TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[Earlian]

Anyone?

80k / 12 (weeks) = 6666.666 per week

Wow!

Too bad they’re aren’t 12 weeks in a quarter

its also .66 cars a minute... (3months,12weeks,days,hours,minutes).

80000 / 12 / 7 / 24 / 60 = 0.6613756613756614

so if 1 car a minute...120960

feel free to tell me how many real days can be expected for production in a quarter...(it might help me find more 6's)

I think EM considers the theoretical potential.

6666.666? Shorts would say that's the sign of the devil!

Still long.

Since kbM3 corrected it, but the error still continuous, i feel the need to put it on a wall:

A year has 52 weeks (52,14)
A quarter has 13 weeks !

This quarter also had 13 weeks.

So if you divide 80.000 / 13 = 6154 cars per week (S+3+X)

AND: The numbers from electrek aren't the official production numbers!

 

[Bobbyducati]

I only have 'a' call.

sell it and reinvest half

 

[Lessmog]

Since kbM3 corrected it, but the error still continuous, i feel the need to put it on a wall:

A year has 52 weeks (52,14)
A quarter has 13 weeks !

This quarter also had 13 weeks.

So if you divide 80.000 / 13 = 6154 cars per week (S+3+X)

AND: The numbers from electrek aren't official yet!

Yes but. About one week was without much production, in total. As usual.

EDIT: That's what I think ...

 

[Starno]

The good old times ... Tesla Model 3 will not arrive until ‘very end’ of 2018, says once TSLA-cheerleader Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas

“We continue to forecast a Model 3 launch at the very end of 2018 (more than 1 year later than company target) with 60k units in 2019 and 130k units in 2020.”

 

[mrdoubleb]

Since kbM3 corrected it, but the error still continuous, i feel the need to put it on a wall:

A year has 52 weeks (52,14)
A quarter has 13 weeks !

This quarter also had 13 weeks.

So if you divide 80.000 / 13 = 6154 cars per week (S+3+X)

AND: The numbers from electrek aren't the official production numbers!

Tesla routinely halts production for a week or so (sometimes a few days here and there add up, sometimes it`s a big shutdown) every quarter. They do this for production tweaks, maintenance, etc. Not sure if they have publicly announced such a move in Q3 (sometimes they do, sometimes they don`t), but I for one always deduct a week from the Q when trying to guess their production numbers.

 

[Earlian]

Yes but. About one week was without much production, in total. As usual.

Tesla routinely halts production for a week or so (sometimes a few days here and there add up, sometimes it`s a big shutdown) every quarter. They do this for production tweaks, maintenance, etc. Not sure if they have publicly announced such a move in Q3 (sometimes they do, sometimes they don`t), but I for one always deduct a week from the Q when trying to guess their production numbers.

And that means we should use glossed over numbers? Would an official report also do it this way?

Is Tesla also reporting the numbers like that?

 

[Brando]

I did before requesting a link and again after your post. The statement was: "Buffet's company is being forced to buy Tesla powerpacks as part of the settlement." I looked at multiple articles which discussed net metering and grandfathering but nothing about PowerPacks. Do have a better source than the ones I used?

sorry, no info from my end. Didn't read/hear of any "settlement".
State Leg. stop roof top solar - allowed Nevada Power to stop net metering - all solar installers closed down - home owners solar went from + asset to a - liability (solar system on home lost all value for resale). Casinos went off-grid; Nevada Power sued; courts said Casinos could leave Utility, but required to pay discount fee to cover Nevada Power asset investments (near $100 million??) Casinos went off-grid as they still save money in the long term. Nevada Leg. brought back net metering and solar business started up again. about all I know.

Elon doesn't seem the type to use courts to extort money - so I doubt Buffet/Nevada Power would be required to buy from Tesla anything.
Tesla Energy would certainly sell them products.

 

[Wooloomooloo]

Anyone else see the irony in the SEC's complaint (as pertains to shareprice) given the drop and rise in the price from Thursday evening to Monday morning was even more extreme than after Elon's tweets?

 

[Bobbyducati]

was expecting more of a fight thru 310. maybe after lunch or tomorrow *shrug*

 

[lascavarian]

Higher AWD drive demand will push ASP higher but needing twice the Motor’s is a likely bottleneck due to their announcement.

Yes needing twice the motors could be an issue but it is reactive.

What I am suggesting is that the driving forces of the 3rd quarter were to manage expenses while maximizing revenue (through deliveries). The rate of production expenses would dip when production dropped in the last week or so. At the same time the delivery of a LOT of vehicles would spike revenue. If the lines intersect then there is positive revenue. This is a plan not a reaction to an ordering surprise.

I think TSLA management has long known the demand for AWD vehicles since they see orders from the web site. I think is is possible this dip in late production was strategic. It fits a plan to be profitable.

In my work in a corporate world, we would make adjustments to inventory levels and incentives to smooth out our financial reporting. If you really want to show an earning surprise for a quarter then you pull your expenses into the preceding quarter and avoid realizing income so that sales can be pushed into the strategic quarter and material costs minimized. This is just savvy management and to me that dip in production at the end of Q3 suggests they think they will be in the black.

Further, as to strategy, Musk rejecting the SEC settlement on the last day of the trading month delivered the news in a dramatic way that was sure to drop the stock and pump up the shorts enthusiasm. After the market is closed and before the market knows the final delivery results he settles with the SEC setting up a squeeze on the shorts when the quarter numbers start to trickle out. Of course I could be completely wrong but if I were a short I would be very unsettled right now.

 

[Brando]

Suggestion for Tesla Board
Alan Mulally - Wikipedia

Alan Roger Mulally (born August 4, 1945) is an American engineer, business executive, and former Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Ford Motor Company. He retired from Ford Motor Company on July 1, 2014.[2]Ford had been struggling during the late-2000s recession, returned to profitability under Mulally, and was the only American major car manufacturer to avoid a bailout fund provided by the government.[3][4] Mulally's achievements at Ford are chronicled in the book, American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company by Bryce G. Hoffman, published in 2012. On July 15, 2014, he was appointed to the Google Board of Directors.[5]

Mulally was the executive vice president of Boeing and the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA). He began his career with Boeing as an engineer in 1969 and was largely credited with BCA's resurgence against Airbus in the mid-2000s.[6] In 2015, Mulally was inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame at the San Diego Air & Space Museum.[7]

 

[Nocturnal]

Ha. Suck it shorts. Feeling way more intelligent than I should for buying more at 260ish.

What do you guys think the upside is once we see these (presumably) excellent Q3 results? Even out in little old KC the delivery center was swamped. My local tesla club helped out and they delivered almost 70 cars.

 

[beachbum77]

We are all aware of those claims by the SEC, but proving them would have been another story. In fact, former SEC Senior Counsel Thomas Gorman believes the SEC would have had a difficult time proving their claims as they themselves have noted Musk met 3-4 times with the Saudis on this. And the SEC also filed a civil case, so in that sense it was no different in terms of the need to prove bad intent.

So while there would have been a discussion on whether Elon could have reasonably believed funding was secured, it is far from a foregone conclusion he would have lost the case. In fact, quite the opposite as per Mr. Gorman.

As to the shorts` argument, i think they have an even tougher case for a couple of reasons.

• They claim financial damages, but this may only apply to those who closed all their positions as the share price ran up and lost money. Those who stayed in, made money as the SP plummeted the next few trading days as Musk did not disclose financing details, so overall they may even have a financial gain due to Musk` actions. (I saw an "expert" make this claim but can`t recall who and when, but does make some sense.)
• Prefacing the entire saga with "I am considering" and the fact they still would have needed investors` approval (which Musk admitted) means the deal could still have fallen through as per Musk`s own admission in that announcement and subsequent clarifications later that day. So trading on this information was still not a sure bet, but everyone who did so took that chance. Had Musk gotten shareholder approval only to realize that oral agreement with the PIF did not hold up, would have meant the deal failed on "funding secured". It did not. Musk was "considering" and changed his mind, pulled the proposal. Whether the money was there or not is immaterial as the deal was always subject to "considering" and in the end he decided against it.

1) Gorman was paid to present a "counter" argument. They already had enough people to say SEC would win. That is how the TV deals work.
2) The only people who can claim damages are those shorts who sold as the stock rose. The longs who can claim damages are those who rode the stock down and later sold. Both could become parties to a class action.
3) As I said, we do not know what the SIF told the SEC investigators. But based on the information in the court filed document, there was no finalized agreement between Musk and the Saudis. There are dozens of conditions the Saudis could have asked for that Musk would have balked at. But they also had not seen a detailed Musk plan either. Without one, there was nothing the Saudi minister could have agreed to. If you know anything about how finances work in that kingdom, you know one man ( who is not the crown prince) cannot commit to a multi-billion dollar deal without approvals and thorough reviews.
4) If Musk had stopped at "I am considering..." he would have been fine. But he did not stop there and went on and on over several days. That negated "I am considering". "Funding secured" said that he had gone far beyond consideration. Precedent of that statement indicated a deal had been negotiated and finalized. Only needing a shareholder vote implied BoD approval for the plan too which did not exist.
5) IMHO Musk will settle all claims.

 

[scaesare]

LOL - the shorts are getting really desperate tonight: TeslaCharts on Twitter
TL;DR: Shorts sent a drone up over Fremont to try and find anything a miss. In a bloviating 14 tweet thread, Teslacharts finds some “devastating” items (Sarcasm), consisting of:

- some paint on the ground
- A few dozen car bodies
- some loose cardboard

Egads, that's hilarical.

My fav: " I have no idea why various car frames are sitting outside, presumably rotting away. But here they are. "

So how long, exactly, does it take an aluminum frame to "rot away" from being outside?

 

[beachbum77]

Suggestion for Tesla Board
Alan Mulally - Wikipedia

Alan Roger Mulally (born August 4, 1945) is an American engineer, business executive, and former Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Ford Motor Company. He retired from Ford Motor Company on July 1, 2014.[2]Ford had been struggling during the late-2000s recession, returned to profitability under Mulally, and was the only American major car manufacturer to avoid a bailout fund provided by the government.[3][4] Mulally's achievements at Ford are chronicled in the book, American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company by Bryce G. Hoffman, published in 2012. On July 15, 2014, he was appointed to the Google Board of Directors.[5]

Mulally was the executive vice president of Boeing and the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA). He began his career with Boeing as an engineer in 1969 and was largely credited with BCA's resurgence against Airbus in the mid-2000s.[6] In 2015, Mulally was inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame at the San Diego Air & Space Museum.[7]

I completely agree. I have written this before.

He would be the perfect person to take the best of Tesla and turn around the rest. He did it at Boeing and he did it at Ford. His efforts at Ford are why they never had to go BK as GM and Chrysler did. All Mark Fields had to do was follow Mulally's playbook and he would still be CEO. The old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" led to Fields exit from Ford.

Team-building is Mulally's best quality. Tesla desperately needs that in many areas. He is also a great systems talent and God knows Tesla's order and delivery departments needs help there.

 

[SO16]

1) Gorman was paid to present a "counter" argument. They already had enough people to say SEC would win. That is how the TV deals work.
2) The only people who can claim damages are those shorts who sold as the stock rose. The longs who can claim damages are those who rode the stock down and later sold. Both could become parties to a class action.
3) As I said, we do not know what the SIF told the SEC investigators. But based on the information in the court filed document, there was no finalized agreement between Musk and the Saudis. There are dozens of conditions the Saudis could have asked for that Musk would have balked at. But they also had not seen a detailed Musk plan either. Without one, there was nothing the Saudi minister could have agreed to. If you know anything about how finances work in that kingdom, you know one man ( who is not the crown prince) cannot commit to a multi-billion dollar deal without approvals and thorough reviews.
4) If Musk had stopped at "I am considering..." he would have been fine. But he did not stop there and went on and on over several days. That negated "I am considering". "Funding secured" said that he had gone far beyond consideration. Precedent of that statement indicated a deal had been negotiated and finalized. Only needing a shareholder vote implied BoD approval for the plan too which did not exist.
5) IMHO Musk will settle all claims.

So Gorman was paid and therefore he would go out on a limb to make himself look like an idiot? I don’t find that credible. If he truly believed Musk would lose, Gorman wouldn’t risk his own reputation.

At the very end he said “is more than defensible”.

 

[Brando]

SEC settlement, thanks to Electrek - about a dozen pages to read.
gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.6.0 | Bankruptcy In The United States | Complaint

 

[LordAstinus]

Tesla routinely halts production for a week or so (sometimes a few days here and there add up, sometimes it`s a big shutdown) every quarter. They do this for production tweaks, maintenance, etc. Not sure if they have publicly announced such a move in Q3 (sometimes they do, sometimes they don`t), but I for one always deduct a week from the Q when trying to guess their production numbers.

So funny! Thanks for reminding us! I just posted it in Twitter:

Miguel PeraIv0 on Twitter

 

[beachbum77]

The good old times ... Tesla Model 3 will not arrive until ‘very end’ of 2018, says once TSLA-cheerleader Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas

“We continue to forecast a Model 3 launch at the very end of 2018 (more than 1 year later than company target) with 60k units in 2019 and 130k units in 2020.”

Now, why go back to November 2016 statements? About that same time Musk said Tesla would build 200,000 Model 3's in 2017. Can we please stick to current information? Otherwise how about a new thread for "Historical predictions that proved to be bull*sugar*"?

 

[ZachF]

Suggestion for Tesla Board
Alan Mulally - Wikipedia

Alan Roger Mulally (born August 4, 1945) is an American engineer, business executive, and former Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Ford Motor Company. He retired from Ford Motor Company on July 1, 2014.[2]Ford had been struggling during the late-2000s recession, returned to profitability under Mulally, and was the only American major car manufacturer to avoid a bailout fund provided by the government.[3][4] Mulally's achievements at Ford are chronicled in the book, American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company by Bryce G. Hoffman, published in 2012. On July 15, 2014, he was appointed to the Google Board of Directors.[5]

Mulally was the executive vice president of Boeing and the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA). He began his career with Boeing as an engineer in 1969 and was largely credited with BCA's resurgence against Airbus in the mid-2000s.[6] In 2015, Mulally was inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame at the San Diego Air & Space Museum.[7]

No thanks.

Mulally's handling of the 787 was a disaster, TBH, It will be studied for decades to come as a case study for excessive outsourcing. Also, most of Boeing's resurgence against Airbus in the mid-00s was because of a huge drop in the value of the dollar, not his direction as CEO