2017 Investor Roundtable: TSLA Market Action

[TrendTrader007]

TT, you have some high strike priced J18’s?

If Tesla doesn’t nail their numbers at the beginning of January those will be toast. It might be a good idea to roll them to June 2018’s.

Thanks I have very few $500 and $410 J 18s rest of my J 18s are $300 and below so they are in the money and still profitable
I do have tons of $500 and $600s expiring in J 19 but I’m not so worried about those
Appreciate it

 

[TrendTrader007]

With the super impressive black candle if the stock does not roll over today or this week then we’re home free and shorts will have hell to pay
On the other hand if SP takes a nose dive then I guess I’ll have to just sit it out and hope for the best
Overall I am super optimistic looking at longer term charts
Just look at the black candle at beginning of March 2017 while not so impress as this one still....

 

[Reciprocity]

That directly contradicts what Elon said (solar and Powerpacks).

It doesn’t make sense to contradict what Elon said without a very good reason and you don’t have one.

Where do you think wholesale power comes from? The utilities buy it from many sources, including solar farms, then mark it up to sell it wholesale and retail. The point some of us is trying to make is that 7c is not some crazy low number. Tesla's goal will always be to use renewables and provider those renewables, but it's not a deal breaker.

 

[Todd Burch]

TrendTrader, I think you're putting too much weight on TA at this point in time.

Just as in real estate, it's LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
and just as in the 2000 elections it was FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA

at this point in time
TSLA is all about MODEL 3 MODEL 3 MODEL 3.

And yes, I'm a long bull.

 

[Paracelsus]

Where do you think wholesale power comes from? The utilities buy it from many sources, including solar farms, then mark it up to sell it wholesale and retail. The point some of us is trying to make is that 7c is not some crazy low number. Tesla's goal will always be to use renewables and provider those renewables, but it's not a deal breaker.

This is spot on. The dams in the Columbia River Basin sell base-load power to the PUD's for $0.04/kWh. They in turn sell it to customers for $0.07 - $0.08/kWh. I do feel that storage could offer tremendous opportunity to Basin operators as they could store surplus hydro and wind generation at off hours and then sell it at peak demand rates (~3x-4x base load rates). This would allow them to pay for the storage infrastructure in the near-term with peak-demand rate revenue, and then reduce peak demand rates over time to stay competitive with power available on the grid from California. This would also allow them to phase out gas peaker plants at the same time. Without phasing in storage soon the future looks very grim for those relying on peak demand rates from existing infrastructure to stay above water in the Pacific NW. Until recently operators were dependent upon selling peak power on the grid to California. But now that California has added so much solar the Pacific NW power operators are realizing the grid can transfer power both directions and people want to buy the cheaper solar power from California (to your point @Reciprocity). California solar is cheaper than NW hydro and gas peaker production. The paradigm is about to shift and those that managed the existing paradigm are not quite prepared to give it up even though the writing is on the wall. At a recent NW Power and Conservation Council meeting the impact of California Solar led it to be labeled as a "fascinating social experiment".

Council Hears Presentation On How California’s Booming Renewables Affecting BPA Revenues

I see absolutely no issues with Tesla providing power at $0.07/kWh to fleet operators. In fact, I see it as another revenue generator in the not too distant future if done correctly.

 

[MitchJi]

Agreed on the modularity, but until batteries are abundant I would expect Tesla to prioritise new vehicles. That's why they don't offer it now, IMO.

I believe that the reason that they don’t offer it now is that the capacity delta isn’t large enough. When they are selling MS-MX with something like 130-150 kWh packs they will definitely offer upgrades.

 

[MitchJi]

Rob interviews someone who has reserved a semi for use in the Canadian bush. It sounds like he’s going to save a huge amount of money with the semi. If you have any concerns about the semi bing a succcess I’d recommend listening to this podcast:
11.20.17 – Interview with a Tesla Semi Reservation Holder – TechCast Daily

 

[MitchJi]

An InsideEV article from nearly a year ago is a great help in figuring this all out. It reports on comments J.B. made at a presentation he gave at an SNE conference in 2016.
Tesla CTO J.B. Straubel: 30% Increase In Battery Energy Density From Model S To Model 3 - Video
Reading this piece it is clear that confusion between increases in cell energy density and over all battery pack energy density improvements is very easy. It makes it clear that for M3 the cell density improvements are the major driver of energy density considered at the pack level. I'll show several quotes from the article to illustrate.

1. Straubel also made it clear that there are no monumental “battery breakthroughs” occurring, nor does Tesla or others rely on this. Instead, there is a steady and constant improvement. Batteries improve at least 5% a year.

2. [This will continue to be the case over time,] so it only makes sense that the Model 3 will have an energy density increase over the Model S. J.B Straubel announced that the Model 3 will boast 30% more energy density than that of the original pack in the Model S. He said (quote from video below, via Electrek):
“These batteries are steadily improving every single year – maybe around 5% improvement in their energy density their ability to store energy in a given amount of mass. That’s probably one of the key metrics we worry about. And when we went from the Roadster to the Model S, they have improved by about 40% and when we were designing the Model 3, they were about another 30% better. That improvement just continues on every single year in the background.”

While J.B. speaks of M3 boasting 30% more energy density than original pack in Model S, it's clear from his statements that batteries improve at least 5% a year, year in and out. It is these many non major cell level improvements that are mostly responsible for the 30% increase for the M3 pack as a whole. We know that the change in cell form factor allowed more individual cells to fit within the available pack dimensions vs the old form factor. That and design improvements saving some pack weight likely account for 5 or 10% of the pack level increase.

1- The only increase in capacity due to the form factor is due to the additional length.

2- Batteries tend to improve by approximately five percent per year as an average.

 

[elasalle]

TrendTrader, I think you're putting too much weight on TA at this point in time.

Just as in real estate, it's LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
and just as in the 2000 elections it was FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA

at this point in time
TSLA is all about MODEL 3 MODEL 3 MODEL 3.

And yes, I'm a long bull.

I think both pieces of info are important. M3 ramp provides the criteria to push the SP higher.
But with TA we still get other pieces of info like momentum and resistance levels.

So best is to keep an ear out for both ...

 

[Todd Burch]

I think both pieces of info are important. M3 ramp provides the criteria to push the SP higher.
But with TA we still get other pieces of info like momentum and resistance levels.

So best is to keep an ear out for both ...

Agree, I just think the next catalyst will be positive Model 3 news.

 

[Starno]

I think we'll have to wait for the end of the year updates about M3 to see significant TSLA upward movement....

 

[schonelucht]

More specifically, non-employees getting invited to configure and getting firmer delivery estimates. Must confess though that I had expected much more of a boost from the semi reveal.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

More specifically, non-employees getting invited to configure and getting firmer delivery estimates. Must confess though that I had expected much more of a boost from the semi reveal.

Investors are waiting for execution. In their eye, Tesla will never be able to produce more than 500/week Model 3's and Tesla will never be profitable. Repeated misses on timelines don't help build credibility... so investors are ever more heavily discounting Semi/Roadster promises.

 

[myusername]

No, like the ‘next stop $270’ kind of 100% wrong for like 6? months.

you only got one "like" out of that joke this time... pinned at $316 during friday's close... and look where we're at now.

 

[electracity]

More specifically, non-employees getting invited to configure and getting firmer delivery estimates. Must confess though that I had expected much more of a boost from the semi reveal.

The semi looks like a great product. A rational investors question is where the capital is going to come from to take it to high volume production.

 

[myusername]

The semi looks like a great product. A rational investors question is where the capital is going to come from to take it to high volume production.

the success of the semi assumes the grand success of the M3. the semi and the roadster do nothing for Tesla's short/medium term cash situation except harm.

 

[Krugerrand]

you only got one "like" out of that joke this time...

Good thing I wasn't a) joking or b) going for likes. But give it time.

..pinned at $316 during friday's close... and look where we're at now.

You let me know when pinned at $316, $336, $306, $666, $305.26 etc... = 'next stop $270'. K? Until then I'm requesting you go back to charts with lines as they were way more entertaining than the whole 6 conspiracy theory.

 

[schonelucht]

The semi looks like a great product. A rational investors question is where the capital is going to come from to take it to high volume production.

Absolutely. But production starts at the earliest 2019, but more likely 2020. So I didn't expect that concern to dominate investors thinking right now since capital for the semi is not needed for at least 12 months if not 18.

 

[Krugerrand]

the success of the semi assumes the grand success of the M3. the semi and the roadster do nothing for Tesla's short/medium term cash situation except harm.

Yep, the R&D on the Semi and Roadster darn near killed Tesla. And the fact Tesla is collecting reservation money for them should finish them off. But if not, the fact those two vehicles don't go into production in the short or medium term - ACK! Next stop definitely $270, eh?

*This post is only funny if one enjoys sarcasm*

 

[Krugerrand]

The semi looks like a great product. A rational investors question is where the capital is going to come from to take it to high volume production.

A newbie to investing in Tesla might ask that question, but anyone else having followed Tesla to date knows exactly where the capital is coming from. Next question.