TSLA - Tesla Motors

[Castanza]

Apparently they didn't do any consumer research. The Honda Ridgeline had a similar bed style with the high sides. Consumers complained because you couldn't reach over the side rail to grab whatever it was that your hauling in the back.

 

I hope this isn't a final design.

[CorpRaider]

Kinda' thought a lot of this when I saw the first Hummer, TBH.

[Orchard]

Why is everyone taking this seriously? Clearly this thing will never be made and the presentation was just done to get people talking and get media coverage because free advertising is important for them.

[Jurgis]

Why is everyone taking this seriously? Clearly this thing will never be made and the presentation was just done to get people talking and get media coverage because free advertising is important for them.

 

I think that the smart part of Musk reality distortion field pre-ordering system is that they will see and measure the demand way before they have to make the truck. So I'd hope that they only release it if they see high pre-orders and redesign a lot if they don't.

[fareastwarriors]

It's definitely different...

 

I'm still holding onto my Y reservation.

[Liberty]

Why is everyone taking this seriously? Clearly this thing will never be made and the presentation was just done to get people talking and get media coverage because free advertising is important for them.

 

I don't think that's the case. If we knew nothing else, it might be an interesting (cynical) theory, but in this case, I think they really tried to do something different. They achieved a lot on the specs and pricing (if they can hit it), but the aesthetics just didn't work IMO.

[gary17]

Am I the only one that put down the $100 deposit because I thought it's a lovely designed car?  And it's bulletproof!

[gary17]

It matches my dream boat, which I can't afford:

https://www.wally.com/

[PatOfThePig]

Why Cybertruck look like that:

 

https://insideevs.com/features/383976/why-tesla-cybertruck-makes-sense/?fbclid=IwAR2162SEdEzEedpTh9SFnO36U7HKgnb_VPSHWAfnDG7OWlAfmq5HlPq722Y

[fareastwarriors]

It matches my dream boat, which I can't afford:

https://www.wally.com/

 

Which one? How much?

[alpha]

Why is everyone taking this seriously? Clearly this thing will never be made and the presentation was just done to get people talking and get media coverage because free advertising is important for them.

 

I think that the smart part of Musk reality distortion field pre-ordering system is that they will see and measure the demand way before they have to make the truck. So I'd hope that they only release it if they see high pre-orders and redesign a lot if they don't.

 

I don't think that is the case, you only had to put down $100 to reserve one, that is not much of a commitment.

 

Love it or hate it, it seems like everyone was talking about it today. It was on the front of every major news publication I checked too.

[SharperDingaan]

The ultimate mafia squad car !!!!!

Quiet, brandable, bullet 'resistant' (wheels too?), large/discrete cargo space, easy cleaning ... and dirt cheap on gas!

Aerodynamic, eco friendly. and way cheaper than the existing standards.

What's not to love?  :) :) :)

 

Folks who have switched to electric from gasoline, have typically found that their fuel bills routinely decline by HALF.

Distance between charges is getting a lot longer, and charging points are also becoming a lot more numerous.

 

Black ones for Russia, and red ones for China!

 

SD

 

[Jurgis]

Why is everyone taking this seriously? Clearly this thing will never be made and the presentation was just done to get people talking and get media coverage because free advertising is important for them.

 

I think that the smart part of Musk reality distortion field pre-ordering system is that they will see and measure the demand way before they have to make the truck. So I'd hope that they only release it if they see high pre-orders and redesign a lot if they don't.

 

I don't think that is the case, you only had to put down $100 to reserve one, that is not much of a commitment.

 

Sure it's not that much of a commitment. But it's not zero and people are unlikely to intentionally troll.

I'd think they have data analysis people who can figure out approximate conversion rate and additional demand after release. Especially if you are talking about orders of magnitude - which is what matters when people are saying "this is colossal mistake, no one's gonna buy it".

 

[Haasje]

Supposed to be a product unveil but no mirrors  :o

[Jurgis]

Supposed to be a product unveil but no mirrors  :o

 

It is possible that it won't have mirrors.

 

There are upcoming mainstream cars with no mirrors: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/lexus-reveals-digital-side-view-mirrors-on-jdm-2019-es/

[Haasje]

In the article you link to it says:

The system is only for the Japanese market, where legislators approved its use earlier this year. As you expect, such tech advancements are not yet available in the U.S. due to the snail pace in policy making with U.S. Department of Transportation safety standards

 

Because in the U.S. cars dating past 1978 need two rearview mirrors. I think your insurance won't even cover you anymore.

 

[Hielko]

The Audi E-tron also doesn't have traditional mirrors: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/tech/audi-e-tron-virtual-mirrors-how-does-it-work/

[Haasje]

Isn't that an optional choice. At least there are cameras.

 

"Audi unveiled the all-electric e-tron Sportback with tech-savvy features such as camera-based “side mirrors” and a new dynamic lighting system.

However, there’s a problem. The systems are illegal in the U.S. under current vehicle safety standards.

Audi has been working with “regulators for some time” to change the regulations."

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/19/audi-unveils-first-sportback-ev-with-tech-savvy-features-banned-in-us.html

[Liberty]

So much drama and brain damage on both long and short sides over the past many years, and all that for a stock that is still near all time highs, but has been mostly going sideways for a long time... The market's pretty good at causing the most pain to the most people.

[benhacker]

So much drama and brain damage on both long and short sides over the past many years, and all that for a stock that is still near all time highs, but has been mostly going sideways for a long time... The market's pretty good at causing the most pain to the most people.

 

I think there are multiple discussion threads on TSLA which confuses the discussion.

 

There is obviously the death culters ("TSLA is a fraud worth $0") vs. Uber bulls.

 

But then that is often confused with those who are simply short the company or long the company without being insane.

 

I think the oddness about the name is that those (typically) who lean bullish or bearish like to point to the dumbest arguments on the other side vs. the smartest comments to prove their point which makes the discussions on Tesla very charged (one of the reasons I like to back away from comment too much so I don't trap myself in a bearish consistency bias)

 

That said, the one thing that the "bulls" say in this thread over the years that makes the absolute least sense to me is that fact that Tesla stock price is up and thus shorts are wrong and/or dumb and/or sad, etc...

 

Tesla has under performed the market this year, and over 1-2 Trailing years.  it's flat to the market over 5 years.

 

Short selling is a relative portfolio affair.  The oddest thing in the world i hear is "Tesla is up, you should be wrong/unhappy".

 

I would *love* if Tesla went to zero speaking of my portfolio, but if anybody has any other names that underperform the market by 15-20% and are easy to borrow, please send those "bad shorts" my way.  lol...

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

I personally believe Tesla is fundamentally poorly run, over hyped, dishonest, and it's overvaluation is growing even as it's underperforming the market.  It's the kind of company that their stock goes up 2% when their 3rd GC in 12 months steps down - because the bull case by institutional investors is basically the ability to maintain regulatory arb/subsidy theft - a weak lawyer helps with that.

 

However, I may be wrong about all the above.  But I'm pretty sure I"m not wrong that short selling as part of a neutral or long biased portfolio (99.9% of short selling is this in one form or another) a name that rises by less then the market compensating for borrow costs is a good thing to do.

 

The fact that this isn't apparent to so many on this board makes me think most folks don't short, but do like to opine on short selling.

 

Congrats to the bulls who bought recently... quite a run... I wish I would have covered more!

[A Dhandho Investor]

Ben, I think your analysis of bulls vs bears is spot on.

 

Montana Skeptic (glad he is back!) his new SA article also provides a quick review of the events that took place since he left Twitter and SA about 1,5 years ago and where we are now: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4311466-tesla-nothing-matters-until-everything-matters

 

I don't think somebody already referred to it in this thread but the Solarcity deposition also shows some insights into what actually occurred at the time of the SCTY acquisition. It blows my mind how longs continue ignoring the fact that this company has more red flags than you can find on the red square. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/musk-deposition-stockholders-v-tesla-solarcity.html

 

Musk acknowledged to the court something he had never disclosed to shareholders — that the company reallocated every possible employee from the solar division (formerly SolarCity) to work on the Model 3 car, a move that effectively starved the solar business and ruined its chance to grow

 

Musk also revealed that even by June 2019, Tesla hadn’t made the glass solar roof tiles into a viable commercial product.

 

-> for reference: Elon Musk used the glass solar roof tiles in 2016 to convince Tesla shareholders to take over SCTY.

 

[Liberty]

So much drama and brain damage on both long and short sides over the past many years, and all that for a stock that is still near all time highs, but has been mostly going sideways for a long time... The market's pretty good at causing the most pain to the most people.

 

I think there are multiple discussion threads on TSLA which confuses the discussion.

 

There is obviously the death culters ("TSLA is a fraud worth $0") vs. Uber bulls.

 

But then that is often confused with those who are simply short the company or long the company without being insane.

 

I think the oddness about the name is that those (typically) who lean bullish or bearish like to point to the dumbest arguments on the other side vs. the smartest comments to prove their point which makes the discussions on Tesla very charged (one of the reasons I like to back away from comment too much so I don't trap myself in a bearish consistency bias)

 

That said, the one thing that the "bulls" say in this thread over the years that makes the absolute least sense to me is that fact that Tesla stock price is up and thus shorts are wrong and/or dumb and/or sad, etc...

 

Tesla has under performed the market this year, and over 1-2 Trailing years.  it's flat to the market over 5 years.

 

Short selling is a relative portfolio affair.  The oddest thing in the world i hear is "Tesla is up, you should be wrong/unhappy".

 

I would *love* if Tesla went to zero speaking of my portfolio, but if anybody has any other names that underperform the market by 15-20% and are easy to borrow, please send those "bad shorts" my way.  lol...

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

I personally believe Tesla is fundamentally poorly run, over hyped, dishonest, and it's overvaluation is growing even as it's underperforming the market.  It's the kind of company that their stock goes up 2% when their 3rd GC in 12 months steps down - because the bull case by institutional investors is basically the ability to maintain regulatory arb/subsidy theft - a weak lawyer helps with that.

 

However, I may be wrong about all the above.  But I'm pretty sure I"m not wrong that short selling as part of a neutral or long biased portfolio (99.9% of short selling is this in one form or another) a name that rises by less then the market compensating for borrow costs is a good thing to do.

 

The fact that this isn't apparent to so many on this board makes me think most folks don't short, but do like to opine on short selling.

 

Congrats to the bulls who bought recently... quite a run... I wish I would have covered more!

 

Seems to me like this only works if instead of shorting Tesla you would have shorted the market instead. But is that the case? You can't eat relative performance, so being flat (plus borrow cost) vs the market might sound like a win on paper, but in reality, what does it get you? Is it just to redeploy the funds in more longs? Sounds like a risky source of leverage, unless you keep it tiny in size, in which case, even if it goes to zero, you just get what, a single digit higher return on the portfolio?.

 

I just think that there's got to be easier ways to make money than to short a company where clearly anything can happen at any time, they can crash tomorrow or pull a rabbit out of a hat and rocket up, but they've certainly proven over time that they have cockroach-levels of resiliency to adversity. I don't think anyone has an edge on this... If they had, it wouldn't have taken this long to happen and the company wouldn't have gone from less than $0.5bn in revenues to about $24bn TTM during the period during which the shorts have been so vocal about it being on the imminent verge of collapse (well, even longer than that, technically, since IPO).

[benhacker]

Seems to me like this only works if instead of shorting Tesla you would have shorted the market instead. But is that the case? --> No, that is not the point.

 

You can't eat relative performance, so being flat (plus borrow cost) vs the market might sound like a win on paper, but in reality, what does it get you? --> you can *absolutely* eat relative performance in a long/short portfolio

 

Is it just to redeploy the funds in more longs? --> Yes or it can be used to reduce portfolio volatility depending on your portfolio goals

 

Sounds like a risky source of leverage, --> it can be...

 

unless you keep it tiny in size, --> DING DING DING... short sizing is != to how you should think about long sizing.

 

in which case, even if it goes to zero, you just get what, a single digit higher return on the portfolio?. --> I think you've reasoned part way through it. I don't think it's so complicated.  Shorting isn't like "the big short" where you are getting rich on moon shots (maybe buying puts can be).  it's a tool to lower vol or enhance return via market correlated leverage (or it can do both).  It has attendant risks that comes with correlation, volatility, and of course being wrong.

[Liberty]

Seems to me like this only works if instead of shorting Tesla you would have shorted the market instead. But is that the case? --> No, that is not the point.

 

You can't eat relative performance, so being flat (plus borrow cost) vs the market might sound like a win on paper, but in reality, what does it get you? --> you can *absolutely* eat relative performance in a long/short portfolio

 

Is it just to redeploy the funds in more longs? --> Yes or it can be used to reduce portfolio volatility depending on your portfolio goals

 

Sounds like a risky source of leverage, --> it can be...

 

unless you keep it tiny in size, --> DING DING DING... short sizing is != to how you should think about long sizing.

 

in which case, even if it goes to zero, you just get what, a single digit higher return on the portfolio?. --> I think you've reasoned part way through it. I don't think it's so complicated.  Shorting isn't like "the big short" where you are getting rich on moon shots (maybe buying puts can be).  it's a tool to lower vol or enhance return via market correlated leverage (or it can do both).  It has attendant risks that comes with correlation, volatility, and of course being wrong.

 

I guess I just have different priorities and investing style. I don't like keeping drama in my portfolio for little reason. I'd rather spend the time and energy that you'd spend on monitoring this trying to find my next big investment that will make a noticeable difference to returns. I'm not saying the other approach isn't valid, my original comment was just that I don't think it's a good return on the energy that most shorts seem to spend on the company. If something is 1% of your portfolio but you give it 25% of your mindspace (or whatever.. for some shorts it seems even higher -- and it rarely pays to get as emotional as they do about an investment, rational decisions go out the window), that seems a bad deal to me. I'm not saying it applies to you, but I know it definitely applies to many that I see on Twitter.

[benhacker]

I think that criticism of short selling is super valid (perhaps to me as well!!)