81–90 of 185 posts
It seems like a smart decision once you look at car companies' market caps: Tesla: $651 B Toyota: $288 B Volkswagen: $152 B Daimler / Mercedes: $99 B Ford: $60 B
TSLA is a battery company. Autos are just the means to and end. Their market cap represents how well they are positioned to capitalize on the end of Fossil Fuel Age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Amazon sell you a printer or a book or a laptop, are they dumping it?
Yes? If Amazon thought the items in its warehouse were appreciating, I fully believe they'd decline to sell at a lower price.
Edit: ok so dumping=selling the whole lot
I guess that makes sense. I think this post explained it better https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27633163
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumping a winning trade is still dumping. It means you think you have won as much as there was to be won and you now have better uses for the money. This suggest you believe the stock is no longer as wortwhile as some alternative.
When Amazon sell you a printer or a book or a laptop, are they dumping it?
When Amazon sells me something they are not dumping it, because I buy just one item and it is not important for their financial situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a recent owner of a model 3, I've been blown away by the charging infrastructure advantage. The non-Tesla chargers near me in Colorado are just plain garbage. Sometimes, they work great, but other days I go back and the terminal won't function. And currently, these chargers are all the owners of non-Tesla EVs have. I'm actually surprised there isn't a legal push by Congress to force Tesla to open up their charging…
I own both a Audi e-Tron and Tesla Model Y (well, it’s the wife’s but you get the idea.) Taking a road trip in the Audi is all but out of the question because of how awful the charging infrastructure is. That is not say nothing in regards to the litany of design flaws, poor consumption, and miserable dealer support with the Audi. Tesla is easily 10-15 years ahead of all other manufacturers.
The Mercedes EQS is getting pretty good reviews and the specs look good, so I'm not sure about that. It looks like a direct competitor to the Model S.
Reading between the lines, my guess is Panasonic is getting ready to work --and scale-up-- with lots of car manufacturers. Owning stock in any one company would create a conflict of interest. So, you either buy an equal amount (whatever "equal" means) in stock in every company you work with or you own no stock on any of them. The latter is the easiest path to eliminating any ethical questions.
Why would it be a conflict of interest or some vague ethical concern, instead of just expecting the TSLA valuation to drop as they expand their client list?
Two companies buy tires from the same tire manufacturer. The tire manufacturer owns a significant amount of stock in company A and none for company B. If company A does well, the stock value increases. This could be worth billions.
Company B has a legitimate concern here. Is company A getting any preferential treatment? Lower pricing? Preferential deliveries? Better access to resources? Etc.
While two companies can buy exactly the same product from a manufacturer, the nature of the relationship and the advantages one receives over the other can be massively different.
The easiest way to understand this, of course, would be volume. If a company buys a million units a year it will have preferential treatment and access over another only buying 10K/year.
My point is that owning billions of dollars of Tesla opens the door to a set of questions. This door is closed permanently the minute Panasonic got rid of all the stock.
.... making almost $3B in profit. edit: in perpective - they owned about 0.55% of Tesla. Selling their share nets Panasonic a windfall thats worth about 10% of their own $27.7B market cap.
Yeah "dumping" a winning trade isn't dumping. It's taking profits to move onto other investments.
Nobody would cash out a position if you expected further gains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said this 3 years ago too, arguing Tesla was too big. guess what: it got way bigger. Tesla is forcing other brands to have to adapt or die. They are way behind Tesla in technology, infrastructure, and marketshare for electric vehicle and battery tech.
> it got way bigger. It's still unclear whether this is due to fundamentals like the ones you mention, or just an irrational stock market. Now that more and more companies are coming out with their EVs, the truth might become clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? If Amazon thought the items in its warehouse were appreciating, I fully believe they'd decline to sell at a lower price.
So selling = dumping? Edit: ok so dumping=selling the whole lot I guess that makes sense. I think this post explained it better https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27633163
I worked on an exchange and currently with trading systems for one of the largest banks in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla MARKET VALUATION has grown like crazy, but their sales and profits are lagging behind. And you're wrong: Tesla might have an advantage in infrastructure (Supercharges) but their technology is not far ahead of others, and their market share is falling down (at least in Europe). Also: Tesla is planning to open up their chargers network to other cars [1]. So either they have a plan to ditch car manufacturing and f…
That article you linked to isn't saying what you think it is. I specifically would like to see the superchargers opened up to all vehicles as well, but the details of the article state that they are only doing this in very select locations/markets, and primarily focused on those which were built with government subsidies. We are not likely to see the vast majority of the Tesla charger locations opened up to other bra…
2. If they agree to open their network in some markets, the rest of the world will soon demand the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said this 3 years ago too, arguing Tesla was too big. guess what: it got way bigger. Tesla is forcing other brands to have to adapt or die. They are way behind Tesla in technology, infrastructure, and marketshare for electric vehicle and battery tech.
Maybe market share, but I can't see how the argument goes for technology or infrastructure. As of now, none of the auto-driving tech is acceptable to go hands free, people have tried it and paid with their lives. The only difference between Tesla and traditional companies is that Tesla didn't seem to mind people testing unproven techs with their lives while the other manufacturers are more restrictive.
Anyhow, I think it's a well-known fact that Tesla's rise is due to their innovation in both hardware and software (Technology). Their Supercharger network (Infrastructure) surely is also ahead of their competitors by a wide margin.