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’ve been switched. It was transparent, and there was plenty of communication from Schwab. I don’t like their app as well, but that’s small potatoes.
So the web interface works as well as TD? I've heard people having issues with capital gains tracking after the switch.
I have an Ameritrade account. The website appears identical, as does my most recent mail from them.

Can I expect a change at some point, or it the switch really that transparent?
You probably haven't been switched yet, Thinkorswim users are delayed until Nov I think.
They are gradually shifting customers to SCHWAB. I have been told that because I am a heavy trader, I will be transferred in November.
My friend say the transfer was seamless.
Do you have Thinkorswim? That seems to be what causes the delay.
 
In this previous post, an example of $14,000/month just in "demand charges" for an 8 stall Supercharger. That is on top of the $/kWh that the grid charges. Those charges, IMO, make the required time for Tesla to realize an ROI quite a bit longer. I'd suggest many of Tesla's Superchargers (at least in California) still haven't turned positive ROI yet. This opinion of mine is what makes me wince as I swallow the latest speculation that Ford/GM didn't have to offer much for their SC access because....the mission. I am interested in someone better at estimating than I am to share an estimated capital investment cost for the current Supercharger network.

BTW, I am not saying I am against the opening of the Supercharger network, I'm just trying to understand if Tesla is sold themselves short in the process.
Just can't go there with you. These guys (Tesla) show over and over again they are as smart with how they use their money as they are in their engineering.
There is no way in hell they blundered into opening up the Superchargers without first taking a Proctologist-close look at all the factors; engineering, financial and strategical.
I mean, like a really, REALLY, close look.
 
Possibly. More usage can also increase demand charges. It's not simple. I know I'm supposed to just trust that Tesla figured this all out, I'm just sharing the difficulty I'm having....
Usage is only likely to increase demand charges on sites that have low usage and low peak demand. The worst case for Tesla are sites with high peak demand and low usage. An example would be a site that sits empty most of the week then has a surge on Saturday or Sunday morning for a couple of hours. High peak demand combined with low utilization. I would not be surprised if Tesla throttles peak demand at such sites in the background. Those sites would benefit greatly from more users on the network.
 
35% of cars sold in China in April had a plug. Simply unreal. When the CCP decides to do something, they don’t mess around


The countdown is on for when China crosses the 50% threshold in plug in share.
 
Although going by the poll numbers it is clear most of them prefer NACS, but if you look at the replies in that forum thread (not Twitter thread), you will see a majority of them say - screw Tesla, lets stay the CCS course.

View attachment 945901

I highly recommend reading that thread a few others on NACS there, but make popcorn first or get tissues, because you either will laugh or cry given how stupid the against arguments are
 
  • Like
Reactions: JusRelax
35% of cars sold in China in April had a plug. Simply unreal. When the CCP decides to do something, they don’t mess around


The countdown is on for when China crosses the 50% threshold in plug in share.
And on Fareed's GPS this morning he stated that China is now making 2 of 3 electric vehicles in the world... didn't say how many of them were Teslas though.
 
I hear the pain. I apologize in advance for the length of this

As a true TESLA believer, having owned 9 Teslas, I too followed TSLA from $408, all the way down to $234, before I was wise enough to STOP THE BLEEDING. I think it has something to do with those preaching the "TIME IN THE MARKET, NOT TIMING THE MARKET" BS. Ok, time in the market is essential, but not on the way to absurdity. A successful investor has to balance that edict with rational thinking, and not fall on the sword. Just like the investors who say, "It's ALL about the technicals and charts, or those who say it's ALLL about the news. Hey, it's like nature/nurture. Neither is in full control. It's a delicate balance. A dance. Both the news and the technicals are variables, which impact a stock to varying degrees at different times. It's important to treat them as such. You can run full bore on either and lose your ass. Unfortunately, for years I had all of my eggs in the TSLA basket and that was nice when it was skyrocketing, but $105 a share is not my cup of tea.

EXAMPLE: When I woke up and realized my emotions were playing a way too heavy weight in me coveting my TSLA shares, I painfully sold them all off at $234 (eating the gains tax), and I avoided bleeding out to the bottom. I invested in SGML and other stocks which were rising. I use a formula where I keep 40% of my portfolio in a relatively sure thing (JEPQ ETF with a 16.1% per annum plus a 12.1% annual dividend - paid monthly, not bad 28% in this market). I keep another 40% in what I call the FAB FOUR or NVDA, META, GOOG, and AAPL (these vary from time to time) and I keep the remaining 20% in stocks I play with on a daily or weekly basis. For those who are old enough to remember the Olds Cutlass, I call this my 4-4-2 (40-40-20)strategy. It gives me a solid base JEPQ at 25+%, a growing crowd in the FAB FOUR and it leaves 20% for me to play with on day and short-time trades. I find that this strategy meets all of my emotional and financial needs.

The need to have some solid stability (JEPQ); the need to make money out of great market gainers (FAB FOUR) and the need to stimulate my excitement with short-term trades on a daily or weekly basis.

I realize this is not for everyone, (there are those who want to invest and walk away, checking back in a year or so), but it works for me.
I have been playing around with TSLL, the stock that operates at 1.5X TSLA shares, but with a volatile market, I find it a bit too risky, producing too much anxiety. Yes, it's fun to go UP at 1.5% of TSLA, but it requires a lot of due diligence and can catch you off guard, as it plunges at 1.5% as well. I don't enjoy being glued to my computer or phone all day.

With TSLA's good fortune, I have ironically stepped back into TSLA at $234, the same level at which I stepped out. While I was away, I was able to generate quite a chunk of change in other stocks. Now it's time to check back in and take the TSLA ride up.

After reading all of these painful stories, please don't get hung up on the woulda, shoulda, coulda, if only loop. "Shoulda checked out at $350. If only I saw this coming?" It's mental masturbation and it doesn't get you anywhere. My account never went up $1 from my grieving of the losses. I am learning. Aren't we all? Don't be so hard on yourself. Look at how much you DID make and celebrate the WINS! Time better spent.

So, I guess the moral of the story is this. Don't cling to a stock too long for emotional reasons. Sure, I don't own EXXON or tobacco stocks, but like many of you, I hung on way too long. When a stock loses 20% of its value in a relatively short time, it's time to get out, and take your marbles elsewhere to a place where there is money to be made. As Cramer says, "There is always a bull stock somewhere!" Keep up with the news and follow the charts, giving appropriate weight to each. Oh, and don't forget the "WTF factor". When stocks just go somewhere and you can't even imagine why. Remember, you can't identify ALL of the variables.

I am back in and fortunately, the timing couldn't be better. As Ray Jay says, "I'm ready for TSLA to the MOON, as the long term is very bright!"
I find Ray Jay a fairly reliable source for daily info on TSLA and the major market changes.

Happy and Prosperous Trading.
I'll leave it to others to give their own, alternate investment strategies, and when theirs have performed better than your (IMO) relatively emotional approach. I'll focus on where you state "I use a formula where I keep 40% of my portfolio in a relatively sure thing (JEPQ ETF with a 16.1% per annum..."

Since it originated a little over a year ago, JEPQ is down 3.9% since May 2022 (see below).

Please don't cherry pick one of your investments and brag about how wise you are to this audience (and insult the rest of us who you declare are 'emotional' for HODL-ing TSLA). Is that where you pulled the 16.1% per annum? out of thin air? You give the misleading impression to any rookie investors on this forum (Goddess bless 'em) that investing in the stock market is simple if only they would just be as smart as you. I'd suggest that people on this forum smarter than you have lost more (and gained more) than you. So what?

Let's remember that the only failsafe investment is a guaranteed investment certificate or bond (and even that isn't absolute: Buddhism teaches us that nothing is permanent. Not the Roman Empire. Not First Republic Bank. Not the Twin Towers. Not a tattoo. Not the impossibility of landing a rocket. Not our "pale blue dot". etc.). Anything else is, relatively speaking, gambling.

Picking a stock, especially over less than a year, is, IMO, 1/3 logic, 1/3 macros / luck, and 1/3 emotion (but many times the market's 'emotion', not the individual's). So maybe you got lucky, maybe you didn't. You didn't pick the safest investment path, you didn't pick the riskiest, but I resent you pontificating that you've got it figured out, especially about when to jump out and when to jump in to TSLA. Good luck with that approach, @Fairchild . Literally.

(Okay, bias disclosure: arrogance is a vice I can't stand. So sorry for this.)

1686527935439.png
 
Last edited:
Unless you don’t have a lot of arm and hand strength.
I disagreed because I don't think that is accurate for European superchargers. I have seen an early video, from Tesla IIRC, of a very young girl plugging in a V2 supercharger with Type 2 connector. She manages it easily. Europeans in this very thread point out that the much lighter V3 cables, with CCS2 plugs, are easy to manage.

I have used non-Tesla CCS1 chargers with Tesla's adapter. They are a completely different story, with comically heavy cables with bulky 200 Amp limited plugs. That doesn't mean the experience in Europe is the same.

GSP
 
There have been a few comments from folks here regarding the additional supercharger load these deals will put on the system. Additionally, some have shared some more alarmist sentiments they've seen from others (some perhaps attempting to FUDify the deals...).

Overall supercharger capacity & expansion rate has been discussed here a number of times over the years, typically in the context of the total of current Teslas on the road, and the planned manufacturing and sales growth.

Phone companies modeled years ago their analog circuit-switched lines and trunks (the Erlang B model), taking in to account system capacity, total consumers, peak utilization times, and acceptable queue wait times. This model generally applies to any queued resource, like superchargers. As it turns out, the needed # of stalls isn't a linear function of total cars. This makes sense, as if you have 1 car on the road, you need at least one supercharger. But 2 cars don't require 2. There's a spot at which utilization is maximized with acceptable queuing. Thread on this some time ago HERE.

Long story short: doubling the number of NACS cars, won't require doubling the number of chargers. Likely significantly less.

What this means is that more NACS customers is a good thing for the Supercharging network, provided Tesla can quickly enough expand the capacity needed, and manage the queue times and bottleneck locations. Why? Because overall infrastructure utilization goes up. That means the number of customers paying that aforementioned 10% profit to Tesla may double, while the number of additional chargers needed may only go up by 50%.

That means more $$$ to Tesla for maintenance, powerpack installation, solar build out, or simply profit to the bottom line.

This is a big win, IMO.
Good and informative post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scaesare
There have been a few comments from folks here regarding the additional supercharger load these deals will put on the system. Additionally, some have shared some more alarmist sentiments they've seen from others (some perhaps attempting to FUDify the deals...).

Overall supercharger capacity & expansion rate has been discussed here a number of times over the years, typically in the context of the total of current Teslas on the road, and the planned manufacturing and sales growth.

Phone companies modeled years ago their analog circuit-switched lines and trunks (the Erlang B model), taking in to account system capacity, total consumers, peak utilization times, and acceptable queue wait times. This model generally applies to any queued resource, like superchargers. As it turns out, the needed # of stalls isn't a linear function of total cars. This makes sense, as if you have 1 car on the road, you need at least one supercharger. But 2 cars don't require 2. There's a spot at which utilization is maximized with acceptable queuing. Thread on this some time ago HERE.

Long story short: doubling the number of NACS cars, won't require doubling the number of chargers. Likely significantly less.

What this means is that more NACS customers is a good thing for the Supercharging network, provided Tesla can quickly enough expand the capacity needed, and manage the queue times and bottleneck locations. Why? Because overall infrastructure utilization goes up. That means the number of customers paying that aforementioned 10% profit to Tesla may double, while the number of additional chargers needed may only go up by 50%.

That means more $$$ to Tesla for maintenance, powerpack installation, solar build out, or simply profit to the bottom line.

This is a big win, IMO.
On Investor Day we were also told that "Route Planner" attempts to reduce SC congestion by routing customers to less busy Superchargers.

Even if only Tesla cars can be routed this way, it makes a big difference, because the number of GM and Ford EVs on the road will be lower for some time.

We were also told that the time to add 1 Million cars to the global fleet keeps reducing, with Gen3 cars we will soon be talking about how long to add 1 Million Teslas to the North American fleet, and how long will it take to double the fleet 2023 North American fleet size.

With the Tesla fleet growing rapidly SC expansion has to keep up, I am not sure GM and Ford EVs will be on the road in sufficient numbers to make much difference.

As the SC fleet "fills in" due to overall demand expansion, SC are increasingly located close enough for "Route Planner" to have a number of options and to be able to make a smart routing decision. At the limit this approximates to a "single queue multiple server" model which is highly efficient at reducing queuing times.

IMO smart routing in "Route Planner" means a large dense charging network is more efficient than a smaller sparse network. Where they are needed, more stalls are also more efficient.

A logical next step is to add smart routing to Ford and GM vehicles.