Disappointed to see you post this, Birdie, you're better than that...
Meanwhile, in TE Land: Elon Musk’s unprecedented solar+storage vision for Puerto Rico moves forward
Kolodny has blocked me on Twitter. Maybe she's shredding the evidence...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Disappointed to see you post this, Birdie, you're better than that...
Meanwhile, in TE Land: Elon Musk’s unprecedented solar+storage vision for Puerto Rico moves forward
Kolodny has blocked me on Twitter. Maybe she's shredding the evidence...
Congratulations, that’s like getting a medal here.
Esme Es Mejor
Member
Setting aside the highly negative bias of the article & its questionable sourcing, it confirms that production is at least at a 4200/week rate with a few days left to bump that rate higher.
Combined with Loup Ventures more credible estimate of 4300-4900/week, we can have faith that the production rate was somewhere between 4200-4900 as of a couple days ago. Assuming even minimal progress, that suggests an exit rate of 4300-5000. That doesn’t sound the least bit frustrating... except to shorts.
We also can assume that Reuters picked the lowest shift production rate they heard from the employees as they always report the negative and it supports their narrative.
Only 2 shifts have been reported on so the other will be definitely higher otherwise they would have been reported on those. If many shifts had the low reported volume they would have reported the amount of shifts with a low number.
Assuming the really have talked to 3 employees they should have been working in many shifts and not only one or two that week.
Average should therefore be higher.
You can‘t run a car factory on two shifts á 12 hours and 7 days sustainably. No way.
They are "manufacturing" burst rates which are not realistic (if real at all)
They are "manufacturing" burst rates which are not realistic (if real at all)
The article says 10 projects of 20MW/20MWh with the possibility to expand to 40MW/160MWh but the RFP suggests 1 project with the possibility to add 4 more for a total of 5 (section 2.3). Maybe I am missing something?
If 1-5, would be from 20 MW/20 MWh up to 200 MW/800 MWh.
Last edited:
I think the production rates are less important now. The price cuts and the "everyone configure" mean that we are closer to the end game than I thought.
End game for whom?
JoaoD
Tech Enthusiast
To him and his kind, for (new) Tesla owners it is just the beginning!
Bullish_Bear
Member
In China, 24*7 production is a common practice (mainly 3 shifts for 8 hours each) . What makes you find it unimaginable in US?
I agree that it may be hard and no one did it before, but maybe we should'nt say "you can't", or Tesla could take it as a call out and simply do it.
Because this company is build on an endless list of disproved "you can't"s
Last edited:
The end game is when we find out whether there is sufficient demand for M3 at a price level which will enable Tesla to be sustainably profitable.
He was talking about two shifts with 12 hours. Three shifts at 8 hours each are done in some plants in the automotive industry. But usually the night shifts have lower output because cleaning, maintenance re-tooling and such take quite a bit of time. The only realworld data i found is quite old (~15-20 years), but automotive plants maxed out at 6000 operating hours per year back then. (page 29)
https://www.iat.eu/aktuell/veroeff/am/lehndorff00de.pdf
The average operating time per day with 6000 hours a year would be around 16.5 hours a day. Of course that's just an example and a rough guess, but it seems to indicate that it's either not possible or simply to expensive to run a plant much more than that. Otherwise they'd probably all do it, since it would allow to spread fixed costs about a bigger number of cars.
Last year, the July 4th weekend kicked of a Bear raid, in two weeks we dropped from ATH to 306. We have recovered a bit. Looking forward for the momentum to continue along with positive numbers ... so there is a good chance of hitting ATH by next FRI
Today is likely the last day before numbers come out (on Sun)
Today is likely the last day before numbers come out (on Sun)
I mean, Elon had something to say about Goldman's low estimate too, so there's that. In my opinion, anything above 4000+ is a win right now anyway. Given Elon's comments, I'd be surprised if they weren't at 5000 this week...
I think numbers will not be out until Tuesday evening. After all, they delayed last time so that they had an extra couple of days to report higher production achieved. I think the same may well apply this time.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yes, to be blunt I think their is too much focus here on shorts. It borders on an unhealthy obsession. What will drive the stock up is a huge and sustained influx of buyers, not the exit of short sellers.
To see this, about a third of shares are short. This dilutes share by increasing the number of shares available to be held long by a third. If all shorts were to quit Tesla, this would shrink the supply of shares by about a quarter. This would maybe boost share price by 20 to 30 percent. Even if that price were sustained, it is merely on order with how much share price appreciation we'd like to see every year for the next 10 years or more.
So if we expect Tesla to be a ten bagger in ten years, expelling all the shorts only gets us one year of growth. The other nine years of growth come purely from longs piling into the stock. So that should tell us where the focus needs to be, what will compel some trillion dollars worth of investors to want to buy Tesla shares? For now, shorting only keeps the price of a share down to sweeten the upside rewards for this influx of one trillion dollars of stockholder investment.
Perhaps the question we should be asking if shorts is how long they can scale with Tesla. With Tesla at $60B market cap, shorts are at around $20B. Let's double this. When Tesla hits $120B, will shorts still hold on with a $40B position? Double it again. Are shorts still going in $80B as Tesla reaches $240B? How about $160B short? $320B short when Tesla gets to $960B? Even if all the shorts were bankrolled by Evil Oil, along this progression Evil Oil is watching its wealth crumble. In the face of such losses forfeiting another third of a trillion in a vain attempt to foil Tesla becomes sheer lunacy. Tesla at $1T could initiate a 1% dividend and force Evil Oil to pay $3B in rent to shareholders for the privilege of accomplishing nothing. So I would suggest that shorts will not scale with Tesla over the next ten years. It could simply stall out at $40B, $80B, or $100B and remain at that level as Tesla approaches $1T. So we arrive at 4%, 8%, or 10% shorting levels by about 2025. No squeeze, Tesla could literally outgrow the shorts over time.
So maybe our focus could train on how Tesla sustains growth. Shorts will face their own obsolescence along the way.
That's an extremely dangerous thing to bet against. You've presumably already read the reports about how much the estimated build cost should be from those that have torn it down. Questioning overall demand seems quite foolish to me given the high customer deposits, brand loyalty, etc. You cannot argue once more of them are on the road, interest from other potential buyers will obviously increase, too. Cars advertise themselves.
I stand by my belief that the only argument shorts _might_ have is valuation, or the hope something drastic happens (model 3 having mass recalls or something). Also a risky bet.
As far as valuation is concerned, in this market, likely your only hope there is essentially for a market crash. That is certainly possible, but probably not until 2019 or 2020. Until then, there is quite a large risk to you for a major run-up in the stock price. The evidence now overwhelmingly suggest that ~ $250 was the bottom. You are playing a silly game right now.
If you get lucky and see ~ $320 again in the near future, I'd certainly cut your losses and get out then.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
