Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think this Tesla thing is starting to catch on. :cool:

We all see more and more Tesla vehicles on the road everyday but it hits a little harder when people I talked to previously about Tesla over the last few years bring up that they are actually looking to buy a Tesla very soon. In the past 2 weeks I've given 3 people my referral code and 1 person bought one and is very happy with the purchase.

I feel like we just passed "The Chasm" in the eastern US

1686143594339.png

1686143691938.png
 
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Not to be that guy but...why have money following her. You did just a good a job identifying Tesla as she did but have not diversified into all that crap. I mean I should not tell someone what to do but....why not just more Tesla?
The company culture she have led is that they only care or should care about a company long term. They find a case that coinbase will be 550 some time in the distance future so who cares if you buy it at 220?

Good money managers must look at both. She bought too many dips at wild valuation for so many companies it's absurd. I really don't know what makes them determine something is overvalued and something is undervalued because they've money back and forth between good and bad companies just seemingly buying too early or selling too late.

Her 5 year performance which is what she want us to judge her on is trash. Covid maybe screwed them up because instead of taking profit they doubled down at peaks, killing all their gains and then some.
 
The company culture she have led is that they only care or should care about a company long term. They find a case that coinbase will be 550 some time in the distance future so who cares if you buy it at 220?

Good money managers must look at both. She bought too many dips at wild valuation for so many companies it's absurd. I really don't know what makes them determine something is overvalued and something is undervalued because they've money back and forth between good and bad companies just seemingly buying too early or selling too late.

Her 5 year performance which is what she want us to judge her on is trash. Covid maybe screwed them up because instead of taking profit they doubled down at peaks, killing all their gains and then some.

Thanks for the discussion and informative post...so, she's running a business at the end of the day regarding investing in stocks. If they're going to go for long-term plays and trying to see the forest for the trees...then her 5 year shouldn't matter as a long time horizon in the investing world is 10-20 years in the same investment, no?

Startup investing is around 7-10 year hold and the common place practice has changed nowadays to hold a stock for 9 months to a year. Since she's running a business, and her livelihood is tied to it, then I would think they're leveraging the ability to garner so much investment in their fund because people like and want to buy what they're selling. That is, they agree with the approach on a billion dollar scale. If she was not doing a good job (i.e. returns based on their thesis and against negative externalities), her customers would move money out en masse...is that happening?
 
Any guesses if we'll hold +3% today? Yes, I said guesses, none of this "I'm highly confident", "it's 99% likely", or "it's a proven conspiracy that..." crap! But fingers crossed. Remember:
  • +33.3% logic / manipulation
  • +33.3% macros / chance
  • +33.3% emotion
  • = SP
On any given day, one of these can beat the others.

In any case, we care about long-term, right HODL-ers? :)

1686144781687.png
 
Any guesses if we'll hold +3% today? Yes, I said guesses, none of this "I'm highly confident", "it's 99% likely", or "it's a proven conspiracy that..." crap! But fingers crossed. Remember:
  • +33.3% logic / manipulation
  • +33.3% macros / chance
  • +33.3% emotion
  • = SP
On any given day, one of these can beat the others.

In any case, we care about long-term, right HODL-ers? :)

View attachment 944718
I guess, yes, on both?
 
I think for TSLA to double from here before 2025, ...

Otherwise I think it's a grind higher to 400-450 area by mid 2025 as Energy continues to ramp and margins/profits start to add meaningful numbers to the bottom line or as Gen 3 vehicles start to ramp in production and thus the realization of the COGS starting to show up in earnings.
Realistically one epiphany is unlikely. Nearly every unprecedented development is dismissed by securities people, whose livelihood depends on having a keenly developed sense of the generalized past, coupled with a view that the past defined the future. Corollary: Nothing new has value because it has not been done before.

Tesla breaks too many shibboleths, ones that are still thought to be certainties. Because of that TSLA will be volatile and relatively undervalued until large scale capitulations has happened. That can only happen when:
1. Massive charging infrastructure is as ubiquitous as were places that sold gasoline ten years ago. Among automakers Tesla is the only one that understood that crucial impediment;
2. Sales places are comparable in distribution as are those of, say, Toyota. One way or another local physical sales places must be in place to supplement online sales. Everywhere!
3. Service facilities must be obvious, blatantly obvious, which can quite conveniently be done by multiplying mobile service. Particular items such as emergency charging, tire repair and replacement can make such extensive offering less unprofitable.

All of those they already do, but nearly everyone understates just how enormous the challenge is when countries such as Yemen, Sudan, Bolivia, Myanmar etc are not even dreamed of today, except perhaps in nightmares. In those four, according to my data, Toyota is the #1 seller although chinese ones are coming.

Raising such countries brings up the obvious next points:
4. Tesla Energy, among others, must supply stable electricity supplies from almost all solar and wind with Megapacks and others supplying storage. Why this one? It is fundamental. Those countries and about 100 others have no present electrical supply in much of their territory.
5. Water supplies must be facilitated through desalination, minimizing erosion etc.

The last two points are now plausible and are crucial to the human transition to renewable energy. Those tow point also are directly causes for global poverty, immigrant crises in rich countries and countless armed conflicts.

It may seem absurd to cast all this in such grand context. These are precisely what is implied in Elon's goals. 20,000,000 autos per year really means having a thriving business nearly everywhere in the world. Tesla Energy and all it implies are necessary ingredients to have that happen. When Elon says Tesla Energy will be larger than the autos, maybe less profitable, all this is obviously included.

The most poignant point of all is that everything above is achievable with continuation of the present plans. The ONLY part not explicitly included is water, but the technologies there already do exist.

As all those become evident and have been achieved in initial success, the stock prices will rise. In the meantime talking about the points above makes analyst eyes glaze over as they already do with FSD and Dojo. For these actions speak louder than words. The words will be regarded as signs of dementia. So, don't talk much, just do it!
 
Tesla breaks too many shibboleths, ones that are still thought to be certainties. Because of that TSLA will be volatile and relatively undervalued until large scale capitulations has happened. That can only happen when:
1. Massive charging infrastructure is as ubiquitous as were places that sold gasoline ten years ago. Among automakers Tesla is the only one that understood that crucial impediment;
2. Sales places are comparable in distribution as are those of, say, Toyota. One way or another local physical sales places must be in place to supplement online sales. Everywhere!
3. Service facilities must be obvious, blatantly obvious, which can quite conveniently be done by multiplying mobile service. Particular items such as emergency charging, tire repair and replacement can make such extensive offering less unprofitable.
Service will work when there's more 3rd party. In some European countries a 3rd party EV service infrastructure is growing.
Tesla's cost-cutting approach to service is just putting people off and so they _need_ 3rd party. There has been a sign that they're shifting in attitude.

As for charging infrastructure, other manufacturers understood it, but almost all of them weren't scaling EV, and that meant they _couldn't_ go it alone. Nissan helped fund a lot of CHAdeMO locations, but couldn't follow up on the Leaf with something that would sell in larger numbers.

Then Dieselgate hit, and of course that promised to fix everything but didn't. Now it's NEVI. The NEVI rules force companies not to suck at charging. That big stick might give more peopel an out and that might be the thing to force Tesla to open up and fix the service problem.

For sales, what they really need is test drives. They could really do with improving rental to make the experience like owning the vehicle, with full use of the app. Key card only isn't how Tesla owners use their cars.
 
Has anyone figured out a reasonable explanation yet for the after hours movement…..other than short covering?

Personally, what I've noticed is that many of the meme stocks had a similar but not as pronounced bump as Tesla in AH yesterday, and are now up quite a bit today as well. Some examples are EXPR, COIN, GME, VUZI, SPCE.

I think the meme stocks were getting heavily shorted and the market's reaction to macro events for the past like month is not what the shorts were expecting. With TSLA being the king of meme stocks, and having by far the greatest options market, maybe the effect of unexpected bullishness in the market is forcing shorts to cover.
 
Service will work when there's more 3rd party. In some European countries a 3rd party EV service infrastructure is growing.
Tesla's cost-cutting approach to service is just putting people off and so they _need_ 3rd party. There has been a sign that they're shifting in attitude.

As for charging infrastructure, other manufacturers understood it, but almost all of them weren't scaling EV, and that meant they _couldn't_ go it alone. Nissan helped fund a lot of CHAdeMO locations, but couldn't follow up on the Leaf with something that would sell in larger numbers.

Then Dieselgate hit, and of course that promised to fix everything but didn't. Now it's NEVI. The NEVI rules force companies not to suck at charging. That big stick might give more peopel an out and that might be the thing to force Tesla to open up and fix the service problem.

For sales, what they really need is test drives. They could really do with improving rental to make the experience like owning the vehicle, with full use of the app. Key card only isn't how Tesla owners use their cars.

Random thought occurred, I had a vision of a Tesla Service Center servicing other makes of EV, and, Tesla coming up with upgrades to improve them in some way.

Bring in your EV for the Tesla treatment today!

Yeah, I know, not all that realistic. Practically impossible, really. We all agree that Tesla can't do the impossible, right?
 
Not to be that guy but...why have money following her. You did just a good a job identifying Tesla as she did but have not diversified into all that crap. I mean I should not tell someone what to do but....why not just more Tesla?

It could be argued I may have done a better job identifying Tesla, as I bought my shares back in 2013.
That worked out well, and the Tesla stock became the lions share of my retirement accounts. I've been retired
6 years so I sell a few shares each year to supplement my income, knowing that if Tesla continues to grow and TSLA to
3, 5, 10 x in the coming years, the bits I've sold the past few years will be a rounding error in a few more.

When I bought shares in ARK funds a couple years ago, after Cathie scored her big win being first to evaluate TSLA as
likely to appreciate 3 - 5 x in a few years, I figured she'd get a few big winners in genomics, etc. and those would do well.
(You never know, she might get one or a few in a few more years, perhaps in the genomics fund.)
If memory serves Tesla was struggling to ramp M3 around the time I picked up Ark, thinking a dab of diversification wouldn't be a
bad thing. Since I've only reduced my TSLA shares a very small %, if they do as well as most of us are quite sure of
in the next 7 + years, my worst outcome would be settling for a smaller mountain among the lower class mountains area down the road
from Krugerrand's. ;)
 
Thanks for the discussion and informative post...so, she's running a business at the end of the day regarding investing in stocks. If they're going to go for long-term plays and trying to see the forest for the trees...then her 5 year shouldn't matter as a long time horizon in the investing world is 10-20 years in the same investment, no?

Startup investing is around 7-10 year hold and the common place practice has changed nowadays to hold a stock for 9 months to a year. Since she's running a business, and her livelihood is tied to it, then I would think they're leveraging the ability to garner so much investment in their fund because people like and want to buy what they're selling. That is, they agree with the approach on a billion dollar scale. If she was not doing a good job (i.e. returns based on their thesis and against negative externalities), her customers would move money out en masse...is that happening?
1. Rarely do you ever see a company not show signs of their future prospect from your prediction 5 years ago. Tesla is the exception because the problem they are tackling is so big, however a lot of Arkk's picks are not transforming the world in 5 years beyond. Roku or teledoc are not looking to removing human labor, autonomy, or doing anything dramatically different then what they are today.

2. It's fine to make bets but she picked to do so during a financial asset bubble which at best pulled forward what they predicted would happen in 10 years. Instead of capitalizing on that, they bought in...so now they have to wait until that company grows into that valuation which means best they can. Hope for in hitting ath again in 10 years.

3. The problem with 10 year horizon is the S&P would have doubled by then and that's almost guaranteed. So now S&P recovered from last year's dip already, and those who bought arkk at 140 is way under water. Arkk's performance needs to x 3 just to get to break even for some folks. Many companies Arkk bought needs to x10 just to break even for them...which means they can be right and 10 bag just to break even.
 
Service will work when there's more 3rd party. In some European countries a 3rd party EV service infrastructure is growing.
Tesla's cost-cutting approach to service is just putting people off and so they _need_ 3rd party. There has been a sign that they're shifting in attitude.

As for charging infrastructure, other manufacturers understood it, but almost all of them weren't scaling EV, and that meant they _couldn't_ go it alone. Nissan helped fund a lot of CHAdeMO locations, but couldn't follow up on the Leaf with something that would sell in larger numbers.

Then Dieselgate hit, and of course that promised to fix everything but didn't. Now it's NEVI. The NEVI rules force companies not to suck at charging. That big stick might give more peopel an out and that might be the thing to force Tesla to open up and fix the service problem.

For sales, what they really need is test drives. They could really do with improving rental to make the experience like owning the vehicle, with full use of the app. Key card only isn't how Tesla owners use their cars.
All this is true, I think, but is relevant only for the most highly developed EU, NA markets.
My comment were directed towards all the rest, excluding only China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and New Zealand. Everywhere else is vestigial at best. Azerbaijan does have Almaty (natural since they were one of the only destinations for the TU144, Russia's 'Concorde').
The 'developed' world is relatively simple in comparison to the rest of the world.

We are only a couple years away from needing those markets for meeting the Tesla mission.
The developed world has everyone's attention, for good or ill.
 
Last edited:
I think this Tesla thing is starting to catch on. :cool:

We all see more and more Tesla vehicles on the road everyday but it hits a little harder when people I talked to previously about Tesla over the last few years bring up that they are actually looking to buy a Tesla very soon. In the past 2 weeks I've given 3 people my referral code and 1 person bought one and is very happy with the purchase.

I feel like we just passed "The Chasm" in the eastern US

View attachment 944711
View attachment 944714

Also what’s really telling to me is that there little migration from Tesla into other brands. The Model 3 has been available in volume for 4+ years now and Tesla brand loyalty is 20 points higher than next brand.

 
1. Rarely do you ever see a company not show signs of their future prospect from your prediction 5 years ago. Tesla is the exception because the problem they are tackling is so big, however a lot of Arkk's picks are not transforming the world in 5 years beyond. Roku or teledoc are not looking to removing human labor, autonomy, or doing anything dramatically different then what they are today.

2. It's fine to make bets but she picked to do so during a financial asset bubble which at best pulled forward what they predicted would happen in 10 years. Instead of capitalizing on that, they bought in...so now they have to wait until that company grows into that valuation which means best they can. Hope for in hitting ath again in 10 years.

3. The problem with 10 year horizon is the S&P would have doubled by then and that's almost guaranteed. So now S&P recovered from last year's dip already, and those who bought arkk at 140 is way under water. Arkk's performance needs to x 3 just to get to break even for some folks. Many companies Arkk bought needs to x10 just to break even for them...which means they can be right and 10 bag just to break even.

I read on Wikipedia that Wood started Ark Invest in 2014, would you happen to know when the first dollars (outside of hers) were added? We're coming up on the 10 year mark, in 2024, when she started the company. I'm wondering what her returns are going to be from 2014 to 2024.

Yes, people are underwater if they invested in her funds during an asset bubble and they should be critical of her business. I agree with you there, but they're also getting a lot of free, high quality analysis from her and her team regardless of whether they're invested in her fund or not. It's entirely evident to me she's a net benefit to her customers not just from returns, but from the value her open analysis provides to the entire field and customer/user base of Ark Invest.