231–240 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I am a Tesla shareholder and an ardent supporter of Musk. Forgive the hyperbole below, if any. But will it justify its stock price? No amount of metrics can or will justify a company like Tesla's current stock price. At this juncture, you are mostly getting into a wild ride. I state this for the following reasons: 1. Tesla is not a car company. Not anymore. It's an energy company. So all comparisons to ex…
Scaling a car company is incredibly difficult. For example recalls and design issues are less of an issue for a low volume/high margin car like the Model S which, has been plagued with flaws leading to expensive fixes like titanium battery shields. If I were a Tesla stockholder, I'd want Tesla to focus harder on manufacturing and scaling production of electric cars instead self-driving technology.
The reason so many people think Tesla is expensive is because some are valuing the company relative to Ford and GM, but others are looking at Tesla Energy and valuing the company not just in automotive but in GE's business, and even in Exxon's business. GM + GE + Exxon = $765 billion Tesla at $45 billion is still just 6% of that market. There's a lot of uncertainty there, so only a small slice of that $765 billion is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By making a lot more now than I used to
Seems crazy, but is actually a smart move. I own 3,000 Tesla shares. Purchased most shares at $30 after driving my model s from the factory. I have seen my net worth get cut in half when tsla went from $280 to $140, but never sold any. LinkedIn, a crappy website, was recently purchased by Microsoft for $30 billion. That's about how much Tesla's market capitalization was 2 months ago. Take a look at the all of the ind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who lose money shorting Tesla are losing their shirts I don't follow. Tesla is down 1.4%. People who shorted Tesla made money today. Plus a lot of people made money shorting Amazon over Amazon's life. Shorting a stock has less to do with a company's business plan/success and more to do with predicting the market itself and how they'll respond to various quarterly results (and the likelihood of such results).…
It's currently up 1.65% in after hours trading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope Model 3 can beat the Bolt in range. That would be a nice surprise. Why do you care whether Tesla has a good car or GM has a good car, rather than, overall, we have many good cars to choose from? > I know Musk has already mentioned that Model Y will be cheaper, but we don't know just how much cheaper. Hopefully, it will be like $25,000. We haven't even seen the M3, or heard the price. But we're already talkin…
I care because the Model 3 is almost certainly going to be a much better car overall (better performance, far superior driver assistance technology, vastly better charging infrastructure) and it would be a shame if its success were hobbled due to one relatively small factor that gets blown out of proportion. Of course I'd love to have many good cars to choose from, but there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
I'll bet that the cars from Tesla and GM within similar price range will have similar features and performance. Why would you think that Tesla, operating at a much smaller scale, will necessarily be able to do everything cheaper and better? That seems counterintuitive; GM has scale and a dialed in supply chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember though that Tesla will no longer be just a car company. The battery market is huge and will only get bigger as utility scale projects boost demand (like the 80MW one in Southern California Tesla just installed), and if residential solar takes off, solar city stands to make a decent amount of money.
The larger the battery market becomes, the more competition it will attract. Tesla is certainly starting off with a nice lead, but it would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of other players who might just not be interested enough in this market yet, and who'll -- for the moment -- happily have Tesla serve as a canary.
Tesla is a slave to the Lithium Ion process of Panasonic. If a new chemistry breakthrough comes out tomorrow (ie: Redox Flow has huge potential in the utility space, even if it has little potential in the retail space)... Panasonic will be able to switch to the new chemistry but Tesla's battery tech is basically Lithium Ion only.
Tesla's battery technology is literally the battery electronics. Not the chemical cells. Tesla seems to employ chemical experts so that their battery-electronics can better predict the effects of the chemistry... but really... they're only putting together cells. Tesla doesn't make the 18650, Panasonic does. Tesla just puts a bunch of 18650 together, as well as have some sort of algorithm to make them charge / discharge at high efficiency.
Tesla is completely dependent on Panasonic's chemistry. The speed at which LG was able to build a "Silicon-Lithium Ion" battery pack of GM's Bolt only demonstrates how "easy" the battery-pack problem is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I care because the Model 3 is almost certainly going to be a much better car overall (better performance, far superior driver assistance technology, vastly better charging infrastructure) and it would be a shame if its success were hobbled due to one relatively small factor that gets blown out of proportion. Of course I'd love to have many good cars to choose from, but there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
> I care because the Model 3 is almost certainly going to be a much better car overall I'll bet that the cars from Tesla and GM within similar price range will have similar features and performance. Why would you think that Tesla, operating at a much smaller scale, will necessarily be able to do everything cheaper and better? That seems counterintuitive; GM has scale and a dialed in supply chain.
I couldn't tell you exactly why Tesla is able to do better than GM, despite GM having vastly more resources, but it's quite clear that they will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe but Amazon really is the only Amazon, while Tesla has at scale competitors. The Model 3 certainly looks good, but so does the Bolt, Leaf, i3, fiat 500e, kia soul ev, ford focus electric, etc. The big difference is I can buy those cars today, and for almost all of that last the past couple years, while the Model 3 is still waiting release. I don't think most Tesla fans realize how behind Tesla is in delivering t…
Out of that list, only the Bolt is even close to being the same class and that's based on range alone. If they weren't EVs we wouldn't mention them in the same sentence.
Let's see what its real world range is and its real world price is when it actually gets in the hands of consumers, on top of how quickly the $7500 rebate ceiling gets hit for Tesla and what the real cost at the dealership will be for Joe Public.
I have high hopes, but like I wrote, there are many good EV's right now and they aren't selling like hotcakes. Gas is cheap, gas cars are cheap, and they don't have range anxiety. Comparing Tesla to Amazon is ridiculous, everything about Amazon was more convenient than brick and mortar stores. Everything about EV's is less convenient and more expensive than gas cars. Being bearish on Tesla stock is a perfectly rational move right now. The market for a Model 3 is probably much smaller than technophiles at HN think it is. I'm a techie too, but EV's don't fit a lot of my use cases and seem annoying to own. If guys like me aren't frothing at the mouth for this, I can't imagine what its like for Joe Public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parent post is about why using numbers is not necessarily correct because those numbers are based on assumptions that are not valid in Tesla's case. As an investor but not a fan of Tesla, I share his view. "Maverick CEO" just means that he's unpredictable and has made several major pivots before, so expecting Tesla to follow the trajectory of existing car manufacturers is quite imperceptive.
> Parent post is about why using numbers is not necessarily correct because those numbers are based on assumptions that are not valid in Tesla's case. And my post is about how these things are just said, without any evidence. I thought this is a forum of critical thinkers? And yet we have people saying that "well, it's not really a car company" or "but Elon!" trumps actual data . > so expecting Tesla to follow the tr…
The commenter above is right on this one and it is not a subjective statement. This is a fact.