2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Unrealistic expectations is the very reason I bought TSLA. 
-
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
Oh, but how about a Costco ? I hear that can even house a University and a Time Machine...A Walmart isn't big enough to put battery factory inside...
Boy, Sandy has been making the rounds lately. Here he is on Bearded Tesla Guy. At the beginning of the video, he has the same report on 4680 as on the Autoline video. He seems to know a lot about the energy density but he isn't revealing any numbers. If they really have done some valid testing at that level then what he does tell us is very bullish.
Also, toward the end he talks about why he never gets asked back on networks like Bloomberg.
Also, toward the end he talks about why he never gets asked back on networks like Bloomberg.
Cory is 6/6 for being right about bear traps. Every time there's a solid market dip, he tells the bears that it's a trap and stock explodes upward the next day.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
NASDAQ at 13,015 after holding at 12,997 seemingly forever. I see no reason we cnt run TSLA to $915.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Even better Elons' enemies are front running Elon, because they know he will be buying soon
Take that Elon ...
Haha, this is literally true! Elon DOES have 12 x 1% of TSLA shares now vested which he can execute at any time he chooses to pay the income tax (will trigger a tax bill for Tesla too, so there's more than just Elon in this).
Anyway, all those shares he sold back in Nov/Dec 21? Those were (mostly) to cover his income tax obligations for executing his stock options for his 2012 CEO comp. plan. He still has ~ 12% of TSLA's May 2018 share count to execute.
TL;dr Elon can buy shares via executing his stock options, and pay the tax in cash, at least for the 1st little bit (but not all). It's close to 100M shares currently. That's like $42 B in income tax owed if executed at the current SP :O
I have the feeling Elon will be donating a large number to charity to get control of his taxes payable. Paging @mongo for a sanity check...
Cheers!
Some large buys starting coming in around 11 am pacific time. Would need quite a few of those level buys to go any farther today. Very unlikely.$898 seems to be the ceiling for now, it keeps bouncing off it.
Volume is rather low today so it's not going to be hard for TSLA to be capped for another 40 mins
Last edited:
Looks more and more like the bear market is ending.
IWM over 200, IXIC over 13k, just need TSLA to finish over $900!
IWM over 200, IXIC over 13k, just need TSLA to finish over $900!
Welcome to Cap-a-rama my friends, the exciting end to a volatile trading week.
In this corner, wearing the dark shorts, is the market makers trying to protect nearly 20,000 sold call contracts at 900-strike. They're fighting an uphill battle with nearly 40 minutes left in trading, NASDAQ over 13000 today, and still rising.
In this corning, wearing the light-colored shorts, are hundreds of thousands of hard workers, trying to secure their retirements. TSLA is due for a run higher, but the market makers have just thrown a tough cross-body block and have stalled the TSLA climb at 897 while the NASDAQ runs higher. Electrifying!
In this corner, wearing the dark shorts, is the market makers trying to protect nearly 20,000 sold call contracts at 900-strike. They're fighting an uphill battle with nearly 40 minutes left in trading, NASDAQ over 13000 today, and still rising.
In this corning, wearing the light-colored shorts, are hundreds of thousands of hard workers, trying to secure their retirements. TSLA is due for a run higher, but the market makers have just thrown a tough cross-body block and have stalled the TSLA climb at 897 while the NASDAQ runs higher. Electrifying!
$898 seems to be the ceiling for now, it keeps bouncing off it.
We have broken above the 13,000 level and about to overtake the high set earlier in the week.
Tesla seemed to move pretty well today comparison to the macro. It will only do massive legs up in conjunction with massive legs up in the macro?
Tesla should be over 900 now
It's Friday, which implies a weekly options expiration. A cursory survey of today's TSLA options data suggests that large option writers (hedge funds & market makers) with the ability to manipulate the share price may want to keep it from closing no higher than $900. However, the relatively light trading volume might scare them away.
Yeah, $42+B in tax:Haha, this is literally true! Elon DOES have 12 x 1% of TSLA shares now vested which he can execute at any time he chooses to pay the income tax (will trigger a tax bill for Tesla too, so there's more than just Elon in this).
Anyway, all those shares he sold back in Nov/Dec 21? Those were (mostly) to cover his income tax obligations for executing his stock options for his 2012 CEO comp. plan. He still has ~ 12% of TSLA's May 2018 share count to execute.
TL;dr Elon can buy shares via executing his stock options, and pay the tax in cash, at least for the 1st little bit (but not all). It's close to 100M shares currently. That's like $42 B in income tax owed if executed at the current SP :O
I have the feeling Elon will be donating a large number to charity to get control of his taxes payable. Paging @mongo for a sanity check...
Cheers!
101.3 million shares at $70 basis @ $900 SP:
$7.07B exercise cost
$84 B gross profit
My math still says he's better off buying shares with spare cash now and waiting until the last moment to exercise his options. Especially since my understanding of CA tax means the longer he waits to exercise, the lower the percentage of CA tax he is on the hook for.
AFAIK (@The Accountant ) Tesla also gets an expense write down on the exercise.
Charity knocks down income, but won't help his net gains/ taxes beyond that.
Drumheller
Active Member
Hi Curt, would you elaborate on your last sentence, please? Why would light volume scare them away?
Thank you!
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
As long as the % propulsion efficiency is the same at both speeds for a given powertrain, then the % range loss is equal to 1 - old speed/new speed. So for instance, increasing the speed from 65 to 80 mph would decrease range by a factor of 65/80 irrespective of the powertrain. Basically the ICEV would continue wasting 70% of the energy at higher speeds, but that waste portion will have grown in proportion to the wind drag, making the whole pie bigger.
Now an ICEV usually has more range than an EV, so this % reduction is more of a tangible problem for an EV in practice.
The % change in energy consumption per mile is, similarly, equal to the % change in speed. Consequently, higher speeds amplify the energy cost advantage of a Tesla Semi over a diesel semi. If for example the Tesla saves $0.25/mile on using electricity instead of diesel fuel when driving at 60 mph, then at 75 mph it would save $0.25 * 75/60 = $0.31/mile.
That extra 6 cents per mile is worth roughly $50k in net present value over a million miles of operation spanning a decade. I don't know if it's exactly that much but the point is that after doing the math I now believe Tesla was seriously sandbagging the cost savings of the Semi with their worst-case scenario comparison by presenting for 60 mph instead of 70 or 75 with more reasonable average diesel prices.
The same math applies to high-speed robotaxi fleets. Someday, especially in Boring Loops, we hope to see Robotaxis driving at maybe 100 mph or more. Little differences in energy efficiency are of amplified importance at those speeds and will contribute to Tesla vehicles being the clear economic winner for such fleets.
Example:
Range at 65 mph is 2.66 miles/kWh * 85 kWh = 226 miles
Again comparing at 80 mph:
2.17 miles/kWh * 85 kWh = 185 miles range = 19% range loss vs 65 mph. Same as the percentage loss for the ICE version, and this will always be true in general as long as propulsion efficiency doesn't vary with speed. This isn't quite true but it's close enough for this approximation.
Wind drag power / propulsion efficiency / speed = stored energy used / mile
range = stored energy total / (stored energy/mile)
range = stored energy tot / (wind/efficiency/speed)
range = stored energy tot * efficiency * speed / wind
r2/r1 = (stored energy2 * efficiency2 * speed2 / wind2) / (stored energy1 * efficiency1 * speed1 / wind1)
Stored energy and propulsion efficiency are constant
r2/r1 = (stored energy2 * efficiency2 * speed2 / wind2) / (stored energy1 * efficiency1 * speed1 / wind1)
r2/r1 = speed2/speed1 * wind1/wind2
r2/r1 = speed2/speed1 * (speed1/speed2)^2
r2/r1 = speed1/speed2
Define x = energy/mile
x = Wind drag power / propulsion efficiency / speed
x2/x1 = (Wind2 / efficiency2 / speed2) / (Wind1 / efficiency1 / speed 1)
Propulsion efficiency is constant
x2/x1 = (Wind2 /efficiency2 / speed2) / (Wind1 / efficiency1 / speed 1)
x2/x1 = (wind2/wind1) * (speed1/speed2)
x2/x1 = (speed2/speed1)^2 * (speed1/speed2)
x2/x1 = Speed2 / Speed 1
- ICE car gets 30 miles per gallon at 65 mph at 30% propulsion efficiency.
- 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline
33.7 kWh potential energy/1 gallon
* 30% propulsion efficiency
* 1 gallon / 30 miles
* 65 miles/1 hour
= 22 kW of wind drag power
If the gas car has an 18-gallon tank, it can sustain 30 mpg * 18 gal = 540 miles of range in this operating condition before running out of fuel.
If the speed is increased to 80 mph, the drag becomes 22*(80/65)^2 = 33 kW.33 kW of wind drag power
/ 30% propulsion efficiency
* 1 hour/80 miles
* 1 gallon/33.7 kWh
= 0.0408 gallons per mile
--> 24.4 mpg
24.4 mpg * 18 gal = 439 miles range = 19% range loss vs 65 mph.
Now let's take the same car and substitute a Model 3 powertrain with 85 kWh of useable battery and 90% propulsion efficiency.22 kW of wind drag
/ 90% propulsion efficiency
* 1 hour/65 miles
= 0.376 kWh of battery drain/mile
--> 2.66 miles/kWh
Range at 65 mph is 2.66 miles/kWh * 85 kWh = 226 miles
Again comparing at 80 mph:
33 kW of wind drag power
/ 90% propulsion efficiency
* 1 hour/80 miles
= 0.461 kWh of battery drain/mile
--> 2.17 miles/kWh
2.17 miles/kWh * 85 kWh = 185 miles range = 19% range loss vs 65 mph. Same as the percentage loss for the ICE version, and this will always be true in general as long as propulsion efficiency doesn't vary with speed. This isn't quite true but it's close enough for this approximation.
General formula:Wind drag power / propulsion efficiency / speed = stored energy used / mile
range = stored energy total / (stored energy/mile)
range = stored energy tot / (wind/efficiency/speed)
range = stored energy tot * efficiency * speed / wind
r2/r1 = (stored energy2 * efficiency2 * speed2 / wind2) / (stored energy1 * efficiency1 * speed1 / wind1)
Stored energy and propulsion efficiency are constant
r2/r1 = (
r2/r1 = speed2/speed1 * wind1/wind2
w2/w1 = (speed2/speed1)^2
r2/r1 = speed2/speed1 * (speed1/speed2)^2
r2/r1 = speed1/speed2
Define x = energy/mile
x = Wind drag power / propulsion efficiency / speed
x2/x1 = (Wind2 / efficiency2 / speed2) / (Wind1 / efficiency1 / speed 1)
Propulsion efficiency is constant
x2/x1 = (Wind2 /
x2/x1 = (wind2/wind1) * (speed1/speed2)
w2/w1 = (speed2/speed1)^2
x2/x1 = (speed2/speed1)^2 * (speed1/speed2)
x2/x1 = Speed2 / Speed 1
Last edited:
It could make it harder for large trades to be made really close to current prices.
Given that past 2-3 counts have been ~7K, and there is just one RORO leaving ~per week, which can handle 3.5-4K units, it seems some ships have not been account for?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
