TSLA - Tesla Motors

[Spekulatius]

Yes, Elon increasingly seems to be getting a shorter and shorter fuse. There is a risk that he is losing it and may become untenable as a CEO. Other CEO’s have been fired for far less.

[rkbabang]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-18/musk-apologizes-to-u-k-diver-he-labeled-as-pedophile

 

[Liberty]

WSJ test-drove a Model 3:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-ever-review-of-the-tesla-model-3-performance-a-thrilling-modern-marvel-1532022533

[Voodooking]

Any work-around or a summary for those of us who are no longer WSJ subscribers? Did they like it? It will be interesting to see how it gets on with track tests once the motoring magazines start comparing the Model 3 D P to German rivals.

[jrallen81]

I read the article, it was pretty glowing.

[Investmentacct]

I read the article, it was pretty glowing.

 

Test drive yourself and will able to update the view.

[tombgrt]

Any work-around or a summary for those of us who are no longer WSJ subscribers? Did they like it? It will be interesting to see how it gets on with track tests once the motoring magazines start comparing the Model 3 D P to German rivals.

 

https://outline.com/CZkcyv

 

Here you go.

[Voodooking]

Any work-around or a summary for those of us who are no longer WSJ subscribers? Did they like it? It will be interesting to see how it gets on with track tests once the motoring magazines start comparing the Model 3 D P to German rivals.

 

https://outline.com/CZkcyv

 

Here you go.

 

Thanks a lot Tom! Appreciate the effort.

 

I ended up taking out another 3 month trial subscription, as I have done previously, as it was only £1 GBP for a trial offer.

 

The article is very positive. However I can't wait to see a more detailed review and perhaps a video. As a recent BMW M3 owner, I'm watching this intently, with the view that a Model 3 D P will almost certainly be my next car.

[Liberty]

 

Munro Teardown of the Model 3. Interesting look at a lot of the electronics and drivetrain components.

[JRM]

WSJ test-drove a Model 3:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-ever-review-of-the-tesla-model-3-performance-a-thrilling-modern-marvel-1532022533

 

https://jalopnik.com/wall-street-journals-dan-neil-deletes-twitter-after-tes-1827785899

[tombgrt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-asks-suppliers-for-cash-back-to-help-turn-a-profit-1532301091?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/CG4Y7Yv8lk

 

Maybe Musk and Trump are holding a contest. Whoever shocks the public most wins.

[EricSchleien]

Recent podcast about Tesla: https://intelligentinvesting.podbean.com/e/is-tesla-a-fraud/

[DTEJD1997]

hey all:

 

Anybody else see the stories about TSLA asking for money back from their suppliers?

 

Evidently, TSLA needs $$$$ to get profitable...so they are asking suppliers to contribute to this.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of a company asking for $$$ back on LONG COMPLETED deals & contracts.

 

Of course, many companies will say "we've paid you well in the past.  Going forward, we need price concessions."

 

If I were an investor, I would be afraid that TSLA is going bankrupt or is in a terrible cash crunch.

 

If I were a supplier, I would probably reject this out of hand and put TSLA on COD terms.  If I were a supplier, I would be VERY concerned that TSLA is looking at bankruptcy.

 

Any way you wish to slice it, this is a catastrophic blunder on TSLA part.

[Voodooking]

hey all:

 

Anybody else see the stories about TSLA asking for money back from their suppliers?

 

Evidently, TSLA needs $$$$ to get profitable...so they are asking suppliers to contribute to this.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of a company asking for $$$ back on LONG COMPLETED deals & contracts.

 

Of course, many companies will say "we've paid you well in the past.  Going forward, we need price concessions."

 

If I were an investor, I would be afraid that TSLA is going bankrupt or is in a terrible cash crunch.

 

If I were a supplier, I would probably reject this out of hand and put TSLA on COD terms.  If I were a supplier, I would be VERY concerned that TSLA is looking at bankruptcy.

 

Any way you wish to slice it, this is a catastrophic blunder on TSLA part.

 

 

I read that it was not applicable to historical business with suppliers, and it was only on current / future orders running in this quarter / year.

 

Although the way it has been reported appears to make these stories as alarming as possible, it is very common for companies with a Master Service Agreement or a purchase frame agreement to be structured with agreed rebates built in at certain milestones / watermarks. This is sometimes agreed at the beginning, or added in later based on a large amount of business being achieved.

 

In my day to day life I work in the Oil and Gas industry in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, where contracts applying rebates to favoured valuable customers are certainly commonplace.

 

It may have been the case that when Tesla were a young company and only manufacturing limited numbers of cars, they weren't able to secure the same sort of discounts based on the comparative volume of VW, Ford, GM etc. but now that Model 3 is approaching mass market production rates, Tesla will be in a far stronger position to negotiate with suppliers for favourable terms and attractive rebates.

 

I'd like to think that this has been taken completely out of context by the media, but without knowing all the details I cannot be sure. I hope I am not wrong on this one.

[Voodooking]

Update from Elon Musk:

 

"Only costs that actually apply to Q3 & beyond will be counted. It would not be correct to apply historical cost savings to current quarter."

 

 

Update from Tesla:

 

“Negotiation is a standard part of the procurement process, and now that we’re in a stronger position with Model 3 production ramping, it is a good time to improve our competitive advantage in this area. We’re focused on reaching a more sustainable long term cost basis, not just finding one-time reductions for this quarter, and that’s good for Tesla, our shareholders, and our suppliers who will also benefit from our increasing production volume and future growth opportunities. We asked fewer than 10 suppliers for a reduction in total capex project spend for long-term projects that began in 2016 but are still not complete, and any changes with these suppliers would improve our future cash flows, but not impact our ability to achieve profitability in Q3. The remainder of our discussions with suppliers are entirely focused on future parts price and design or process changes that will help us lower fundamental costs rather than prior period adjustments of capex projects. This is the right thing to do.”

[peterHK]

Update from Elon Musk:

 

"Only costs that actually apply to Q3 & beyond will be counted. It would not be correct to apply historical cost savings to current quarter."

 

 

Update from Tesla:

 

“Negotiation is a standard part of the procurement process, and now that we’re in a stronger position with Model 3 production ramping, it is a good time to improve our competitive advantage in this area. We’re focused on reaching a more sustainable long term cost basis, not just finding one-time reductions for this quarter, and that’s good for Tesla, our shareholders, and our suppliers who will also benefit from our increasing production volume and future growth opportunities. We asked fewer than 10 suppliers for a reduction in total capex project spend for long-term projects that began in 2016 but are still not complete, and any changes with these suppliers would improve our future cash flows, but not impact our ability to achieve profitability in Q3. The remainder of our discussions with suppliers are entirely focused on future parts price and design or process changes that will help us lower fundamental costs rather than prior period adjustments of capex projects. This is the right thing to do.”

 

Notice they didn't give a dollar amount for the amounts they asked their suppliers for. 10 suppliers might have given them $100mn in stuff, or $500mn of stuff, or $2mn of stuff, we have no idea.

 

If they achieve profitability in Q3, I will be surprised, and I would bet that it'd be due to a bunch of short term accounting tricks they always pull to make things look better.

[JayGatsby]

The conversation on Twitter around Tesla has continued to digress to the point that it's really become a disservice to legitimate short research. There's a big difference between a) exposing frauds and bad actors, and b) trying to damage the reputation of an innovative startup in a difficult industry.

 

Hopefully nobody here is a part of that so I'm just preaching to the choir. I'm not disagreeing that Tesla faces challenges, I'm not defending its valuation, and I'm not saying it's a bad short. But, some people have become so obsessed with the Tesla short that they may need reminding from us of what is and is not appropriate behavior.

 

Harassing a legitimate reporter who wrote a positive honest review of a company's products is not appropriate. Taking pictures of inventory really proves nothing other than one's susceptibility to confirmation bias and/or conspiracy theories. Comparing any company that has ever engineered anything to Theranos is not a valid comparison.

 

This behavior is what gives legitimate short sellers a bad name, encourages regulation of short selling, and more generally just makes people look like asshats.

 

That's my rant for the day. Thanks for reading this far. 

[Jurgis]

The conversation on Twitter around Tesla has continued to digress to the point that it's really become a disservice to legitimate short research. There's a big difference between a) exposing frauds and bad actors, and b) trying to damage the reputation of an innovative startup in a difficult industry.

 

Hopefully nobody here is a part of that so I'm just preaching to the choir. I'm not disagreeing that Tesla faces challenges, I'm not defending its valuation, and I'm not saying it's a bad short. But, some people have become so obsessed with the Tesla short that they may need reminding from us of what is and is not appropriate behavior.

 

Harassing a legitimate reporter who wrote a positive honest review of a company's products is not appropriate. Taking pictures of inventory really proves nothing other than one's susceptibility to confirmation bias and/or conspiracy theories. Comparing any company that has ever engineered anything to Theranos is not a valid comparison.

 

This behavior is what gives legitimate short sellers a bad name, encourages regulation of short selling, and more generally just makes people look like asshats.

 

That's my rant for the day. Thanks for reading this far.

 

Well said.  8)

[Liberty]

Watched part of this with the translated subtitles, as I don't speak German. The i-Pace seems a bit disappointing on a few fronts..

 

 

 

Too bad, because it seemed like the most promising EV in a while (that is actually being produced, there's always a ton of show cars and renderings and spec sheets floating around).

[JRM]

The conversation on Twitter around Tesla has continued to digress to the point that it's really become a disservice to legitimate short research. There's a big difference between a) exposing frauds and bad actors, and b) trying to damage the reputation of an innovative startup in a difficult industry.

 

Hopefully nobody here is a part of that so I'm just preaching to the choir. I'm not disagreeing that Tesla faces challenges, I'm not defending its valuation, and I'm not saying it's a bad short. But, some people have become so obsessed with the Tesla short that they may need reminding from us of what is and is not appropriate behavior.

 

Harassing a legitimate reporter who wrote a positive honest review of a company's products is not appropriate. Taking pictures of inventory really proves nothing other than one's susceptibility to confirmation bias and/or conspiracy theories. Comparing any company that has ever engineered anything to Theranos is not a valid comparison.

 

This behavior is what gives legitimate short sellers a bad name, encourages regulation of short selling, and more generally just makes people look like asshats.

 

That's my rant for the day. Thanks for reading this far.

 

The problem is the bifurcation between bulls and bears.  The self-reinforcing feedback loops people create for themselves (Echo chambers) forces people to one extreme or the other.  It's hard to stay in the middle.  It is all very entertaining, however.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/elon-musk-responds-controversial-threat-sue-prominent-tesla-critic

[peterHK]

The conversation on Twitter around Tesla has continued to digress to the point that it's really become a disservice to legitimate short research. There's a big difference between a) exposing frauds and bad actors, and b) trying to damage the reputation of an innovative startup in a difficult industry.

 

Hopefully nobody here is a part of that so I'm just preaching to the choir. I'm not disagreeing that Tesla faces challenges, I'm not defending its valuation, and I'm not saying it's a bad short. But, some people have become so obsessed with the Tesla short that they may need reminding from us of what is and is not appropriate behavior.

 

Harassing a legitimate reporter who wrote a positive honest review of a company's products is not appropriate. Taking pictures of inventory really proves nothing other than one's susceptibility to confirmation bias and/or conspiracy theories. Comparing any company that has ever engineered anything to Theranos is not a valid comparison.

 

This behavior is what gives legitimate short sellers a bad name, encourages regulation of short selling, and more generally just makes people look like asshats.

 

That's my rant for the day. Thanks for reading this far.

 

The problem is the bifurcation between bulls and bears.  The self-reinforcing feedback loops people create for themselves (Echo chambers) forces people to one extreme or the other.  It's hard to stay in the middle.  It is all very entertaining, however.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/elon-musk-responds-controversial-threat-sue-prominent-tesla-critic

 

Lots of shorts take this too far. But I gotta say, saying shorts are bad for harassing a journalist is a little rich considering the CEO of this company lies,  has pressured an independent blogger to quit, basically hung up on analysts, and called a hero a pedophile. The behavior of this CEO and its board in their compliance with it are reprehensible.

[Gregmal]

The conversation on Twitter around Tesla has continued to digress to the point that it's really become a disservice to legitimate short research. There's a big difference between a) exposing frauds and bad actors, and b) trying to damage the reputation of an innovative startup in a difficult industry.

 

Hopefully nobody here is a part of that so I'm just preaching to the choir. I'm not disagreeing that Tesla faces challenges, I'm not defending its valuation, and I'm not saying it's a bad short. But, some people have become so obsessed with the Tesla short that they may need reminding from us of what is and is not appropriate behavior.

 

Harassing a legitimate reporter who wrote a positive honest review of a company's products is not appropriate. Taking pictures of inventory really proves nothing other than one's susceptibility to confirmation bias and/or conspiracy theories. Comparing any company that has ever engineered anything to Theranos is not a valid comparison.

 

This behavior is what gives legitimate short sellers a bad name, encourages regulation of short selling, and more generally just makes people look like asshats.

 

That's my rant for the day. Thanks for reading this far.

 

The problem is the bifurcation between bulls and bears.  The self-reinforcing feedback loops people create for themselves (Echo chambers) forces people to one extreme or the other.  It's hard to stay in the middle.  It is all very entertaining, however.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/elon-musk-responds-controversial-threat-sue-prominent-tesla-critic

 

Lots of shorts take this too far. But I gotta say, saying shorts are bad for harassing a journalist is a little rich considering the CEO of this company lies,  has pressured an independent blogger to quit, basically hung up on analysts, and called a hero a pedophile. The behavior of this CEO and its board in their compliance with it are reprehensible.

 

Wasn't one of the misguided reasons to go long Tesla that you basically had a free call option on Musk's genius? Why would the board mess with the (arguably) only thing of value that Tesla has? Spare me the cars. Anyone can sell a $100,000 car for $75,000.

[JayGatsby]

Lots of shorts take this too far. But I gotta say, saying shorts are bad for harassing a journalist is a little rich considering the CEO of this company lies,  has pressured an independent blogger to quit, basically hung up on analysts, and called a hero a pedophile. The behavior of this CEO and its board in their compliance with it are reprehensible.

I definitely don't condone Elon's sometimes erratic behavior, but I don't agree that two wrongs make a right either. Pointing out lies is totally fair game, and is a service to investors, but these folks spread more misinformation than they eliminate. Some of it is true (paint shop issues, quality control, etc), but others are just crazy conspiracy theories that don't make logical sense (despite a backlog of deposits, Tesla is manufacturing cars and parking them in graveyards rather than selling them).

 

I don't think characterizing "Montana Skeptic" as "independent" is accurate. He works at or manages a hedge fund and used an internet pseudonym to attempt to talk his book for personal gain (whether his points were right or wrong is irrelevant, point is he wasn't independent). Elon didn't object to that until the guy started harassing a Pulitzer Prize winning automotive critic. The reason Elon was able to go around him and talk to his employer was because the guy was using a work computer (ie, not independent). 

 

Compare the quality of research that Marc Cohodes did on MDXG to what these folks are propagating regarding Tesla. 

[walt373]

The backlog of deposits is mostly for the still-unavailable $35k variant, imo. You can now order a $49k+ Model 3 without a reservation and have it delivered relatively quickly. TSLA has even started sending out mass emails to what looks like every email address they have on record, inviting people to order. (My friend got an email and he's not even sure how TSLA has his email address. He thinks he might have given it to them for a webcast years ago.) I think it's becoming clear there is a demand problem. If demand was high, you would need to get in line behind all the reservation holders, and wait a while for TSLA to make your car, and that's not the case right now.

 

Two more things to consider: 1) TSLA opened up orders to everyone (including non reservation holders) recently. This should have produce a one-time surge of orders. 2) The $7500 EV tax credit will be halved starting next year (and eventually it goes to 0). This should have a pulling-forward effect on demand, since customers will have to buy a car this year to receive the full tax credit. And so there will be some demand dropoff on Jan 1, 2019 as the price effectively goes up by $3750. Demand should be very high right now, and if it's not, that is extremely bearish in my view.

[alpha]

Lots of shorts take this too far. But I gotta say, saying shorts are bad for harassing a journalist is a little rich considering the CEO of this company lies,  has pressured an independent blogger to quit, basically hung up on analysts, and called a hero a pedophile. The behavior of this CEO and its board in their compliance with it are reprehensible.

I definitely don't condone Elon's sometimes erratic behavior, but I don't agree that two wrongs make a right either. Pointing out lies is totally fair game, and is a service to investors, but these folks spread more misinformation than they eliminate. Some of it is true (paint shop issues, quality control, etc), but others are just crazy conspiracy theories that don't make logical sense (despite a backlog of deposits, Tesla is manufacturing cars and parking them in graveyards rather than selling them).

 

I don't think characterizing "Montana Skeptic" as "independent" is accurate. He works at or manages a hedge fund and used an internet pseudonym to attempt to talk his book for personal gain (whether his points were right or wrong is irrelevant, point is he wasn't independent). Elon didn't object to that until the guy started harassing a Pulitzer Prize winning automotive critic. The reason Elon was able to go around him and talk to his employer was because the guy was using a work computer (ie, not independent). 

 

Compare the quality of research that Marc Cohodes did on MDXG to what these folks are propagating regarding Tesla.

 

Some of the bears on social media are truly nutters, however "Montana Skeptic" put a pretty big disclaimer that he was holding a TSLA short position in all of his writings I have seen. He also had a profile page that clearly said he was a Yale educated lawyer running a family fund. As far as I can tell the only thing he hid was his actual legal name. Additionally the Financial Times is now doing a series of articles titled "Je Suis Montana Skeptic" , they are dissecting some of his articles, so far they have judged them to be valid arguments.