Krugerrand
Meow
Don’t be silly ant. Same pizza just smaller pieces. Ask the experts.
But yeah, I’ll take another x3 in share count even if it means I need to do long math by hand because the calculator spits out alien symbols.
-
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
But yeah, I’ll take another x3 in share count even if it means I need to do long math by hand because the calculator spits out alien symbols.
Oh good point. Solar Panels, but thinking roof leak. Too late to change it now.
(Edit: I still plan to re-roof when prices ease some in construction and the air temp cools a bit. Then possibly consider new Tesla products and upgrade in '23. So they bought me time to shop, and for free after 3 yrs on a very used roof in the first place. I'm still happy, want it to rain now!!!)
Last edited:
Phenomenologically, rather similar.
Structurally - there is zero similarity to me.
Still on the fence if I care to find my car stopping for barbie dolls or not...
The problem is that they are tracking to have GM/F auto gross margins AT BEST and with no autonomy/software revenue, there's really no upside to the stock. The current valuation is already pricing in that they will survive and will at least make auto gm.Tesla was at a very different place in the market. I don't think comparing the investment market in 2012 and 2022 is valid. The expectation was that EVs were always going to be a failure and there wasn't a market for them... Tesla proved that very wrong. Very little big money was available to fund in 2013/14/15/16+... now we have not only a ton from names like Amazon, but from investors looking for that 'next Tesla.' They can secondary a number of times and find plenty out there to fund the company as there is a proven winner in the field.
Rivian currently only has a few billion less cash on hand than Tesla does today. At ~15b they basically have the same cash as Tesla did after a $5b raise in Sept 2020. That is an enormous war chest and should fund everything they have at least through 2024. Which is a longer timeline than Tesla had at any point prior to 2020. Rivian is burning cash like it is going out of style and I don't think that is building a very good culture for longer term margins (I despise the Georgia factory plans)... but it gives them a long leash. If at any point in the next 18 months, they can get production ramped and show improvement in margins... they'll be able to sell the bill of goods that they are past the worst and pretty much any stock can handle some secondary offerings.
My back of the napkin math at IPO was that Rivian really needed at least 23b to get ramped and survive... so I think we are in the same realm there. I think they were/are about 5b short and that was prior to the Georgia plans, so I'm more in the 8b short range now. The 8b will have to come from either improvements in FCF in the near term(), external investment, or a secondary offering (likely a combo)... in this market that is willing to prop up Lucid to a 30b market cap, I don't see how they can't raise 8b if absolutely needed... I mean Nikola is looking at a ~1b offering and finding some traction. That doesn't make them a great investment... but surviving, I think the odds are growing they'll survive.
I don't see any TSLA puts or ? Did the MM misspeak|?
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/PDM42WPEJ5NDBFUZSTVKZLTORE.jpg)
www.reuters.com
'Big Short' fund manager Burry dumps portfolio, buys prison stock
Scion Asset Management fund manager Michael Burry, who rose to fame with timely bets against housing ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, in the last quarter dumped a dozen bullish positions and replaced them with a new stake in prison company Geo Group Inc , according to filings released on Monday.
www.reuters.com
Obviously there is a minimum height that the system is going to recognize and Dan is demonstrating (in the worst possible way just like Edison did to Tesla in the current wars) that there is a minimum height for VRUs (Vulnerable Road Users) and nothing more.
I went out and tested this with my updated mannequin, different heights, different poses, different orientations and found that the minimum height is around 34" (this is NON-moving and I did NOT test moving)
Anything taller than 34" is 100% success
Anything shorter than 34" was not recognized
What was very interesting is that even when the mannequin was shorter, the system would see it for a short amount of time and then it would disappear as the car proceeded. You'd think confidence would go up as it got closer so this might be a bug with smaller VRUs.
what a fraud this guy is.
i wish i could better articulate my anger about this jerk, all the other twitter charlatans (that pudgy bad sweater organ kid that was obviously repeatedly beaten up in grade school, and so many others), and the fact that the twtr bulls validate and amplify these idiots by responding to them. have we learned nothing? really?
after many rants in 2018, i continuously try to remind myself to take the high road, ignore the noise….
but sometimes i can’t help but to admit, quite simply, i hope they all get sucked into a black hole. i will stop now before i get banned.
Further probably has a looser threshold as the perceived height changes with distance and the calculated distance is less precise further out.
Car:
Is that a taller object further away or a shorter object closer? I'll play it safe and wait to decide.
I saw the same behavior in one of the raw test runs.
Not sure if Tesla will ever bother adding stationary VRU under 34inch into the data set. I couldn't find any incident of children under 2 getting run over by the car on the road as most are hit while backing up.
But you know I feel like there are cones under 34 inches on the road. "For daytime and low-speed roadways, cones must be at least 18 inches in height. Cones intended for use in high-speed areas or at night must be at least 28 inches tall."
hacer
Active Member
So it's better to sell outright enough shares to provide the next two years worth of income + taxes (@StealthP3D described strategy), rather than sell OTM calls on a much smaller number of shares month after month because just maybe there will be a big jump in the stock price one month, and then you'll have to sell a smaller number of shares for a price higher than it was trading a month ago when you would have sold perhaps 2 to 3 times more shares at a lower price. Makes perfect sense!
Funny…. But in 40 years of driving I have never seen a 3 year old kid stand stationary in the road. I have had them move or run in front of me. But this whole absolutely stationary thing is also a parlor trick.
This is exactly the opposite of the point being made. You need to sell the rights to (via covered calls) many more shares than you would if you just sell them outright. Deltas and all that jazz aside, the share price can run away from you, leaving you with hypothetical losses over holding the shares and just selling a small number regularly.
The o'Dowd 30.5" mannequin would be below the 3rd percentile if it were 24 months old, let alone 3 years.
I don’t debate that assessment… I don’t see them as an investment level company at this point. That wasn’t what I was saying.
possible mini-mongo?
…or because mongo big, perhaps a micro-mongo
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
