Ask HN: Are we in tech-stock bubble?

Responding to the question, and the comments:

It could be worse. Much worse. It could be the great depression, caused by massive shrinking in the money supply. Nobody likes growth in the money supply (well, ok, debtors do). But, it's better than a shrink. Or as Ray Dalio sorta says, a beautiful deleveraging.

Yes it's a bubble, defined by everyone saying it's not a bubble. Is TSLA justified - no and yes. Purely monetarily, no. But in relation to all it's competitors yes. They're all FUBAR. Most of them don't have a clue about either EVs or self-driving. They are horse carriage companies in the age of the Ford Model T.

Relative to their competitors, yes, TSLA should be ahead as a measure of future growth, or future ownership of the transportation sector. There is little doubt how clueless their competitors currently are. But it's still arguable TSLA is ahead of the curve a little.

Will TSLA come down? Different question. Now they're in the S&P 500 this isn't simple. Probably not. If you transpose or invert the question - who will challenge TSLA? Crickets. Silence. That's why TSLA is so highly valued. There is nobody even close. LOL NKLA.

Will tech stocks come down? Yes, but there's many ways to think of it. Will covid end? Yes, this too shall pass. tech stocks will come down but relative to what? The dollar? Maybe. But more likely everyone else will catch up a little.

Stepping back - let's ask a better quesiton. Who's long tech stocks? What would you bet tech stocks go up (a dollar? 10 dollars? 100 dollars..?). These questions are better asked as bets or about current positions.

TSLA is easily justifiable. Their entry into other markets, like home-installed batteries (PowerWall), solar roofs, HVAC, home automation, trucking, robo-taxis, etc. all make it very attractive. Even just selling their batteries at retail stores like an Energizer or Duracell would add a few billion to their revenue stream. They’re a solid 5 years ahead of competitors in terms of battery and self-driving capabilities.

Besides, even if none of those bets pay off, they still sell 3-5 million cars a year at over $50k per unit, and waiting lists for more buyers and don’t pay a dime to a dealer network. Once their fully autonomous self-driving software is released, I see them at a $1 trillion valuation (roughly $1000/share) easily.

> They are horse carriage companies in the age of the Ford Model T.

I disagree. If you discount self-driving (and I do), then there are clearly other manufacturers who know perfectly well how to produce an EV. I own both a Tesla and a Bolt, and neither is a clear winner over the other. They each have ups & downs, but in any case GM produced a perfectly good EV. And Ford's Mach-E appears to be an improvement on Tesla's Model Y. The game is on, and the big boys seem to know the rules.

This is only true for profitable enterprises. The rest is same as ponzi scheme.

I've owned multiple Tesla and LEAFs. I've test driven a Bolt. A Bolt to a Tesla like Salieri to Mozart.

Where to even begin? Thin seats. Smaller car. No charging network. No self-driving. No remote software updates... It's a long list.

Does GM even know how to make a car these days? TSLA has massive growth problems. I've had my own issues with my Tesla cars. But how could we even talk about Bolt and Tesla in the same paragraph?

We should be talking about BMW. My past BMW service experiences were far better than Tesla. That's comparable to my Teslas. Who cares about GM?

If, one day, the Mach-E ships, and anyone buys it, and it has anything near AutoPilot then maybe we can talk about it. But right now the Mach-E is about as useful as a NKLA truck. With no charging network. Or AutoPilot. So it's basically a bigger LEAF.