Appears to just be from general after market macros, not TSLA specific from what I can tell.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Appears to just be from general after market macros, not TSLA specific from what I can tell.
Margin calls.
Zacks - today: Tesla (TSLA) Gains As Market Dips: What You Should Know
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Well, Gilgamesh would say "he had the paws of a lion and a body covered in thorny scales; his feet had the claws of a vulture, and on his head were the horns of a wild bull; his tail and phallus each ended in a snake's head."
The Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
mershaw2001
I'm short the short sellers
I've gotten about 500 margin calls and been sold out repeatedly. In general they give you 5 business days. In severe cases when your margin call exceeds $20-50,000 they ask you to settle by 3:00. I've had margin calls up and over $100,000 and they generally sell your stocks first and not your options. They also charge a huge commission ($32.75). Most of the time you can bargain with them in some form or another, and telling them that you are aware makes a difference to them as they are concerned people don't know they have a margin call. They usually sell you out first thing in the morning if you fail to meet it at night, at least for me.
Also the rules differ for house calls vs fed calls. I am legit scared of fed calls as you have to be very careful of what you sell (you create violations if you do the wrong thing). I guess I also am now scared of house calls because more often in the past 2 years they change the house requirements as the stock market becomes more volatile, which makes it harder for me to make predictions.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Forget that! Anybody else see what TSLA did during the After-hours session?
Up $2.82 by 8:00 pm EST
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Forget that! Anybody else see what TSLA did during the After-hours session?
Up $2.82 by 8:00 pm EST
View attachment 357927
Thinking my girlfriend might be bored with all my Tesla talk, I promised to book a white tablecloth restaurant when the portfolio passed a certain nice round number at closing. At 4pm it was under. At 8pm over. Now I have to decide on the right definition of 'closing'...
Edit: now that there's a heart under this comment, I guess I better go with 8pm.
Last edited:
Does that mean supplying energy to Semi buyers at $0.07/kWh from Mega-chargers is profitable for TSLA?Both solar and wind are highly variable (even though wind is more variable), which is why you will never see a situation where "Region A generates all power and exports it to all other regions".
There are lots of peer-reviewed studies on how to make a fully or near-fully renewable grid. Long story short, you spread things out. Within a given region, yes, you have solar and wind cited in the most optimal locations, but you don't shove them all in whatever region happens to be the cheapest. Otherwise, you A) suffer huge power losses when that region experiences adverse weather, and B) your capital costs on HVDC construction are too high. Your HVDC grid cannot be intended for moving all power all the time, or it becomes too expensive; it's a supplement and/or localized backup.
For the same variability reasons, you combine both solar and wind. It's even more important to spread wind out geographically. Solar and wind tend to run counter to each other, with solar providing power mainly during the day, and wind tending to be strongest at dawn and dusk. Solar likewise produces the most power in the summer, while wind produces the least in the summer in most regions. But here comes geographic distribution again - while the "wind is worst in summer" rule applies to most regions in the US, in the west coast its summer power situation is much better, and in some places wind is actually strongest in the summer.
The last reason for geographic distribution and mixed solar-wind is perhaps the most straightforward: people don't stop using power when the sun is down, and daytime is not the same everywhere! Indeed, power consumption often actually rises after sunset in many places as people arrive home in the evenings, cook dinner, watch TV, etc. Spreading out generation resources effectively "timeshifts" power generation.
Just to pick a random study, here's the calculated financially-optimal map from MacDonald et al (2016) for solar + wind + hydro-uprating for peaking (but not pumped hydro) + existing (but not new) nuclear + HVDC + NG peaking (battery or other grid-scale storage beyond hydro is not considered):
View attachment 357739
This is their "LRHG" (Low-cost renewables, high-cost gas) scenario. The binned colours (green = wind, red = solar) indicate generation density, with dark colours being higher density than light colours. The outer pie chart is installed capacity, while the inner pie chart is consumed generation. 6570km² (0,08% of the US) is used for power generation. The HVDC network above consumes 4% of the generated power. Water consumption for thermal power generation drops 65%. Their optimal mix for consumed power in their LRHG scenario was wind (38%), NG (21%), solar (17%), existing-nuclear (16%), and hydro (8%). Interconnects with Canada and Mexico are not considered.
Generation capacity has to be overbuilt to account for fluctuations. The less NG peaking you want to use, the more you have to overbuild your generation capacity. The financially-optimal balance between all factors, their locations, and linkages are strongly dependent on how prices evolve. At then-current wind, solar and HVDC prices, and (again) no battery storage, here's the sensitivity to natural gas prices (right) in determining how much of the mix would be NG vs. renewables (green = % carbon free; current NG price = $4,39):
View attachment 357740
Good energy storage options, or small gains in wind / solar pricing, or moderate increases in NG cost (such as carbon taxes), can dramatically alter the financially-optimal share for wind / solar. Or, to put it another way:
View attachment 357743
While we're not yet tracking for a "high gas price" scenario, we are indeed tracking well for a low renewables cost scenario - particularly PV. If offshore wind prices can drop significantly, they'll also take up a much larger role than they do above; the study found it generally much cheaper to transmit inland wind to the coast than to use offshore wind at present prices (523 GW onshore vs. 22 MW offshore).
More useful would be "Charge now" and "Finish charging by (date / time)". Let the vehicle / grid decide when during that timeperiod would be cheapest, with the absolute requirement that it be at the desired charge state by the desired time. It's never okay to have the vehicle not be charged when you need it.
Guys... it’s quite obvious what is happening here. It’s the Elon volatility reducer. When stocks were on a tear earlier this year, Elon tweeted the stock down to neutral. No markets are down, the execution is holding us steady. Classic business school strategy... very obvious to the edumacated.
Krugerrand
Meow
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Mine was yesterday. Stock green on my birthday AND enjoying my new P3D, which was delivered last week. "She fast AF!"
Last edited:
This is what I have thought all along, $38k is NOT their cost. Everyone else was wrangling about how the $35k version is never going to happen, when the real truth in what Elon was stating is that they are only $3k away, after adding whatever they consider the minimum margin they can deal with. Today, they would have to sell it for $38k. Actually, when I thought about it, they don't need to trim $3k from their costs. Assuming their minimum margin is for example 15%, they would need to trim $3000/1.15= $2609. Tesla is NEVER going to sell a car at cost, that would be crazy.
Mine is today, and Tesla emailed me to ask if I can take delivery of my L3MUR next Wednesday, which I just ordered last Wednesday! 2 weeks!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
