So far the big guys are just eating canopies. Real ranges in the 80s show they are not serious. I think only Nissan is a threat and there is certainly room for two the the space.
|
|
|
So far the big guys are just eating canopies. Real ranges in the 80s show they are not serious. I think only Nissan is a threat and there is certainly room for two the the space.
The world loves to be deceived.
Hi Norbert,Originally Posted by Norbert
I'm not sure I follow your remark about Nissan and Tesla opening doors for one another.
After the first flush of Model S and X purchases by early adopters, I fear that Nissan might be getting into full stride perhaps with a more stylish, longer range "reasonably priced" mass market car. So at the point in time when Tesla attempts to sell to "normal" folks, not EV enthusiasts, it might be rough going if Nissan already has first mover advantage in this market with established economies of scale.
Larry
I agree with Norbert. There doesn't have to be just one successful EV manufacturer (think of all the ICE manufacturers). Viable infrastructure will only be built up with volume sales. Nissan selling cars helps Tesla and vice versa. Theory of abundance vs. theory of scarcity. It's not all a competition.
Besides, the Tesla brand name has a coolness factor that will serve them well.
In terms of general perception of the relevance of electric cars, to get attention for EVs as a viable alternative technology. One demonstrates affordability, and the other abilities, for example. One of the most important points to get across is the message that electric cars can be, or even will be, the future.
People want to have a choices. Early adaptors are determined to buy an EV and pick among the available EVs. Many others will make choices of a much broader kind. There it helps to offer long range and fast charging so as to be seen as an alternative to an ICE, as much as possible. However, Nissan may first try to lower their production cost further and further, since as a high-volume car company, their goal may be to extend the first-mover-status into the very-high-volume market. Even Infinity may go for high volumes first, before trying to compete with ICEs, just like BMW seems to be fine with an about-100-mile range for the beginning. Also, these companies don't want to compete with their own ICEs, they want volume/market-share in a somewhat separate market in which people buy an EV as a second car in addition to an ICE. Whereas Tesla is the first mover in the "our EVs are getting close to be as usable as an ICE" space, and move that from the exclusive sports car level to the "premium" level and then lower-cost premium. Tesla will remain more willing to design cars in which the battery is a more expensive part.
Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...
Years ago, I listened to The Motley Fool radio show for a while. At first, it seemed interesting. Soon, though, I realized that they were full of s**t. They couldn't tell the back end of their alimentary canal from a hole in the ground. They tell you what stocks to buy, but if they really knew what stocks to buy they'd be too rich to spend their time publishing/broadcasting investment advice on public radio; they'd be flying private jets to exotic places where they'd be served fancy drinks by beautiful girls or boys. Their show isn't worth the time it takes to listen to it, and their newsletter isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to download it.
That said, competition from "the Big Boys" is a very real concern for a small company like Tesla. If the Big Boys decide to buy them out and Musk decides to let it go, so he can move on to something else, shareholders will get a nice pay-out, either in cash, or more likely, shares of the purchasing company. If Tesla merely loses to the competition, it could go bankrupt and shareholders could lose everything.
It's the risk of investing in a start-up company, and anybody who thinks that Tesla is a sure thing that cannot fail is living in fantasy land. It's the reason I'm very unlikely to ever buy more than my 100 feel-good shares. But I'm also not likely to get scared and sell them either, because I like the company and if the share price drops to five cents I won't lose enough that I'd miss a meal. Tesla is a small company facing real challenges and it could fail.
But on the other hand, Tesla has a great product and very savvy management who are committed to an ideal and determined to make it work. And if there are risks, there is also great potential. I believe Tesla will make it. As I said in another thread, I would not have bought my Roadster if I didn't believe the company would be around for the long term to service it. And I'd much rather support the company and its ideals by having fun driving my Roadster every day, than invest the same amount in their stock and hope that in ten years that hundred and twenty grand would turn into a million. And if the stock does go up tenfold or a hundredfold, I won't regret my decision because I'll have enjoyed this car for that decade, rather than just watching the stock ticker anxiously every day from now to then.
There are no sure things. But Tesla has a lot going for it. I express my confidence in Tesla by driving my Roadster. It's my daily driver, and it's the slickest car on the road. I think they'll succeed. But I sure would not invest my entire life savings in them, or even a large part of my portfolio. That's in much more stable investments than a start-up company with an uncertain future. TSLA is, IMO, a great place to put some of your risk capital. Not a great place to bet the bank.
No idea what the legal wranglings would be, but I know Elon mentioned in an interview he had to hold a certain percentage of shares as long as Tesla was part of the DOE loan. I'm sure there'd be ways to sell and work out that detail, but it does provide at least a bit of a hurdle to Elon selling off his Tesla investment.
Any of you technicians out there wish to explain the decline in volume over the past 2 days? We got 2 days of 2-3x average volume then a complete collapse. I heard the term cup and handle being thrown around, but I don't really understand it. Anyone care to explain?
Hasn't the volume been higher than usual? If so, then I'd guess the drop would just be a return to the norm. As for the cup and handle:
The reason for a price rise following a cup and handle formation is largely unknown. Likely because many traders know about this signal and buy when they see it forming thus artificially creating the bullish uptrend.
So if I'm understanding that correctly, this selling pressure is well in line with the definition and that this selling pressure is simply those that bought at the top selling at break even.. If it is right, it should spike at some point in the next few weeks?
Hi Norbert,
You make an excellent point. I believe in "Revenge of the Electric Car" Carlos Ghosn made a statement to that effect regarding the Leaf.
Larry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
