You dog... And by 30 cents! But I could take the crown back. Hmmm...
Edit... Ha - Take that!
And THAT!
Last edited:
-
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
You dog... And by 30 cents! But I could take the crown back. Hmmm...
Edit... Ha - Take that!
And THAT!
Weak China sales during Feb New Years could also imply supply
Of local cars was limited as exports were prioritized.
The magnitude of this break is ridiculous.
Of local cars was limited as exports were prioritized.
The magnitude of this break is ridiculous.
larmor
Active Member
Lunar calendar shifts by 10 days every year.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Down 6% on no particular news? Dry powder... engage!!!
IIRC, someone (or some aggregation of people) posted something to the effect of "do the math, if he gets paid, every share you have will be worth x times what it is now."
Without diving into the details of his compensation package (which, tbh could have predicted Elon would only achieve those objectives if he howled at the moon or sacrificed a goat, and I. Didn't. Care!!) the logic of "are you going to reward Elon this much if he makes me this much richer for HODLing?" prevailed and I voted for it.
Apologies if this whole topic of how to fight this legal insanity is OT, I'd love a subthread where the lawyers could advise us on the variations of what we can/should say to protest this win.
If the judge wants to award a moral victory that slaps the Board's hands and says "you could'a been more transparent" but then forces the 9-share plaintiff to prove how much his 9 shares "suffered" from his compensation package (the latter of which is a direct function of the Elon's performance) and then award plaintiff that negative $ award and his lawyers get a percentage of that negative award, that'd be fine with me. (If this makes sense, IANAL and all--too-frequently confuse our legal system with what a justice system should be).
The reported number was wholesale (combined retail and export).
For me the strong red market TEsla today is not only Tesla reported numbers see others carmakers
These aren't carmarkers but wannabes.
Stellantis NV is up ~1%.
Toyota Motor Corp down ~0.5%
NVDA and AMD (AI) are doing just fine today. So it's pick on EV day. Obviously TSLA has no part in AI. /s
100% agree. And actually, using the electricity directly instead of producing the synthetic fuels can remove more than one step -- not converting the electricity into chemical energy/fuel, and not having to ship the fuel in tanker trucks to all the stations. Electricity is so much easier to "ship" and it can go to big stations, or all they way to individual users' homes. And we all know that converting chemical energy to motion in a vehicle is notably less efficient than using an electric motor too.
The only counter-argument toward bio-fuel that I can think of seems to be a really long-shot / low probability: I remember reading articles, probably 15-20 years ago, about using "genetically engineered algae" to produce the synthetic fuels. Theoretically, this would get rid of (most of) the electricity requirement, and the need for a complicated chemical plant or refinery. At the time, it was "just around the corner" that algae would be engineered in vast fields to naturally take in sunlight and water and/or CO2, and produce hydrogen or diesel or whatever as their waste product. If something like that could be optimized at massive scales, I could imagine that of engineered algae with a means to collect those useful fuel waste products *might* be cheaper to implement than solar panels, and would be a direct conversion from sunlight to fuel (skipping the electricity step). But, again...feels like a real long shot, and it feels like the hope and promotion of such technology has greatly reduced over the last 10 years or so...
Last edited:
When can we expect to hear anything about the CEO next compensation plan, or at least about an appeal to the Delaware state Supreme Court?
They can't appeal until the plaintiff's award has been granted. Probably another month or two.
Elon already said that they were going to work on a new CEO compensation plan until this one has been dealt with. Given Elon already said they were going to appeal, he did right?, I wouldn't expect a new plan for at least a year, if not two.
To use the patents required companies to agree not to sue Tesla. for patent infringement. It wasn't unencumbered.
Also, there hasn't been any suggestion that there were useful patents adopted by other manufacturers.
I think it's extremely naive to believe that Tesla opening up _after_ NEVI was about "the mission" and not defensive.
Had Tesla _wanted_ to open up the connector they could have done it at any time from 2019, when they switched to CCS2 in Europe, and were already working with the CCS communication protocols and hardware.
The Infrastructure bill that contained NEVI was passed November 2021.
NEVI rules were proposed in June 2022.
Mid-term elections 8 November 2022.
NACS was released 11 November 2022.
Final NEVI rules were finalized in February 2023.
Not only did Tesla wait until after the Infrastructure bill was passed, they waited until after the rules were proposed and until after the Midterms when the Republicans failed to get full control of Congress, and there was no possibility that NEVI would be canceled. Remember that Musk urged people to vote Republican in the Midterms.
NEVI dwarfs Dieselgate and is much better for multiple reasons. Without it, Tesla would have been in a _much_ stronger competitive position.
I just wish that was true everywhere!
I hear about cheap power in other places, and I still see those EPA stickers on appliances in stores that estimate the cost of electricity at way below what the local electric company charges me.
In California, we have ridiculous electricity prices...even as more solar and wind keep getting built on cheap desert land and added to the grid. I think the excuse is some mixture of the cost to decommission old plants and the cost for the electric utility companies to (1) pay fines and other costs related to wildfires blamed on failures of their equipment, and (2) costs to actually do all the deferred maintenance and upgrades of that equipment, which really should have been done over the course of decades.
On the "bright side," though, gasoline here is more expensive too...so EV's are still cheaper to fuel.
But, the whole situation is a great argument to get an EV and a Tesla Solar + Powerwall system. Tesla cars are definitely everywhere in California. I hope to one day see solar + powerwall systems being just as popular as the cars in the vast California suburbs...and then sit back and watch as the rest of the country follows suit...
Last edited:
MartinAustin
Active Member
Nobody's arguing that Tesla didn't require acting in good faith. "Please don't sue me while using my patented technology" is good business sense.
Haven't seen anybody claiming that in this discussion either.
Also, not suggesting that Tesla didn't change strategy in light of political/economic changes in the landscape... but that's not what you originally brought up, you questioned their MOTIVE.. you said:
"Similarly, Tesla didn't open up NACS out of goodness of their heart."
OK... again not suggesting they didn't pivot in order to best accomplish their mission in light of the latest landscape changes...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
