TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[Nocturnal]

I have been buying too, now at 1,035 shares, I will buy 15 more if we hit $315 but then that's it. I am way over-invested already

I've noticed that Model S and X deliveries are at full pace in Norway and they are now only 200 cars away from the number of cars delivered in 2017. I find it incredible how Model S and X sales are holding up in Norway with Model 3 just around the corner. If this is indicative of other markets then there is no bad news for Tesla. As long as they increase production, there will always be buyers

Same. I just picked up another 60 at 318. It's not wise and I'm definitely way way over invested. If TSLA goes to heck it won't break me, but if it grows like I expect I'll be retiring early. In the meantime I'll be upping my anxiety meds.

So... because you've never heard of it means it never happened? Gotcha.

But I prefer to operate with actual statistics.

They were burning up like crazy for a while there. Every maker goes through those periods, toyota with that acceleration thing, GM with faulty brakes or something back in 2014?

There are just a few thousand I-Paces on the road and one here already burned to a crisp (while charging at night).

On topic: have 222 shares (avg. $308) and will hold them tight to my chest. Ofcourse it is tempting to think I could have sold them at $375 and bought more back at a lower price. But I might as well have missed a breakout to $450. So not going down that path.

I've been thinking the same way. I don't know if it's right or even rational, but I've been more worried about missing a big upswing than by not buying at the absolute bottom (or selling at mid price for small profits).

 

[JRP3]

So... because you've never heard of it means it never happened? Gotcha.

But I prefer to operate with actual statistics.

Me too. So show me some battery related ev fire statistics which disprove the years of research I've done. I've looked because I was hoping it wasn't the case.

 

[humbaba]

Rate or number? I can buy that the number of S/X fires is greater, but based on the sales, the rate has to be lower, probably by a large amount.

Don't forget the first issue with "report rate" which is that it is what is reported, not what has occurred. This is an all too common problem for people who are not acquainted with statistics and will cite a rise or fall as "proof" of something without considering the underlying data.

But, at least its arguing from data rather than assumption.

 

[dgodfrey]

Nissan LEAF has sold more than 300K units.

To the nature of car fires and statistics, I would think that total miles driven may be a better metric to determine a more realistic gauge of susceptibility. While the typical Leaf may only accrue half the mileage of a typical Tesla (wag), it stands to reason that there could be more mishaps, accidents, issues, etc, per car.
I think the safety numbers that Tesla has touted take total miles into consideration to arrive at the 60% safer conclusion with EAP e.g.

 

[Hogfighter]

So we all changed our avatars, and look what happened. I’m changing mine back

 

[anthonyj]

No one is buying >.> can’t believe this was $345 yesterday

 

[humbaba]

Me too. So show me some battery related ev fire statistics which disprove the years of research I've done. I've looked because I was hoping it wasn't the case.

Then the accurate thing to say here is that "Tesla vehicles have a higher profile in the media for battery related fires."

I never claimed to have statistics for this, I don't expect anyone who has access to data is interested in tallying them up for the public. But you can at least get an impression as to how much negative Tesla events are over reported by the media. There was a recent non-Tesla EV fire that barely got mentioned here, much less in the mass media. Which serves as a caution to using media report rates of incidents as a proxy for their real occurrence rate.

 

[tinm]

It would not surprise me if Tesla cuts a factory deal with a state that currently by law bans Tesla from having stores or service centers, or for which such are at risk due to the ongoing fights with auto dealers and the likes of GM. So, Ohio, Michigan, Texas... even Connecticut would be interesting. But it seems too soon for Tesla to be thinking about more factories in the U.S., no? I mean, it has yet to start on a European factory.

Not sure this was posted earlier ..

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Anyone know what short interest has done over the past week? Are they bailing while they still can or are they doubling down?

 

[tinm]

Not everyone changed their avatars.

So we all changed our avatars, and look what happened. I’m changing mine back

 

[Nocturnal]

There are just a few thousand I-Paces on the road and one here already burned to a crisp (while charging at night).

On topic: have 222 shares (avg. $308) and will hold them tight to my chest. Ofcourse it is tempting to think I could have sold them at $375 and bought more back at a lower price. But I might as well have missed a breakout to $450. So not going down that path.

No one is buying >.> can’t believe this was $345 yesterday

Or 370 a few days before that...sure the wider market is off but damn. Considering Q3 no news should be good news for Tesla.

 

[cheshire cat]

It would not surprise me if Tesla cuts a factory deal with a state that currently by law bans Tesla from having stores or service centers, or for which such are at risk due to the ongoing fights with auto dealers and the likes of GM. So, Ohio, Michigan, Texas... even Connecticut would be interesting. But it seems too soon for Tesla to be thinking about more factories in the U.S., no? I mean, it has yet to start on a European factory.

Waiting for a vacancy

 

[humbaba]

To the nature of car fires and statistics, I would think that total miles driven may be a better metric to determine a more realistic gauge of susceptibility. While the typical Leaf may only accrue half the mileage of a typical Tesla (wag), it stands to reason that there could be more mishaps, accidents, issues, etc, per car.
I think the safety numbers that Tesla has touted take total miles into consideration to arrive at the 60% safer conclusion with EAP e.g.

That's a good point about understanding the underlying data. I could give some nice, solid examples but they would not only be OT, but divisive and thus not conducive to reasoned discourse.

I'm not a EV safety engineer, but I'd hazard it isn't even miles driven. For example, it might be that it was more accurate to use against number of charge cycles are total hours charging or something else.

Its also important to separate out causes from flawed design versus external actions. For example, shooting the battery of Tesla is not conducive to safety. Nor is towing one with wheels on the pavement. Neither reflects on the safety of a Tesla battery pack and should not be included in statistics about such.

 

[Mike117]

Sold 150 shares @ 364

Slowly building new position
In 20 shares @318.5

Planning to invest 75000$

 

[anthonyj]

Anyone know what short interest has done over the past week? Are they bailing while they still can or are they doubling down?

Matthew S Unterman on Twitter

According to this, Short Interest is still "low" as of yesterday... It hasn't increased at all

 

[JRP3]

Then the accurate thing to say here is that "Tesla vehicles have a higher profile in the media for battery related fires."

I never claimed to have statistics for this, I don't expect anyone who has access to data is interested in tallying them up for the public. But you can at least get an impression as to how much negative Tesla events are over reported by the media. There was a recent non-Tesla EV fire that barely got mentioned here, much less in the mass media. Which serves as a caution to using media report rates of incidents as a proxy for their real occurrence rate.

OT
I've been researching all things EV related for over ten years now, I have a very good idea of reporting bias. I've been unable to find data showing any other EV with similar incident rates. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[juanmedina]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Fact Checking]

Usually the central bank deciding to go negative try to not really explain the borrowing part (because it's really bad press), but they DO give free money to banks that borrow from the central bank. Like @neroden said, it is a prop-up program for banks.

This NYT Sweden Imposes Negative Interest Rate and Plans Bond-Buying Program articles explains:

"The decision means that Swedish commercial banks will be able to take out loans from the central bank at a negative interest rate. When the loans are due, banks will pay back less than they borrowed."​

It's true that the Fed has never gone negative and hopefully they never do. But if they do, you can be assured they will create new money and give it away, never to be returned, to at least the member banks. It's possible that all banks would have access to free money as well, but its hard to imagine that foreign banks would be eligible. The hoi polloi won't like it either way.

So it's more complex than that: the normal operations of commercial banks is not that they take out loans from the central bank. Loans from the central bank are typically temporary operations when a bank has to meet reserve requirements - i.e. if they gave out $100m in new loans to customers on a given days they might have to borrow $10m from the central bank if they don't have the reserve liquidity right then.

Also note that under the Swedish program the central bank buys bonds from commercial banks and takes them on their balance sheet. They got cash in exchange, and that cash then starts dwindling away at a negative interest rate.

So the reason central banks are not talking about the bank prop-up aspect of negative interest rates is that there's very little such effects. The main effect of negative interest rates is to reduce excess reserves after quantitative easing, i.e. to get commercial banks to loan to customers more, i.e. to stimulate the economy.

Had the Federal Reserve used negative interest rates like the Swedish central bank, the recovery from 2008 wouldn't have taken 10 years but only 3-5.

But note that there is another interest rate program that is commonly confused with negative interest rates, and which program is a bank prop-up in disguise, and the Federal Reserve did use this facility: paying a positive interest rate on excess reserves. That program is indeed a hidden profit source for the banking sector - and it didn't even stimulate the economy.

There was some justification for doing it, the Fed did it to not destabilize commercial banks as they bought up mortgage based securities. The banks held those securities with the assumption that they'd earn interest. Exchanging that for cash and removing the interest paying aspect would have cut deep into the income sheet of big U.S. banks - and they'd have lent out even less to the economy.

 

[mongo]

OT

Not sure this was posted earlier ..

It would not surprise me if Tesla cuts a factory deal with a state that currently by law bans Tesla from having stores or service centers, or for which such are at risk due to the ongoing fights with auto dealers and the likes of GM. So, Ohio, Michigan, Texas... even Connecticut would be interesting. But it seems too soon for Tesla to be thinking about more factories in the U.S., no? I mean, it has yet to start on a European factory.

Ohio has service and showrooms, it is one of the places people from Michigan go to get a Tesla. Can't blame the state for individual's actions.

Elon responded to the governor of Ohio's tweet from the 18th:

Call me. There are no better workers than Ohio workers. And Lordstown is ready for you.

Thanks, will consider next year

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[wipster]

Me too. So show me some battery related ev fire statistics which disprove the years of research I've done. I've looked because I was hoping it wasn't the case.

You are right about the Leaf, with a quick search I can only find one (and that's not for sure).