TSLA Investor Discussions

[Krugerrand]

What do you guys think the chances of Tesla being taken over by one of the bigger auto makers after the Gen III vehicle is released? I've been thinking about this and I could see this happening. Elon has stated over and over again that his goal to be the catalyst that makes EVs mainstream and accepted. By the time the Gen II vehicle is out for a couple of years do you think Elon will consider his goal achieved and let somebody else take over the company? Elon doesnt strike me as the type of guy that will stick with something after he's already achieved his goal. I see him selling and moving on to new projects.

It's well known that SpaceX is Mr. Musk's 'baby'. That's the one he'll go to his grave looking after. It's also well known that he's not in it for the money. At some point he will no longer 'run' Tesla; definitely not before Gen III. How long after Gen III probably depends on where SpaceX is at with their mission to Mars, as well how well Gen III is received by the market and what else is on the drawing board for Tesla at that time. I think it's a safe guess that we'll have Mr. Musk at the helm for at least 5 more years.

 

[agelston]

I'm especially confused by how he can say they will have an operating loss of 85 million for Q4, but they will have "burned through" over 200 million. You will notice in the article he just states that the 2.9 million number comes from the JP Morgen report, but this is the same report that gave a price target of $37, so something (as usual with Peterson) is fishy.

It's (probably) due to lower reservation payments per car on non signature orders. And the delivered most of the signatures this quarter.

This has made news before.

"Bank of America/Merrill Lynch forecast 2012 Model S deliveries of 5,000 units. Reservation deposits for the first 2,000 Model S Signature editions were $40,000 each for a total of $80 million. Reservation deposits for the next 3,000 standard Model S versions were $5,000 each for a total of $15 million more. Overall, the total Merrill Lynch error was $95 million. Morgan Stanley was more conservative at 2,230 Model S deliveries. So its error was $81 million."
Why Analysts Are Wrong About Tesla: Pro

Not a sign of weakness.

 

[Yuri_G]

Peterson makes some dubious calculations using made up numbers. The 2000 signatures in the cnbc article, or 1500 signatures in his most recent article. Foolishly, someone like me will point out his false figures and shoddy math, to have him respond "it doesn't matter Tesla is still burning cash!" Rinse and repeat. He has proclaimed Tesla wouldn't exist after September, then he pushed it back to the end of the year. He will always be a naysayer just because of his previous interest in lead-acid batteries.

 

[jcstp]

Peterson makes some dubious calculations using made up numbers. The 2000 signatures in the cnbc article, or 1500 signatures in his most recent article. Foolishly, someone like me will point out his false figures and shoddy math, to have him respond "it doesn't matter Tesla is still burning cash!" Rinse and repeat. He has proclaimed Tesla wouldn't exist after September, then he pushed it back to the end of the year. He will always be a naysayer just because of his previous interest in lead-acid batteries.

maybe he uses the Mayan calendar ;-)

 

[Oyvind.H]

Please correct me if I`m wrong, but there`s about 1200 US and Canadian sigs? And they probably pay somewhere between 90-110.000 for their cars?

I assume all of them will have their cars in 2012. So that`s about 120 million in revenue?
And then there`s about 1800 ordinary cars delivered in 2012, at an average of about 85,000?
That`s another 153 million in revenues. And except from 250 delivered in Q3, all the revenue comes from Q4?

So let`s say Tesla will make about 270 million in revenue from the Model S in Q4, maybe 10-20 from Rav4, Merc B, Roadsters and other development? So Tesla will probably have somewhere between 250-300 million in revenues in Q4, but definitively still no profits until Q1 2013. Either way, maybe John Petersen should take into account that revenues are almost 8 times higher in Q4 2012 than Q4 2011. Love playing these numbers games

 

[ppl]

Today shinal claims investing in tesla is the same as buying fraudulent mortgages. I agree with the revenue issue but he also left out the model x reservations. Over 2000 a month ago and over 200 signatures. That would be additional 18 million revenue. We all need to book mark his articles and when he posts in future point out his past record

 

[Johan]

And please, comparing TSLA to Groupon! Both in the red yes. But while Groupon had an idea and a website (and some servers), Tesla has a fully tooled factory (hughe) AND is the world leader in EV tech - ideas and tech that's patented and owned (Groupon's concept has been extensively copied) AND Tesla has customers lined up!

 

[rcc]

Well, yes, however this also applies when shorts are simply covering in a normal way.

My understanding of a "short squeeze" is that this expression refers to what happens when the first, normal, shorts covering causes the price to go up sufficiently to force other shorts to cover as well. This causes the price to go even higher, which forces even more shorts to cover. This spiral leads to a situation where lots of shorts have to cover at the same time.

So what you describe is a pre-condition, but then additionally it is necessary that modest price increases do not cause immediate profit taking by lots of day traders. The number of those, who will sell when the price increases only modestly, has to be small, as only then will the price increase sufficiently to force the other shorts to cover as well.

I'd agree that the high percentage of short interest is what makes TSLA a candidate for a short squeeze, in the first place. My understanding is that TSLA is one of the stocks with the highest short interest. But then, for the squeeze to actually happen, there must be an absence of people selling at modest increases already.

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're going by the really strict definition of a short squeeze. Mine is looser. Both are in common use.

I agree that we are not likely to see an extreme short squeeze where a large % of the existing short-sellers are forced to bail out right away. I think for that to happen, the stock would have to jump a lot (probably >30% or even >50% in a few days).

But I do think that as the stock price continues to climb, we'll see people closing out their short positions. The short interest is so high that I think that will move the price up some (5-15%?) especially since I suspect most of the short-sellers are hedge funds and other institutions that take larger positions than individual investors. It will also reduce the supply of stock available in the open market by a non-trivial amount as well. Not sure what that'll do (probably increase volatility but who knows?).

 

[Oyvind.H]

Today shinal claims investing in tesla is the same as buying fraudulent mortgages. I agree with the revenue issue but he also left out the model x reservations. Over 2000 a month ago and over 200 signatures. That would be additional 18 million revenue. We all need to book mark his articles and when he posts in future point out his past record

It`s just like John Petersens consistent bashing of Teslas reservation numbers. He repetedly states that it took Tesla three years to build a reservation base of 13.000 people, and continues by stating that the queue will be emptied after a couple of quarters.
He ignores the fact that reservations have been steadily increasing from about 30 a day in june, to 60-70 now (peaking at about 86 in beginning of december, but at the moment it seems as if people are getting ready to celebrate christmas instead of ordering a Model S

Furthermore he ignores that a continous reservation flow well above manufacturing pace actually results in the queue increasing, not decreasing. Why Tesla would run out of orders in 6 months is beyond me, but seems logical to John Petersen.....
It`s a bit irritating that he is so smart, while at the same time acts so dumb just to bash Tesla.

 

[Discoducky]

premarket is down $1, should be an interesting day

 

[aznt1217]

On 100 vol...-_-

 

[Discoducky]

On 100 vol...-_-

ha! how is that possible?

 

[yobigd20]

ha! how is that possible?

What are you looking at? Google finance? Google seemed messed up this morning - at 9:37 it was still showing market closed for me. My brokerage account shows correct volume though.

 

[Thumper]

Looks down about .25 at 6:51 against a falling general market.

 

[Lloyd]

Our government is going to totally mess up our stock market. Due to the potential of tax increase on capital gains, investors are better off selling holdings this year, taking gains at the lower rate, and then buying them back, extablishing a new cost basis for thier stocks. Stocks that would normally be strong will be sold to save a few dollars in taxes. This is in addition to the normal year end tax loss selling.

 

[dmckinstry]

Looks down about .25 at 6:51 against a falling general market.

Well, now it's back up to $34.05 (Nasdaq's site).

 

[ppl]

Our government is going to totally mess up our stock market. Due to the potential of tax increase on capital gains, investors are better off selling holdings this year, taking gains at the lower rate, and then buying them back, extablishing a new cost basis for thier stocks. Stocks that would normally be strong will be sold to save a few dollars in taxes. This is in addition to the normal year end tax loss selling.

Actually watch out with that strategy I cannot remember the exact period of time but you have to wait 30 or 60 days to buy back to have it count for taxes. Of course during that time you will miss the 4th qtr report

 

[montgom626]

Our government is going to totally mess up our stock market.

This is what they agreed upon a year ago. Not very well thought out? No surprise, is there? The next deal they make will also be poorly thought out.

 

[Lloyd]

I believe it is different for long term and short term on the buy back. Not sure on the specifics though.

 

[Norbert]

Our government is going to totally mess up our stock market. Due to the potential of tax increase on capital gains, investors are better off selling holdings this year, taking gains at the lower rate, and then buying them back, extablishing a new cost basis for thier stocks. Stocks that would normally be strong will be sold to save a few dollars in taxes. This is in addition to the normal year end tax loss selling.

I created a spreadsheet to see what the difference is. It seems to depend on the situation if that maneuver actually saves you money. I understand the idea of thinking you will save tax for the gains which have occurred up to the tax increase. But actually, when buying back, you will have less money to invest (after paying the taxes), and then for the gains in the second time period, you still have to pay taxes. So even if you always pay less taxes, you might sometimes also have less money at the end.

It is easy to create a small spreadsheet and run the numbers for various scenarios, easier than to explain in detail.

What I found so far (I might have made a mistake, I just spent 15 min on it) is that if the tax% is the same or larger in the second time period, then you save money if the share price increase is relatively small, but you lose money if the share price increase is relatively large. Would be good if someone could double-check this calculation, or already knows the answer.

EDIT: Example: Let's say you bought shares at $25, and you sell and re-buy at $34 while the tax is 15%. The tax increases to 20% when you sell the second time. According to my current quick version 0.1 spreadsheet, if you finally sell at $56, this maneuver will have improved your profits by a small amount. But if you finally sell at $57 (or above), you will actually lose money, and it is better to just keep the shares for the whole time.