Transcript | The Motley Fool

Here's what was actually said, which is 400k in the next two years is my read.

"And we have set a target to deliver 400,000 EVs in North America over the course of 2022 and 2023."

Probably not helpful to be snarky, but is the 400k production number net of the Bolts that are being recalled?

 

[Sancho]

It's worth pointing out that while QQQ is positive on the day, ARKK is down quite substantially. I know many here may not agree, but there still appears to be large overlap in investment philosophies for TSLA and ARKK. If we take today as any indication, it seems there is still quite a lot of fretting about P/Es, even if macros are looking up in the short

It's worth pointing out that while QQQ is positive on the day, ARKK is down quite substantially. I know many here may not agree, but there still appears to be large overlap in investment philosophies for TSLA and ARKK. If we take today as any indication, it seems there is still quite a lot of fretting about P/Es, even if macros are looking up in the short term.

It so often seems that TSLA moves directionally with ARKK, that I sometimes wonder whether traders are attacking TSLA to make short term profits on ARKK, or the other way around.

Regardless, it’s definitely a short side strategy to attack one to impact the other. While some of the correlation can be explained by TSLA being a component of ARKK, and most of ARKK is high growth tech like TSLA, TSLA is a large cap profitable, company, different than most of the rest of ARKK. As you say, the correlation isn’t as tight with QQQ, also growth tech.

 

[StealthP3D]

I am sorry but I think you are REALLY missing the boat on this issue as many people consider this a very large benefit in emergency or back up situations. You state "If the EV's battery is sized properly for daily needs then by the time you get home and find your power is out, there is precious little storage available to use as backup power, especially if you don't want to disable the remaining functionality of your car during a power outage of indeterminate length that prevents you from re-charging it." But the reality is very different as people size their battery for weekend or vacation trips not their daily commute. 95% of the time I arrive home with a battery at 75% or better. And no I do not want a smaller battery as the Tesla is our primary trip car. Even if the car had outlets I could power the refrigerator or other essentials if the power were out. Then there is camping, tail gating and worksites where 120V and even 240V power would be very beneficial. If done right, as most Tesla owners also have solar, then I could likely run my solar in the event of an outage, keeping the house and the car charged. If Tesla were to sell PowerWalls I agree the need would be reduced, but most of the country cannot buy a PowerWall. And even with PowerWalls the use cases of camping, tail gating and worksite power are huge.

I'm not saying that people might not want VTG, simply that Tesla doesn't support it for rational reasons. If someone wants it that bad, they can make the purchase decision based upon that feature and buy a competitors EV who feels like they need to offer that feature to sell their EV's. I can guarantee you this decision will not slow Tesla's growth even a little bit and it will save them some money over time.

The main reason some individuals think they want VTG is for convenience during power outages. Not only do I think many will be unhappy with the operation of VTG in that role, but it also won't further the mission of accelerating the transition to sustainable energy. It will encourage people to buy more range than otherwise and that makes for less efficiency.

If you think Tesla is making a mistake here, let's watch how it plays out for those manufacturers who think it's a good idea.

 

[perwis]

I would tell your friend there is nothing inherently wrong with having friends that have difficulty grasping reality.

His belief probably stems from Warren Buffet's famous 10-year bet with a fund manager. But the bet required the fund to be diversified and include the regular 1.5% fund fee. Investors that beat the S&P500 consistently tend to be less less diversified, and they don't have to worry about fees eating into their gains.

IMO, the primary reason most individual investors don't bet the index is due to trying to time the market, not due to them trying to pick the best stocks (although many find that difficult to do as well).

Or if he is a Buffet fan, you can show him this classic speech/article "The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville" in which the GOAT himself argues that you on the contrary CAN consistently beat the index, if only you follow the principles laid down by Benjamin Graham: https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/valueinvesting/files/files/Buffett1984.pdf

 

[AudubonB]

Probably not helpful to be snarky, but is the 400k production number net of the Bolts that are being recalled?

Hmmm. Were there " I I " absolute number symbols used in the press release?

 

[StealthP3D]

To every example you present, you might have added "in a perfect world". There is no question that everyone afflicted by a power outage lasting an hour or a day would be better off being able to utilize any available energy from their car/truck. Houston, anyone? yes, some people's state of charge will be low, and no, the energy available will not suffice for fully powering your whole house--but most dedicated powerwall installations will not either. Keeping a few critical critical systems on-line--refrigeration, internet, HVAC pumps will do it. Only a generator can do more, and many/most people don't need, want or cannot afford one. I think the Ford truck's VTG capability will be a big differentiator for them, and sell a lot of trucks. I hope Tesla is not of the "not invented here" school on this one.

That doesn't make sense. My over-arching point is we don't live in a perfect world where VTG actually has the net benefits people think it has. Ford might need the VTG gimmick to sell their poorly engineered, overweight, poor-handling trucks for a very high price and add to their margins by selling this high margin option, but Tesla doesn't need that and will not offer it. This will not turn out to be a strategic mistake.

If you need or want the feature that bad, please switch to Ford. Tesla is not worried. And for good reason. I don't expect you to see it how I see it but I'm confident this is the smart, forward-thinking decision. Tesla should not be tempted to add every feature some of their customers think they want. They don't need to do that either.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

NHTSAs requirement for Tesla to classify an OTA as a "recall" is rotten. The OTA experience is heavenly compared to legacy auto's recall process. Everyone that has experienced a "recall" knows that it's not benign, you have to schedule an appointment, take time out of your day to drop it off, deal with advisors and paperwork, either wait or catch a ride home/work, return, deal with more paperwork and/or cashier, etc. Best case description is inconvenient, worst case is colossal waste of time. To conflate Tesla's OTA with legacy auto's recall process is biased BS.

The only sense in which there is an issue is that they haven't updated their language to the software age.
Recall has a specific meaning in terms of enforcement and there's no need to abandon the word.

I have had recalls on my past 3 cars, none of which are Tesla, and I think that at least half were software fixes.

I think it would be very helpful to both Tesla and other manufacturers specifically to say "Software Recall" to make it clear that there it doesn't require a supply of parts or the kind of physical part replacement that is prone to error.