Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chinese business setup is very bureaucratic. Unlike in the US where you can just say "I'm starting a corporation... to do whatever", in China you have to specify what you're doing and tick a lot of boxes. There are actual legal limits on how leveraged you can be (debt/equity ratios). This is Tesla going through all that paperwork, and it is giving us some information.

By raising the registered capital, they are guaranteeing that they'll put that equity in *eventually* (apparently it can be over 20 years)... but making that guarantee of future equity insertion is a necessary legal prerequisite for getting the loans, due to the Chinese debt/equity regulations. According to Vincent, 1/3 of the funding is now lined up in loans already, which is good news.
I would really disagree with the process is very bureaucratic. This is all true until the ranking bureaucrat exempt the process. What you expressed is exactly what happens in the USA. A local city or state can hold up a big project like Foxconn that was pushed by the Federal branch. You can bet this would almost never happen in China. So rule/regulation is true until it’s not.
 
Gene Munster on CNBC trying to seek some attention with a “Tesla needs to reform its Board or it could lead to the company’s destruction!” Rant

Trying to say poor recruitment and staff departures are very destructive and most of the board should resign.

What’s nice to see is the stock price is heading higher in the after hours trading.

No one cares what Gene is saying obviously.

The company is seemingly progressing nicely, entering profitability and dominating EV market - it’s almoat boring how everything is going as scheduled that even “bulls” like Gene Munster have to start generating BS for clicks.
 
While I don't agree with some of the things he's been posting lately, this type of response is neither productive nor appropriate.
Hopefully it's obvious that I haven't written off Fred, just expressing a dissatisfaction with his move into clickbait articles.

There are plenty of Freddo Frog puns I am saving up if he goes full retard when we all know of the great work he is capable of.
 
Can you share your thoughts on the bond pricing?
I specifically keep an eye on Bond Factsheet - TSLA 5.300% 15Aug2025 Corp (USD) || bondsupermart as a metric for solvency guidance. The recent drop has me less confident than I used to be.

Yeah, so beyond the possibility that they know something we don't know, I think it's due to the following main factors:
  • Corporate bond traders tend to be pretty risk averse, conservative guys, to whom the following news are serious red flags:
    • Elon taking a puff of weed (and they don't notice how inexperienced Elon was, and how he explained that he doesn't smoke weed),
    • Elon being portrayed by the NYT as a mental wreck in tears, on the verge of collapse, (and they don't watch YouTube so haven't seen the video of a happy Elon in Fremont on the same day the NYT conducted an interview without publishing as much as a transcript),
    • Elon referring to bankwuptcy several times in the recent past (and they don't know that he has done this countless times already, it's a motivator for him)
    • New CAO leaving a month into the job, during which Elon wanted to go private and then decided not to.
    • Elon tweeting in anger, etc.
    • Current Q3 analyst estimates are still negative and don't show Tesla making cash
  • Also to them bankwuptcy is the #1 risk Boogeyman they don't normally hedge against.

While most Wall Street hedge fund managers would shrug off the above (they've probably done worse ...) and concentrate on the fundamentals, bond traders not so much, it's extremely outside their normal cultural comfort zone of polished corporate high finance.

So basically peak FUD and viscous character attacks against Elon convinced another category of conservative investors to turn bearish.

If Tesla starts generating cash in Q3 and Q4 then it probably won't matter: Tesla won't need financing. Moody's could downgrade Tesla to below toilet paper and it probably wouldn't matter: Tesla raised $680m of local capital in China recently for the Chinese Gigafactory, via local loans only that create no corporate liability for Tesla shareholders, no equity financing was required and no new corporate bonds were issued either.

Note that bond prices reacted strongest to similar incidents in the past as well, and recovered big time not on Q2 financials primarily, but on Elon's performance during the Q2 conference call: composed, deferential to analysts, conservative. Their kind of guy.

We even had bond prices of $94 right after the CC I think - and the fundamentals are even better today: the Model 3 was the top grossing car in the U.S. in August, with record sales and still over $10b in pre-orders.

So yeah, I think there's a high likelihood that the 2025 bonds are mispriced, due to Elon being Elon and FUD.

If Q3 numbers beat estimates and meet guidance then I fully expect a perfect CC call from Elon again, which should bring bonds above $90+ again.

Not advice, of course.
 
Last edited:
This is not Name That Tune.

Secondly, I have standards (and am accustomed to a certain style of living) and I will not lower those below 10 shares/click. Even then I feel like I might have sold my soul a bit cheaply.
I'm even cheaper. I'll click it 10 times for just 9 shares. Maybe even only 8 shares. That would bring my total number to a multiple of 20 shares again.
 
Last edited:
The limit isn't the GA lines, it would be the paint shop, which isn't in the tent, which last we heard only has a permit to get to 500k cars per year. Of course it is possible they could increase the capacity of the paint shop, or build a second one, but getting the additional emissions permit is the difficult part.
That is incorrect, but often repeated, FUD. There is a limit on the amount of certain emissions that the paint shop is allowed to produce, which was equivalent to about 500k cars when it was built three or four years ago. But they can now paint more cars within the same emissions limits:
1. Glass roofs mean less actual body paint
2. M3 is smaller than MS/MX, less paint
3. They are getting more efficient in recycling whatever-it-is

The last number I heard was more like 700k/year.

The paint shop may be a choke point, but it isn't a limiting factor yet.
 
While I object to Gene Munster’s sensationalism, his ideas are sound. A company as large as TSLA really needs an independent board.

I don’t mean to be critical of the company I love. But there will be growing pains along the way.

I disagree they need an *independent* (they aren’t now?) board but rather than give you the disagree click I’m willing to hold off if you’ll explain why the board they have now, that got them this far (though a few seats are not held by the same people), isn’t suitable to move forward.

Please explain what the factor is for each board member that makes them unqualified to stay on the board.

Thanks in advance.
 
Word to the wise:

You don’t break a board that is responsible for Henry Ford record breaking growth. As a matter of fact, records are almost being broken daily with this board and leadership in general.

The only reason anyone on the planet would want to disrupt this mojo would be to disrupt, dismantle, or slowdown Tesla as a company. Not achieve better results.

This group is the mythical purple squirrel.
 
While I object to Gene Munster’s sensationalism, his ideas are sound. A company as large as TSLA really needs an independent board.

I don’t mean to be critical of the company I love. But there will be growing pains along the way.

I just read his piece on CNBC. This stood out to me:

“There was a vote earlier in the year to remove Musk as chairman, but the voting structure of Tesla's stock requires a super majority to pass changes. The motion failed.”

Did a check, >86 million shares voted against that change and <17 million voted for it. I’ve said this before: if you (proverbial you, I’m speaking of Munster here) show yourself to be fundamentally dishonest, I don’t care what you have to say. That statement was fundamentally dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.