Are you also investing in Tesla?

[Mycroft]

Thanks for the numbers Mycroft, for some reason I can't access nasdaq.com right now.

Yeah, Nasdaq's websites are under attack.
Nasdaq Sites Are Targeted - WSJ.com

[Citizen-T]

I'm surprised that Tesla decided to release this before earnings and not in the shareholder letter tomorrow. Between this and the call that we already had mid-Jan...what the hell are they going to talk about tomorrow?

Me thinks they must have something up their sleeve. It just doesn't make sense to not have additional good news to deliver on earnings day because you burned through it all in the month before.

Toyota deal?

[Norbert]

I'm not so sure, and frankly I think upping the tax credit would bring more bad press to EV's. I'd like to see it as a time of purchase discount, and frankly I'd like to see it phased out for higher priced vehicles. Too many people see it as a hand out to the wealthy, and EV's as toys for the wealthy. Increasing the rebate and continuing to apply it to luxury vehicles will only increase those negative impressions.

Not "sure" either, but think it is worth a try. They seem to. Re negative impressions, that's people who don't understand what it takes to introduce a new technology, they'd just complain about something else.

Maybe lower the cash back by $1K for every $5k over $35K. That way by the time the vehicle price breaks $72K the incentive is gone completely and automakers will have a greater incentive to lower costs.

That would be bad for Tesla, however Tesla deserves it the most. So obviously that's a wrong way to think about it.

In fact, I think it should be proportional to battery size, since it is meant to offset currently high battery production costs and thereby support market growth. It is not meant to help people buy cars, however rich or poor they are. As long as the same battery technology will be usable for mass market cars as soon as the prices go down. Limiting support to low-priced vehicles would be steps ahead of the game, and less helpful for everyone.

[Norbert]

As for the phase out, rather than doing so for higher-priced vehicles, if being done through tax returns still, I'd do it based on the AGI in the tax return rather than on the price of the vehicle. A relatively "poorer" person can aspire to and purchase a higher-priced EV and get the full tax credit while a richer person gets the tax credit phased out as per their AGI.

That's an interesting variation, and maybe a meaningful compromise. However in my mind the only benefit is to appease critics, since wealthy people are just as cost-sensitive as not-so-wealthy people, and, again, it is not to support the person buying a car, but to support a new technology which will *eventually* benefit everyone, but needs to go through several steps of being expensive before it can reach that point. In some sense, it is better for the not-so-wealthy to let the wealthy pay for the development of the tech.

[Lokolo]

Sorry for going off the current topic but wanted to say thanks!

For anyone who makes most of their income from their investments it doesn't make sense to share trading strategies on a public forum. That said, here's a rule of thumb:

1. If you've got a good paper profit and are unsure which way the price is going. Sell 50% and take the profit.
2. If the price drops below your buy price, then buy 50% more to lower your average.

If you're a small investor you also need to take taxes and trading costs into account.

In any case, even those who can spend a fair amount of time looking at this stuff still recognize that volatile shares like TSLA are something of a gamble. Be prepared for the ups and downs and never gamble more than you can afford to lose.

Thanks for this. I did actually sell my whole position yesterday making 14%. This is my first real bull investment, I want TSLA to win and suceed, but at the same time, the amount I am investing, even if the stock doubles I won't be making a lot. (in comparison to some people here)

I also thought I would take the profit before the results come out, I could see it going either way and given yesterdays massive increase I can see it bouncing back down in the near future - to which I can buy again, but increase my holding with the profits I have made.

[NigelM]

Lokolo, well done and even if the price jumps tomorrow always be happy that you made 14% return in a relatively short time (imagine what that annualized rate must be!). Wishing you had stayed in will lead to poor decision making next time around.

[JRP3]

Not "sure" either, but think it is worth a try. They seem to. Re negative impressions, that's people who don't understand what it takes to introduce a new technology, they'd just complain about something else.

What other new consumer products get tax payer subsidies? Flat panel displays, cell phones, iPhones, etc., all cost more than established technology but were not tax payer supported. That's the type of negative press EV's are already getting, increasing the amount while still applying it to products that only the wealthy can afford will probably not do much to help in that respect. In conjunction with the poor results from Fisker and GM it's going to be a hard sell.

That would be bad for Tesla, however Tesla deserves it the most. So obviously that's a wrong way to think about it.

Obviously I disagree for the above mentioned reasons. Plus I don't think Tesla's current vehicles really need the subsidies, they will sell on their own without them. For Bluestar it makes sense.

In fact, I think it should be proportional to battery size, since it is meant to offset currently high battery production costs and thereby support market growth. It is not meant to help people buy cars, however rich or poor they are. As long as the same battery technology will be usable for mass market cars as soon as the prices go down. Limiting support to low-priced vehicles would be steps ahead of the game, and less helpful for everyone.

Actually I think it should be proportional to efficiency, not just pack size. Jamming in ever larger, and unaffordable to most, battery packs, does not in and of itself advance the technology. I'm still not convinced that Tesla's commodity cell pack design is the way to go in the long run, and Tesla just assembles those cells, they don't design and optimize their power and density.
Too many taxpayers will not support increasing subsidies for products they will never be able to afford, and though I realize it's a shortsighted position on their part it is not unreasonable. You have to admit there is something off when people buying $50K and higher vehicles get rebates but people buying $19K and lower vehicles get nothing. From my personal perspective I see the value in subsidizing EV purchases where necessary, I just don't think it's necessary to subsidize purchases that people will probably make anyway. Most people who want and can afford the S and X would still buy without the subsidy, which means Tesla has achieved their goal of making desirable vehicles at a competitive price.

[Robert.Boston]

My view on subsidies:

What we ought to do is to have a comprehensive federal climate policy that sets a price on carbon (and other GHGs). This policy would automatically lower the cost of EVs relative to ICE.

Realistically, we will not have a such a policy in place in the next ten years, so it's appropriate federal policy to replicate the effects of the optimal policy by actions such as the EV tax credit.

[Citizen-T]

I'm telling you. Just drop all these silly subsidies and raise taxes on gas incrementally over a period of years. Let the market sort out the rest.

[ElSupreme]

What other new consumer products get tax payer subsidies? Flat panel displays, cell phones, iPhones, etc., all cost more than established technology but were not tax payer supported. That's the type of negative press EV's are already getting, increasing the amount while still applying it to products that only the wealthy can afford will probably not do much to help in that respect. In conjunction with the poor results from Fisker and GM it's going to be a hard sell.

There is truth to what you say. Our government manages oil/gasoline/diesel cost. I am not saying the IRAQ war is all oil cost. But our federal government spends money dealing with oil, and how we can keep an affordable supply. I think generally this is a good thing. Our country would suffer greatly if our foreign sources of oil dried up overnight. The offered ethanol and bio-fuel subsidies, on top of already in place farm subsidies. All of this can be debated. And well they also help regulate the power industry (although this is more so done on a state scale) so we have inexpensive reliable electricity. Again I think this is a good thing. Without reliable consistently affordable oil/electricity our country would be much worse.

That said. I believe it is cheaper, and better in almost all regards for the government to promote EVs vs. ICEs. They are by almost all measures EVs are more efficient than ICEs. Having cheaper more efficient transportation in our country can only help it. The government has two methods to promote this change. Which I think is a good idea. And that is to discourage ICE usage, or encourage EV usage. I think in almost all circumstances encouragement is better than discouragement. EVs currently get out of Gasoline taxes, which fund road work. In the future this problem will need to be addressed, but right now it is encouragement for EVs, it manifests in that electricity is cheaper than gas. But oil/gas prices are managed by the federal government so there is already encouragement in the oil/gas prices. So this encouragement is not easily quantifiable. So instead of raising fuel taxes, they give a cash payout to EV users. It is inelegant but at least it is something.