Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

finbold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#141

Post by spaceflunky »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #92
avelis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah "dumping" a winning trade isn't dumping. It's taking profits to move onto other investments.

Why would you completely exit a winning trade that you have more insight into than most people since you’re the sole supplier of the primary component in the thing if you thought it was going to have a higher ROI than other investments? … you wouldn’t.

Because regardless of how much that stock is worth, you can't pay your bills with it until you sell it.

also, panasonic may have an opportunity to put that capital else where which is better for the long term health of the company.

This isn't a retail investor situation

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#143

Post by karmakaze »

avelis wrote: post #16
codeulike wrote: post #10

.... 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.

Yep the title is clickbaity, 'exiting their position' would be more apt as the reason isn't known to be a negative outlook.

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#144

Post by spaceflunky »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #3

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

The other companies are valued so low because their ability to innovate is so low.

Tesla is a vertically integrated company, while the others are horizontally integrated. The combined proprietary technology of Tesla is greater than the combined proprietary technology of all the big auto manufacturers. A lot of those companies just buy technology from some other vendor, so while it looks like they are competing with Tesla, they aren't really.

The incumbents just know how to build a car, Tesla not only learned how to build a car, they built self-driving technology to compete with Google (Waymo), the built their own chips to compete with Nvidia, they built their own batteries to compete with Panasonic, and they built their own manufacturing technologies to compete with hundreds of long term industrial companies. Not a single one of those companies could design a GPU to save their life. Let alone in the time and quality that Tesla built it.

You can't just look at the surface and go "Toyota and Tesla sell cars, therefore I can compare companies apples to apples"

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#145

Post by shiftpgdn »

Closi wrote: post #78
shiftpgdn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Tesla is easily 10-15 years ahead of all other manufacturers. Well the majority view is that the Porsche Tycan is a better car, but at a different price point - considering the (im)maturity of the market 10-15 years seems a stretch, particularly considering there are some great cars coming out like the mini electric.

I considered the Taycan as a replacement for the e-tron but it has all the same problems as the e-tron. The interior finish and handling dynamics are nicer than Tesla for sure but literally everything else they get wrong. Like I said, they are at least 10 years behind.

Here is an example: recently the Audi app which you use to control the car from your phone was down for two weeks for server upgrades. I have worked in IT and software for almost 20 years now and a 2 week outage is unimaginable.

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#146

Post by bell-cot »

So...Panasonic - which probably wants to be an electronics company, not an investment fund - booked a huge profit by selling off something which started out as a little demonstration of financial & moral support for a little customer. But which had grown to be ~13% of Panasonic's own market cap - possibly interesting financial regulators, or causing electronics-focused talent there to feel some concern for their career paths. And they did so gradually and quietly, when the no-longer-little customer had long outgrown any need for Panasonic's show of financial & moral support.

I understand why this pushes a lot of peoples' buttons. But objectively, my reaction is "Zzzzz".

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#147

Post by elliekelly »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #129
elliekelly wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how is this any different than accelerators like YC investing in founders vs business ideas? VC funds are (1) diversified, so it’s less risky — their success or failure isn’t tied to any one persona or even any one company, (2) fund investors have a lot of money so they can afford it if their entire investment goes to zero, and (3) the investors are well-versed in assessing the likelihood of that risk when they…

Fair points. I'm unsure how to protect retail more without handicapping those who know what they're doing. Taking away exposure opportunity from retail isn't going to help, but neither does encouraging gambling (although that's what investments are, educated gambles). Musk is exploiting an edge case, but I'm unsure if I can blame him for it based on how it's turned out. Don't invest (or gamble) what you can't afford…

Although I'm no fan of Musk he's a pretty smart guy and he's done a pretty good job so far of toeing the line. (Though I don't envy his lawyers because I suspect he toes the line a touch more than they'd prefer.) And, as the saying goes, winning fixes everything, so I think the fact that Tesla is "profitable" and has a promising technology at the core of the business helps, too. It's clear the stock price isn't entirely derived from the company's value but the company clearly isn't worthless, either.

All that is to say, I don't think there needs to be any additional restrictions or regulations on investors to deal with meme stocks because I think the problem will eventually be addressed via the existing system. Whether it's Musk or (more likely) some other enterprising social media personality I think we'll eventually see a meme stock that's so egregiously ridiculous and loses a lot of people a lot of money that the SEC, and perhaps the DOJ, will be forced take action. Maybe even multiple egregious meme stocks will be used in quick succession in order signal where the SEC's "hard line" will be.

And I eagerly await Matt Levin's "Memes are Securities Fraud" column when it happens!

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#148

Post by TX0098812 »

hef19898 wrote: post #96
JPKab wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but the common retort I hear to this sentiment is that "they aren't a car company, they are a battery/energy storage company that currently sells cars". What are your thoughts on that sentiment? Just curious to hear from rational investors on that specific item.

Which is a funny idea, since the batteries are coming from Panasonic.

Afaik only some of them are from Panasonic.

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#149

Post by lmilcin »

burnished wrote: post #137
lmilcin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. Stop trolling or go learn financial slang. It is not hard, you can google it. I worked on an exchange and currently with trading systems for one of the largest banks in the world.

Just want to point out that you've got insider knowledge and if you want people to be better educated about distinctions and jargon you gotta educate them. Just referring people to the great oracle called Google leads to the bad old days of googling a question and only getting threads where frustrated specialists snarkily suggest googling instead of asking. Really though, the hardest part of googling the answer to a…

> and if you want people to be better educated about distinctions and jargon you gotta educate them

I literally did that in parent post and another earlier response to the same person.

Re: Panasonic sells its $3.6B Tesla stake

#150

Post by hef19898 »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #56
paulpauper wrote: post #6

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.

Tesla has a lead now, but can it keep it?

Other car manufacturers are already catching up, so I guess we will see!
Post reply on HN