Quality post. BookmarkedI make my living off the market and, even before I retired over 20 years ago, I made more money from the market than my earnings from working for around a decade before that. I don't blame the market for being disconnected from reality, I credit it for that. Because if the market reflected reality, I would have no particular advantage, I could only achieve market average returns and I would not have been able to retire early so easily. But the market's irrational focus on the short-term, and it's strong tendency to be affected by fake narratives driven by interests that are threatened by disrupters, turns the market into a reliable money-printing machine. All that's required is an ability to spot the fake narratives, some investment capital, and some time.
The financial press will always minimize the chances of success of the disruptors, in favor of the incumbents. For example, in the early 1990's Microsoft was recognized as a strong growth company with ever increasing revenues, and yet IBM was continually expected to take back their rightful throne from the scrappy upstart. Therefore, MSFT was "over-valued" (when, in fact, it's share price did not properly account for the size of expected future revenues or the degree of certainty those revenues had).
Other examples include Qualcomm in the mid-1990's (with a superior new, more efficient, method of encoding cellular data), and Apple (with a sleeker and more versatile form factor for a smart phone). The financial press said Motorola and Nokia, not Qualcomm, had the superior cellular technology (now all wireless uses Qualcomm's spread spectrum technology) and that Apple's device was novel but too expensive, had no physical buttons, and no one needed a computer in their pocket anyway. To profit from these disconnects from reality, one did not need to be early, they simply needed to see the disconnect between reality and the media stories that protected and championed the entrenched interests. This is exactly what is still going on today with Tesla. Even the Federal Government is in on it, trying to help out the entrenched interests at the expense of Tesla. EV subsidies had a place in the twenty-teens, no longer in the twenty-twenties.
This is why the press cannot drop their narrative that "the competition is coming" while simultaneously chiding Tesla for always being late. Anyone with their eye's half-open can see it's the competition that's late, not Tesla. There was supposed to be a steady stream of superior, high-volume EV's displacing Tesla by 2019 and 2020, but they never arrived. Instead, it was Tesla that continually increased production beyond that of the incumbents. This was 100% foreseeable, it was not a lucky guess. The competition will continue to show up with too little, too late. They cannot show up with high volume production until they figure out how to make EV's for less. Sure, eventually there will be meaningful competition but it's still a long way off and it will not be the incumbents who figure it out, it will be new disruptors. The incumbents only chance is massive Government life support.
People who trust and listen to the financial press and the MSM, deserve exactly what they have coming to them. Because the financial press/MSM is not owned by the disruptors but is beholden to both Wall Street and, even more importantly in the long-term, businesses that will become disrupted, the incumbents. Once that is understood, the media no longer holds a spell over you and the distorted reality they propagate, once identified, can be used to easily print large sums of money over time. The key ingredient to make this stream of profits reliable, is time. Those who view the market as a short-term casino will have results all over the board, with some losing everything, while others make out like a bandit. Others will break even with great relief. Luck plays a large roll so it's unwise to commit large sums to the casino, it's much better to play the long game which makes it possible for the odds to be strongly in your favor over a lifetime. Because luck can run out while disconnects from reality always trend back toward reality. One is reliable, one is not.
Who wins the race, the tortoise or the hare? Consistency is key, compounding returns over time wins the game.
No one knows when the markets will be riding high again but it's likely quite some time, many years, until the next market peak and not too terribly far from the market bottom. Those who invest in TSLA now, or are already invested, will have outsized returns over the next 5 years (and likely far beyond). Those who are taken in by the MSM's fear, uncertainty and doubt cannot properly assign risk/reward. Because fear. People imagine fear and let it grow into a monster they cannot escape from. By the time they tame the fear they will be paying $260 for a stock they could have had for $180-$190. There will be many right here that keep buying between $300-$600/share, because then the fear will be gone. That's not how you maximize returns.
-
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
The fact we don't even know why he sold in the first place leaves anything up to chance. He could still be selling, he might have been done days ago. He might sell more next week, or next month, or he could be done for years now. He might be using the money to keep Twitter alive, he might be buying a payment company. He could be buying a huge mansion for all we know, that is to say we don't know squat.
Anything is possible, and its that uncertainty which is hurting TSLA the most right now.
I'd relish the buying opportunity if I wasn't already all in.
Any company that is pulling decent margins on their BEVs would be shouting it from the top of the mountain vs burying that info under their other products.
Only makes sense to assume they aren't making these margins until proven otherwise.
I have recently sold my business
Spotting narratives that AI traders may miss... hmm interesting idea....
Good post, and everything you wrote is absolutely correct. But the genesis of this conversation was Alexandra's suggestion that Shift4 would be an acquisition target for Elon. Shift4 is inseparable from the legacy payment ecosystem you just eviscerated. Every Shift4 merchant is on the hook for the visa/mc/amex interchange fees, and thus pass it on to all of us. A Shift4 acquisition is not the best or quickest way for anyone to disrupt the payments industry.
The first video is 6 months old. Byd after ramping out new products and the blade battery have steadily increasing their margins since. So we will see in a few months if this continue to improve. Supporting two platforms can't be good for margins. However if you give BYD the same price parity as Tesla, we can see a 10% gm bump from their numbers easily.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Cybertrucks shouldn't allowed to rove all over the lunar surface! I guess they will need a solar powered, Zero Emissions ORV park. About 100 miles x 100 miles should do it.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
My guess is some users think that a down vote is an actual vote. Like it takes away something from the person being down voted. As I understand it, there is no effect from a down vote on a user's overall tally.
When someone down votes and does not follow up with a reply explaining what caused that response it is really more like a spoiled child stamping their feet
and screaming
. Except we aren't bothered much by a screaming person we never hear.I have hardly ever down voted anything. If some post bothers me enough to feel that strongly I'll reply with another perspective to offer.
One user has been down voting nearly every post I've made the last few days. They must be having quite a tantrum.
Edit: I'm getting quite a chuckle with each new down vote this receives...
Last edited:
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Wow, I see BYD nearly doubled their total gross profit from Q2 to Q3. That’s definitely something to keep watching over time. They’re the most capable Tesla competitor, I think.
Don't want to come off as a radical so I will take that deal. We can call the ORV park Phoenix 2.
Tesla was doing better than Amazon YTD not anymore AMZN -41% and TSLA at -52%. It should be the other way .
.
I'd relish the buying opportunity if I wasn't already all in.
is this another hot dog reference?
You really want Elon to sell more $TSLA?
There are some good insights in this post, but there also are two staggeringly deceptive problems: a logical fallacy that then begets an incorrect conclusion.
Cherry picking to support one’s position is a terrible logical fallacy. It is not appropriate to use Qualcomm and Microsoft as examples of the financial press’s lack of insight (and even here am giving the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t recall the press even close to predominantly scoffing MSFT as being able to topple IBM. But that doesn’t matter).
Rather, those two have to be regarded as the exception, not the rule. You are a financial reporter at the Emerging Companies desk. You are presented, IF you are lucky, with a dozen new companies’ stories. Each week, every week. If you’re not lucky, it could be many score of such. Every single one of those companies is going to be the Best Thing Ever. Will reinvent computing. Telecommunications. Medicine. Air travel. Nose picking.
You‘re not even jaded. You even studied and worked in that sector. But you know what? You know something very, very important: you know, with absolute year-in, year-out actuarial certainty, that to whatever statistical precision you can create, every single one of those companies will fail.
So:
No collusion with the established companies - the Eastman Kodaks, the Xeroxes, the Pan Americans, the AIGs - is necessary. You do your job with sincerity - if you are good, then you do faithfully and optimistically report NewCo’s possibilities, but at the same time you demonstrate the hurdles it has to overcome in order to challenge successfully the IBMs that prevail at the time.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Not normal beta? Really?
Meanwhile, TESLA is kicking ass and taking names...
Cheers to the Longs!
But perhaps the vehicle would be encumbered and could not be sold without resolving that issue.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
What you keep ignoring is that BYD is already selling the car for as much as they can get. In other words, it's worth a lot less than the Tesla that you claim is only a little cheaper to manufacture. If they could sell it in high volumes for the same price as the Tesla you are comparing it to, then you would have a valid point. You need to compare manufacture costs of products that can sell for the same price.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
