TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[BioSehnsucht]

I didn't realise this wasn't already standard on all models/specs...

Have to say that it works really, really well. I get no hint of diesel fumes in my X as a result.

Yeah, only S/X have the space in the design of the vehicle for the ginormous filters used by Bioweapon Defense Mode.

I've been thinking about trying to build a 3d-printed insert for the exterior air intake that accepts a Mazda aldehyde filter (or several), as they do a really good job on fumes. I retrofit one into my 240SX years ago (though that one got wrecked and I've yet to do it again on the new one, real PITA to get the airbox out and modify it) and when you cranked on the outside AC it was like breathing cool refreshing mountain air. That or find a way to cram it into the interior HVAC somewhere, perhaps swap one of the stock filters, but that seems a lot more work (would have to probably modify one or more filters to the size of the stock one) and really it's only the outside air that really needs it ...

 

[NicoV]

The US has relatively low tax rates on capital gains and so in some really extreme cases that can result in extremely wealthy individuals paying taxes at very low rates, but that is not typical. The top .1% of the US population pays a higher effective tax rate than the 1%, which in turns pays a higher rate than any other income bracket (save the top .1% obviously) .

This is addressed in the second link in my post, which is also where the above chart is located.



This is also addressed in my second link:



This is all I am going to say on tax policy in this thread as it obviously isn't the place for it. I hope this is sufficient to disabuse anyone of the counterfactual notion that the US's tax policy is not highly progressive.

Still,the highest tax rates in the US are similar to the lowest rates in Belgium (and many other European countries I guess)

 

[Artful Dodger]

I didn't realise this wasn't already standard on all models/specs...

Have to say that it works really, really well. I get no hint of diesel fumes in my X as a result.

 

[cyclingthealps]

BMW EBITDA drops 26,3% in third quarter
Car department alone EBITDA drops 47.1% in third quarter
Oops!
BMW-Aktie: Konzerngewinn fällt um ein Viertel, in Autosparte um die Hälfte - 07.11.18 - BÖRSE ONLINE

 

[Tslynk67]

Still,the highest tax rates in the US are similar to the lowest rates in Belgium (and many other European countries I guess)

Indeed, but we benefit from universal healthcare, which is far more valuable, IMO.

That being said, the ridiculously complex political structure in Belgium burns money more than Tesla during the M3 ramp. And the whole ridiculousness of having to do everything in the three legal languages just beggars-belief.

Stick to NL in Flanders, FR in Walonia and switch Brussels to English

 

[Singer3000]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4210856-greenlight-capitals-david-einhorn-q3-2018-letter

Did David Einhorn's Q3 investor letter ever get posted/discussed here? He was quite proud of his TSLA short position being his fund's second best performer in the third quarter. Letter published on 05 October when TSLA closed at $262 and three weeks before Tesla's Q3 results. Since then TSLA has of course rallied by 30%. Whoops.

Anyway, he has apparently just repeated some of his arguments on the call for the results of the re-insurer tied to his hedge fund (couldn't find a transcript yet).

His core arguments:
a) Tesla = Lehman type fraud. Chief accountant leaving after 1-month means its a fraud.
b) Can't make Model 3s cheaply enough, $35k variant is never coming. UBS tear down proves this. Taking deposits from people for the $35k version is hence a fraud.
c) Tesla Roof is a pretend product. More fraud.
d) Demand. Tesla might make 65k Model 3's in Q4 but it certainly can't sell them. "We expect a large revenue and earnings disappointment in Q4".
e) Tesla brand is terrible.

What's interesting about these arguments, is if you believe them through to your core, one more quarter of positive results will likely not be enough to change your mind.

 

[SpaceCash]

Trading just a bit in the green in Frankfurt: 300.86 Euros = $344.58 USD

Typical lowish/medium volume (for that exchange) ~18k in an hour right now

 

[NicoV]

So I consider a property a poor investment. Invest the money you save by renting, as of the day you leave your parents' home, into even a tracker fund and you'll likely retire young and rich. Even better, stay with your parents until you're 40, but put al your disposable income into quality stocks and your working life will be very short, IMO.

Shame I only know this now I'm in my 50's...

You’re sure your kids don’t read TMC forums?

 

[Carl Raymond]

Also, by constantly refreshing the air in the interior CO₂ levels do not rise from breathing. Less than 15 minutes of a family breathing in enclosed space in a car with no outside air re-circulation can rise CO₂ levels to dangerous, driving-impairing levels (!).

Just 1,000 ppm CO₂ already impairs cognitive performance of the human brain (outside air has 400 ppm CO₂), and those CO₂ levels can be reached after just a couple of minutes of breathing in enclosed space. Most people do not recognize excessive CO₂ levels up until ~7,000 ppm - at which point nausea, 'bad air feeling' and headaches trigger.

So 'Bioweapon Defense Mode' is also an (under-appreciated) safety feature.

Prior to the industrial revolution fresh air had 280 ppm CO2. You have to wonder if that extra 120 ppm (and climbing) affects our health (ignoring the enhanced greenhouse effect wider ramifications for a moment).

 

[Fact Checking]

Prior to the industrial revolution fresh air had 280 ppm CO2. You have to wonder if that extra 120 ppm (and climbing) affects our health (ignoring the enhanced greenhouse effect wider ramifications for a moment).

There are some studies that already show negative effects on cognitive abilities at ~1,000 ppm levels (decision-making, etc.). Here's a study from Berkeley Lab:

Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance | Berkeley Lab
​

I'm not aware of any more accurate studies. I'd also caution as with all things human studies: sample sizes are almost always too low. But the effects at 1,000 and 2,500 ppm appear to be significant. (I believe some of these results have already been taken into account in air quality regulation of highly critical positions such as air traffic control, or launch control at NASA.)

For example note how the 'taking initiative' metric is 'average' at 600 ppm already, and a significant sample size (~25% of participants) went into 'dysfunctional' performance at 2,500 ppm (if I'm reading their graph correctly). Note that it's very easy to reach 1,000+ or 2,000+ ppm levels even in ventilated spaces: the air at shopping malls in the winter can be consistently above 2,000 ppm.

(It's unclear to me whether their 600 ppm results are relative to 400 ppm results, or are the baseline the other results should be compared against.)

Personally I'd not be surprised if there was a measurable difference between ~280 ppm preindustrial levels and the current ~406 ppm levels, rising by almost 1% ppm every year:

So if you have a white collar job that requires high intellectual performance then having really good air in your office is probably beneficial - and buy a CO₂ detector to get a picture of how good air quality is in the places you frequent - humans have no senses to detect such low levels of CO₂ concentration, which is an odorless gas. Being able to act quickly and think clearly in enclosed space is not something evolution ever forced humans to handle well.

Also note that CO₂ effects on brain performance appear to be entirely reversible - and there are perfectly safe health therapies for asthmatics that involve very high levels of CO₂. Obviously the negative cognitive effects of atmospheric CO₂ rise are permanent as long as we are breathing that air - but I'd not be surprised to see future whole-home (or in-car) ventilation systems filtering out CO₂ instead of using outside air - and keeping CO₂ levels permanently low.

The air used by the future Mars colony will also have an edge in terms of having lower CO₂ levels.

 

[RobStark]

Sure, but most buyers and sellers of stock are doing it on the market, so all the money made in the market doesn't directly go into the company whose stock is being bought/sold. Only when you buy new shares directly does that happen. That's not to say the market price is irrelevant, it affects future capital raises (even if just getting loans - if the market thinks you're valuable, you'll get better rates), employee stock option compensation, etc, but money does not flow directly into the company.

Generally, if you're not buying freshly issued stock from the company (and thus handing them money directly), you're not really doing anything to help the company by any directly measurable amount. Buying $10M in shares from the company does more good for them than buying $10M from the market.

I was poking holes in the theory / excuse some use that market trades are somehow so good for the economy that they should get lower taxes than actual work wages (because somehow they are job creators by trading or holding stocks). If you just ride the stock out for dividends (long term gains) then you're doing absolutely nothing to help, and if you're trading it then it still might just be noise in the overall trajectory (which is generally driven by fundamentals, future expectations of the company, etc, though as we all know not always), and the noise might or might not be beneficial.

Without stock trades there is no initial money flow to companies to invest and create jobs.

An increasing stock makes it easier to issue new primary shares.

 

[RobStark]

Update:

• Nevada shifted even more blue, Democrats flipped and won the governorship (Steve Sisolak) and one of the senate seats as well (Jacky Rosen). This should reduce the chance for Koch-financed state level shenanigans against Tesla's Gigafactory.

True.

Also increases chances of more regulatory red tape to expansion. Of the Democrat kind. Environmental and worker safety reasons.

Elon chose Nevada because it was a "get it done State."

Sometimes issuing permits within 24 hrs of Tesla filing a request.

Also increase chances of State corporate income tax.

 

[Fact Checking]

Without stock trades there is no initial money flow to companies to invest and create jobs.

Interestingly, the historic record appears to support the view that one of the primary economic forces driving the Industrial Revolution was not the stock market in itself, but 'commercial banking', i.e. loans and debt - and in particular the relaxed lending policies of the Bank of England which, while ostensibly following the gold standard, also experimented in fractional reserve banking to increase the velocity of money - not to mention the practice of printing money to inflate away debt.

Just loans and debt secured against the firm are enough to create initial investment - even without any notion of a 'stock trading market'. It's possible: for example local Chinese banks in Shanghai are lending about a billion dollars to Tesla, without having any equity stake in the firm.

But obviously owning and transferring stock and having a market for all that is beneficial as well - up to a certain point.

It's a valid question to ask where the boundary is: whether the ~80% of volume of stock traded today which is only held on an intraday basis, a good chunk of which is HFT trading, and the resulting volatility, is a net economic benefit or just rent seeking.

 

[dqd88]

There are some studies that already show negative effects on cognitive abilities at ~1,000 ppm levels (decision-making, etc.). Here's a study from Berkeley Lab:

Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance | Berkeley Lab
​

I'm not aware of any more accurate studies. I'd also caution as with all things human studies: sample sizes are almost always too low. But the effects at 1,000 and 2,500 ppm appear to be significant. (I believe some of these results have already been taken into account in air quality regulation of highly critical positions such as air traffic control, or launch control at NASA.)

For example note how the 'taking initiative' metric is 'average' at 600 ppm already, and a significant sample size (~25% of participants) went into 'dysfunctional' performance at 2,500 ppm (if I'm reading their graph correctly). Note that it's very easy to reach 1,000+ or 2,000+ ppm levels even in ventilated spaces: the air at shopping malls in the winter can be consistently above 2,000 ppm.

(It's unclear to me whether their 600 ppm results are relative to 400 ppm results, or are the baseline the other results should be compared against.)

Personally I'd not be surprised if there was a measurable difference between ~280 ppm preindustrial levels and the current ~406 ppm levels, rising by almost 1% ppm every year:

So if you have a white collar job that requires high intellectual performance then having really good air in your office is probably beneficial - and buy a CO₂ detector to get a picture of how good air quality is in the places you frequent - humans have no senses to detect such low levels of CO₂ concentration, which is an odorless gas. Being able to act quickly and think clearly in enclosed space is not something evolution ever forced humans to handle well.

Also note that CO₂ effects on brain performance appear to be entirely reversible - and there are perfectly safe health therapies for asthmatics that involve very high levels of CO₂. Obviously the negative cognitive effects of atmospheric CO₂ rise are permanent as long as we are breathing that air - but I'd not be surprised to see future whole-home (or in-car) ventilation systems filtering out CO₂ instead of using outside air - and keeping CO₂ levels permanently low.

The air used by the future Mars colony will also have an edge in terms of having lower CO₂ levels.

For the typical layperson it would be good to know, simply, how much carbon dioxide (and other exhaust pollutants) we inhale each day. From a practical standpoint, what percentage of the emissions that leave a tailpipe end up traveling through our lungs. Every day I am aware every time I get a whiff of car exhaust; I feel alone in my thoughts, as it seems no one else is annoyed by it nor perceives it as byproduct of an antiquated propulsion system, with a solution staring us in the face. sigh

 

[Fact Checking]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4210856-greenlight-capitals-david-einhorn-q3-2018-letter

Did David Einhorn's Q3 investor letter ever get posted/discussed here? He was quite proud of his TSLA short position being his fund's second best performer in the third quarter. Letter published on 05 October when TSLA closed at $262 and three weeks before Tesla's Q3 results. Since then TSLA has of course rallied by 30%. Whoops.

Anyway, he has apparently just repeated some of his arguments on the call for the results of the re-insurer tied to his hedge fund (couldn't find a transcript yet).

His core arguments:
a) Tesla = Lehman type fraud. Chief accountant leaving after 1-month means its a fraud.
b) Can't make Model 3s cheaply enough, $35k variant is never coming. UBS tear down proves this. Taking deposits from people for the $35k version is hence a fraud.
c) Tesla Roof is a pretend product. More fraud.
d) Demand. Tesla might make 65k Model 3's in Q4 but it certainly can't sell them. "We expect a large revenue and earnings disappointment in Q4".
e) Tesla brand is terrible.

What's interesting about these arguments, is if you believe them through to your core, one more quarter of positive results will likely not be enough to change your mind.

I think most of his short thesis can be summed up as: "acute denial of reality". Such a thesis is extremely robust against new data from reality.

But it also a very poor investment strategy to deny the very same reality that produces and delivers real dollars.

 

[RobStark]

Interestingly, the historic record appears to support the view that one of the primary economic forces driving the Industrial Revolution was not the stock market in itself, but 'commercial banking', i.e. loans and debt - and in particular the relaxed lending policies of the Bank of England which, while ostensibly following the gold standard, also experimented in fractional reserve banking to increase the velocity of money - not to mention the practice of printing money to inflate away debt.

Just loans and debt secured against the firm are enough to create initial investment - even without any notion of a 'stock trading market'. It's possible: for example local Chinese banks in Shanghai are lending about a billion dollars to Tesla, without having any equity stake in the firm.

But obviously owning and transferring stock and having a market for all that is beneficial as well - up to a certain point.

It's a valid question to ask where the boundary is: whether the ~80% of volume of stock traded today which is only held on an intraday basis, a good chunk of which is HFT trading, and the resulting volatility, is a net economic benefit or just rent seeking.

Lots of things are beneficial to a point.

Including analysis of capital allocation 200 years ago. How did the ancient Romans allocate capital?

Trying to squash rent seeking in the stock markets with high capital gains taxes or Chinese style capital controls aren't one of them.

Letting the market allocate capital freely, net net, is a better option.

 

[heltok]

There are some studies that already show negative effects on cognitive abilities at ~1,000 ppm levels (decision-making, etc.). Here's a study from Berkeley Lab:

Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance | Berkeley Lab
​

I'm not aware of any more accurate studies. I'd also caution as with all things human studies: sample sizes are almost always too low. But the effects at 1,000 and 2,500 ppm appear to be significant. (I believe some of these results have already been taken into account in air quality regulation of highly critical positions such as air traffic control, or launch control at NASA.)

For example note how the 'taking initiative' metric is 'average' at 600 ppm already, and a significant sample size (~25% of participants) went into 'dysfunctional' performance at 2,500 ppm (if I'm reading their graph correctly). Note that it's very easy to reach 1,000+ or 2,000+ ppm levels even in ventilated spaces: the air at shopping malls in the winter can be consistently above 2,000 ppm.

(It's unclear to me whether their 600 ppm results are relative to 400 ppm results, or are the baseline the other results should be compared against.)

Personally I'd not be surprised if there was a measurable difference between ~280 ppm preindustrial levels and the current ~406 ppm levels, rising by almost 1% ppm every year:

So if you have a white collar job that requires high intellectual performance then having really good air in your office is probably beneficial - and buy a CO₂ detector to get a picture of how good air quality is in the places you frequent - humans have no senses to detect such low levels of CO₂ concentration, which is an odorless gas. Being able to act quickly and think clearly in enclosed space is not something evolution ever forced humans to handle well.

Also note that CO₂ effects on brain performance appear to be entirely reversible - and there are perfectly safe health therapies for asthmatics that involve very high levels of CO₂. Obviously the negative cognitive effects of atmospheric CO₂ rise are permanent as long as we are breathing that air - but I'd not be surprised to see future whole-home (or in-car) ventilation systems filtering out CO₂ instead of using outside air - and keeping CO₂ levels permanently low.

The air used by the future Mars colony will also have an edge in terms of having lower CO₂ levels.

I didn't know this. Thanks!

Here are some more relevant quotes I found regarding this:

City centers can have outdoor CO2 levels above 500 ppm due to the “urban CO2 dome” effect [Idso 2001, Jacobson 2010].
Offices often have CO2 levels of 600 ppm or higher. Only 5% of US offices have average CO2 concentrations above 1000 ppm [Persily 2008], although one study suggests that a typical meeting room can reach up to 1900 ppm CO2 during 30- to 90-minute meetings [Fisk 2010].
Classrooms often reach average CO2 levels above 1000 ppm, as observed across elementary school classrooms in Texas, Michigan, Washington, Idaho, Texas, South Carolina, Sweden, and England [Stafford 2015]. In a 2002 study, 21% of classrooms in Texas had CO2 concentrations over 3000 ppm [Corsi 2002].
Public housing units in Boston have average CO2 concentrations of 810 ppm in conventional apartments and 1200 ppm in new LEED Platinum apartments (good insulation reduces air flow) [Colton 2014].
Passenger aircraft have an average CO2 concentration of around 1400 ppm during flight, with peak concentrations up to 4200 ppm [NRC 2002].
Bedrooms in dorms at the Technical University of Denmark reach CO2 levels of 2400 ppm without ventilation and 840 ppm with ventilation [Strøm-Tejsen 2016].
Cars with one occupant reach an estimated steady-state CO2 concentration of 4100 ppm, with the windows closed and the air recirculating [Satish 2012].

Many of us live with high CO2 levels — all day, every day. In a study in Singapore, people carried around CO2 monitors for a week [Gall 2016]. They logged time-averaged CO2 levels of 840 ppm. Nearly all were exposed to above 1100 ppm at least 5% of the time (1.2 hours per day).

 

[Fact Checking]

one study suggests that a typical meeting room can reach up to 1900 ppm CO2 during 30- to 90-minute meetings [Fisk 2010].

Finally a scientific explanation for why typical corporate meetings are so unproductive and indecisive!

More seriously, great collection of quotes!

I have also read another quantitative double-blind study a couple of years ago, independent of the Berkeley Lab study, which came to a similar conclusion about the negative cognitive effects of elevated CO₂ levels - but couldn't find the link.

 

[Tslynk67]

OT, but not about politics, at least. I spotted that China are using Model X's in a promotional video for Shanghai - methinks they find Tesla a big deal...

Found the video on BBC page about the MidTerms: What this all means for Trump

Video then links to this: Xinhua 2018

 

[Fact Checking]

A pity though that it was losing Republican senator Heller who proposed an extention of the $7500 tax reduction for all brands until 2022. It’s necessary to have friends in both parties to get things done.

Yes, although I suspect part of the political calculation behind Heller's (unfortunately dead on arrival) Senate proposal to extend the credit was the significant Tesla presence in Nevada and the tens of thousands of voters directly or indirectly connected to Tesla. I'd expect Democratic senators and House representatives to have a similar "home state bias".