Sell calls or dump Tsla if anyone here mentions retirement or buying islands.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Yes, but one netted me ~20% in a day where the other, though several x over time, has meandered downwards quite a bit last several months. The money used for NIO is money I use for quick turns and/or high risk. That includes TSLA and is working well for me. 99.75% is in HODL TSLA which is working great!
adiggs
Well-Known Member
To add on to this idea - rates under ~2 or 2.5% is still stimulative to the economy. The .25 rate hike moves the Fed from aggressive stimulation of the economy to ... aggressive stimulation of the economy. I like that there is talk about shrinking the balance sheet. At minimum I'd like to see a decision to let the balance sheet shrink as bonds reach expiration and are paid off.
Both activities will reduce Fed stimulus to the economy, and create some breathing room between ~max stimulus and a more historically normal stance, so that there is some ability to stimulate later in the face of whatever comes next.
(Interesting side note - as the balance sheet is shrunk the bulk of that freed up cash will go to the US Treasury. There are some dividend payments that go out first, but the rest goes to the US Treasury. That sounds to me like several years of much lower deficits than would otherwise be expected as a LOT of money is transferred from the Fed to the Treasury - about $7T worth over whatever time period it takes to shrink that balance sheet from $9T back down to $2T).
Actually I've decided I'm with the one hawk on this one and am disappointed in only a .25 hike. That's been priced in for so long that I see it as effectively a no-op. I get that there is a big lag between rate changes and economic activity. I take the .25 hike as fundamentally a business as usual view on inflation by the Fed, and not nearly as aggressive as needed to let people know that this is serious.
MHO - the Fed is still stimulating the economy aggressively, and not seriously fighting inflation. From the stuff I read the market is seeing this as the Fed fighting inflation.
Depends if they are part limited or hours in the day/ shift limited. From the Q4 call, they were running under capacity. If their suppliers keep up and they can squeeze an extra 10% build rate out through the end of March, then it's a wash.
Even if they drop two days, that's subtracting from their Q1 2022 volume which should be more than two days higher than their Q4 2021 volume.
Edit: what @StarFoxisDown! said
Last edited:
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
If you recall back several months one of the Falcon launches of Starlinks was pulled, then reinserted with a different (more northerly) orbital inclination. I commented at the time (on one of the SpaceX threads) that SpaceX obviously had a special customer with influence who had made a specific coverage prioritisation request for a particular reason ......
So I'm guessing both State Dept and DoD both had considered the groundside aspects of this in advance as well, in terms of obtaining clearances
In my opinion the relationship between Tesla/SpaceX and US gov is much closer than the theatre one sees (or doesn't see) in presidential circles, or at the FAA, or etc. Even if Joe Manchin wasn't on the dist list.
No doubt SpaceX and the US Government coordinate with each other and that it's in both of their interests to keep much of the coordination under the radar and mostly unofficial.
That said, it would not surprise me at all if Elon's actions in supplying communications gear to Ukraine on short notice broke multiple national or international laws and or regulations (regarding import/export, sensitive technology, customs, etc.) with a strict reading of those regulations. But Elon is not a stranger to going out on a limb, he is very confident in his actions, and he knew anyone taking issue with it would end up looking foolish while bolstering goodwill towards Elon and his contributions.
What does this have to do with Tesla? It's just one more very real example how the CEO of Tesla is not the bumbling fool he is often made out to be. He will go down as the most important person of the 21st century.
Someone finally wrote what we've all known for a long time:
www.forbes.com
TL: DR
“Despite countless press releases & bravado, GM is not really in the EV business. At this stage, [GM’s] more focused on giving the impression it’s an EV market leader … More concerned with placating investors … than making products customers love.”
Why GM Will Drive Its EV Business Into A Wall
Let’s be perfectly clear. Despite countless press releases and bravado, General Motors is not really in the electric vehicle business. At this stage, the Detroit, Mich.-based company is more focused on giving the impression it is an EV market leader.
www.forbes.com
TL: DR
“Despite countless press releases & bravado, GM is not really in the EV business. At this stage, [GM’s] more focused on giving the impression it’s an EV market leader … More concerned with placating investors … than making products customers love.”
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
So, the pause that refreshes? I like it!
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Best takeaway for me was the illustration of how inefficient the cobbled together Fremont layout is vs Shanghai for building cars....New note from Adam Jonas/Morgan Stanley after visiting Fremont:
Tesla gave Morgan Stanley a tour of its CA factory, and expansion sounds like a no-brainer
Tesla's tour of Fremont to Morgan Stanley analysts only confirmed that CEO Elon Musk's idea of expanding the factory may be in the company's best interest.www.teslarati.com
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
"Tesla believes that supply/demand dynamic will persist for the next 18 months at least."New note from Adam Jonas/Morgan Stanley after visiting Fremont:
Tesla gave Morgan Stanley a tour of its CA factory, and expansion sounds like a no-brainer
Tesla's tour of Fremont to Morgan Stanley analysts only confirmed that CEO Elon Musk's idea of expanding the factory may be in the company's best interest.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Jordan offers us something to ponder while we patiently bide our time waiting for the SP to reach orbit and the Cybertruck to begin production.
Hopefully in that order… otherwise I might not be able to afford the Cybertruck!
That’s not entirely true, I have my Model Y, and even if the SP stays flat, it seems like the value of my Model Y is increasing fast enough I could always sell it and use the profits to buy the Cybertruck.
Do you have to pay capital gains taxes on a car you’ve owned for more than a year?
Yes, but I doubt many actually do. (For the rare cases where it is actually sold at a profit.)
Last edited:
ZachF
Active Member
Seattle rents are lower because Seattle QoL has dropped heavily since then. Same with SF, Portland and LA. People will pay high rents to live close to a vibrant walkable downtown, but all you’re paying for now is living within walking distance of a depressingly large population of homeless and drug addicts and boarded up storefronts. Crime is up massively, and the quality of public education in these places has collapsed at the same time.
I used to live in the PNW in 2016/2016 for a bit, and when I visited recently it’s honestly shameful how far Seattle and Portland have fallen. When Amazon announced they’re leaving the downtown I wasn’t surprised. Rent has fallen in Seattle because the Seattle of 2022 is grossly inferior to the Seattle of 2016.
Nationwide, rent inflation is impressive. Anecdotally, places my differ, but 20% rent increases are crazy.
The subject 'inflation' is already a stretch for this thread, but now an OT discussion about 'rent' is starting to brew. I'm nipping it in the bud.
Words of HABIT
Active Member
Honda's Alliston plant to build next-generation hybrids as part of $1.38B investment for electric transition
The Honda Canada plants in Alliston will upgrade and retool with plans to go fully electric by 2040.
It's sad, (so sad) so sad. My first four cars were Honda and I loved owning/driving them, until I discovered Tesla. Honda has lost all relevance, planning to go all electric by...wait for it...2040. The future has passed them bye.
The Honda E looks like a good potential for a City runabout, however will not come to North America.
The Honda Clarity BEV has already been discontinued (only plug in and fuel cell options now available).
Honda Kills Clarity EV, Its Only All-Electric Car in U.S.
Honda will phase out the Clarity EV after this model year but is keeping the fuel-cell and plug-in-hybrid Clarity models.
www.caranddriver.com
It's a sad, sad situation.Earlier this week there was talk about the best YouTube channels for Tesla information. I'd recommend Two Minute Papers. While it is not directly about Tesla, it does offer a ton of examples of the cutting edge of AI research, which clearly has implications for FSD. The videos are short, easily digestible and amazing.
OK. I think I'm going to get hammered by the More Knowledgeable here. But my background in macro and micro economics has been ringing a bell with respect to the Fed raising interest rates. And, I think, people have the Wrong Idea about what's going on here.
Point #1: The Fed is the Lender of Last Resort. That was set up after the Great Depression. They're not supposed to have low interest rates over there: It's supposed to be higher than everything else in sight, but not so high that somebody desperate for money and willing to pay high interest rates like that. Like, say, if there's a Run On The Bank and the Bank Needs Money, Right Now. The Fed will lend them what they need and keep the bank from collapsing, at least right there on the spot, but the bank in question is going to pay for the privilege.
Point #2: Normal, non-emergency loans should, and were, based upon the idea that banks were competing with each other for customers. The banks had money from depositors burning a hole in their collective pockets; they should be generally eager to find borrowers willing to pay interest on those loans. Charge too much interest and the potential borrowers will go somewhere else. Welcome in Adam Smith's invisible hand; banks compete with each other to offer depositors as high an interest as they can, and to offer borrowers as low an interest as they can, and live on the difference.
Point #3: A couple decades ago due to Wall Street/Savings & Loans/What-Have-You getting too smart for their own good (including getting rid of the Depression-based requirements separating investment and commercial banking, the requirements on how much reserves, etc.) caused the economy to teeter and nearly crash. The Fed dropped interest rates to provide a ready source of money, bailing out the banking and investing industry - and, now, all the banks were going to the Fed, not, generally, despositors, for cash to loan out. And the rates charged for these loans they were making were higher than what the Fed was charging. Whee! Free, cost-free money!
So, what's wrong with this picture?
First off, back in Ye Olden Days, if the Fed wanted to increase the money supply, they'd take that high interest rate and drop it a trifle. More semi-desperate-for-the-money borrowers would queue up, the Fed would print money in exchange for I.O.U. (i.e., bonds) and the money supply would increase. Want to decrease the money supply? Raise rates. Nifty tool, this is what economic theory is all about.
Nowadays? The Fed's interest rates are pitifully low at around 0.25%. Actual loan rates from banks are 4% and up. Changing things a trifle doesn't help - and the Fed has lost control of an input to change the amount of money in circulation.
Second: Banks are simply getting money from the Fed and loaning it out, rather than getting money from depositors and loaning it out. Hm. What happens to consumer deposit interest rates? They're dead low, that's what; except for the security issue, I know a number of people who would be just as well off if they put the money in the mattress than to put it in the bank.
Yeah, everybody's flush with money. And.. no surprise, if the money supply increases without limit, but that money is chasing the same amount of physical goods, we get inflation.
Frankly, the Fed should have increased interest rates years ago. But Bankers Love Low Cost Money, And Have Been Lobbying To Keep Interest Rates from the Fed Low. By the by: This is great short-term thinking by Banks, but can lead to nifty things like.. hyperinflation.
So, I'm happy the Fed is raising interest rates. Please, do it some more, Get up into the 5% to 10% range and make the banks compete with each other, again. A healthier economy will result, no kidding.
As regards Tesla: They're not really borrowing much from banks these days, and the nearly free money (relatively speaking) they got and have now paid off was handy, back in the day, but the capital they needed to get moving they got from the stock market. Raising interest rates shouldn't affect the company too much, I figure.
For a lot of the teetering-on-the-brink-of-failing Tesla wanna-be competitors: The rising interest rates should definitely kill a few of them. But that's the point of capitalism: companies without a good plan and/or inability to execute should fail.
(Donning flame-proof kevlar.. Comments?)
Point #1: The Fed is the Lender of Last Resort. That was set up after the Great Depression. They're not supposed to have low interest rates over there: It's supposed to be higher than everything else in sight, but not so high that somebody desperate for money and willing to pay high interest rates like that. Like, say, if there's a Run On The Bank and the Bank Needs Money, Right Now. The Fed will lend them what they need and keep the bank from collapsing, at least right there on the spot, but the bank in question is going to pay for the privilege.
Point #2: Normal, non-emergency loans should, and were, based upon the idea that banks were competing with each other for customers. The banks had money from depositors burning a hole in their collective pockets; they should be generally eager to find borrowers willing to pay interest on those loans. Charge too much interest and the potential borrowers will go somewhere else. Welcome in Adam Smith's invisible hand; banks compete with each other to offer depositors as high an interest as they can, and to offer borrowers as low an interest as they can, and live on the difference.
Point #3: A couple decades ago due to Wall Street/Savings & Loans/What-Have-You getting too smart for their own good (including getting rid of the Depression-based requirements separating investment and commercial banking, the requirements on how much reserves, etc.) caused the economy to teeter and nearly crash. The Fed dropped interest rates to provide a ready source of money, bailing out the banking and investing industry - and, now, all the banks were going to the Fed, not, generally, despositors, for cash to loan out. And the rates charged for these loans they were making were higher than what the Fed was charging. Whee! Free, cost-free money!
So, what's wrong with this picture?
First off, back in Ye Olden Days, if the Fed wanted to increase the money supply, they'd take that high interest rate and drop it a trifle. More semi-desperate-for-the-money borrowers would queue up, the Fed would print money in exchange for I.O.U. (i.e., bonds) and the money supply would increase. Want to decrease the money supply? Raise rates. Nifty tool, this is what economic theory is all about.
Nowadays? The Fed's interest rates are pitifully low at around 0.25%. Actual loan rates from banks are 4% and up. Changing things a trifle doesn't help - and the Fed has lost control of an input to change the amount of money in circulation.
Second: Banks are simply getting money from the Fed and loaning it out, rather than getting money from depositors and loaning it out. Hm. What happens to consumer deposit interest rates? They're dead low, that's what; except for the security issue, I know a number of people who would be just as well off if they put the money in the mattress than to put it in the bank.
Yeah, everybody's flush with money. And.. no surprise, if the money supply increases without limit, but that money is chasing the same amount of physical goods, we get inflation.
Frankly, the Fed should have increased interest rates years ago. But Bankers Love Low Cost Money, And Have Been Lobbying To Keep Interest Rates from the Fed Low. By the by: This is great short-term thinking by Banks, but can lead to nifty things like.. hyperinflation.
So, I'm happy the Fed is raising interest rates. Please, do it some more, Get up into the 5% to 10% range and make the banks compete with each other, again. A healthier economy will result, no kidding.
As regards Tesla: They're not really borrowing much from banks these days, and the nearly free money (relatively speaking) they got and have now paid off was handy, back in the day, but the capital they needed to get moving they got from the stock market. Raising interest rates shouldn't affect the company too much, I figure.
For a lot of the teetering-on-the-brink-of-failing Tesla wanna-be competitors: The rising interest rates should definitely kill a few of them. But that's the point of capitalism: companies without a good plan and/or inability to execute should fail.
(Donning flame-proof kevlar.. Comments?)
Yeah, well, they bought it on sale when it was all they could afford, so...
But...
Attachments
Did a quick search and did not see this posted in the thread, apologies if it was. This just popped up in my news feed. More demand incoming for Berlin.
Germany backs phasing out combustion engine cars by 2035
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backs-phasing-out-combustion-engine-cars-by-2035/
Germany backs phasing out combustion engine cars by 2035
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backs-phasing-out-combustion-engine-cars-by-2035/
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
