Articles/megaposts by DaveT

[DaveT]

Making money investing and "finding the next big thing" is not really as hard as some make it to be.

Maybe we should qualify that, making money investing in an epic bull market is not that hard. It's a lot tougher in a bear market, which will be here in due time. And it's a lot tougher to make outsized gains (compared to an index fund) over multiple market cycles over multiple investments. If it was so easy Warren Buffett would be unemployed.

AAPL, FB, AMZN made money for a lot of people and it wasn't hard to spot them - we could all see them turning into giants in slow motion.

I've had a lot of discussions with very smart people over the years who were very skeptical of AAPL, FB and AMZN... mostly due to valuation concerns. It's not as easy as it might seem. For example, did you have a lot of money in AAPL in 2007 or in FB when it was under $30?

On another note, what forum of any kind can you find "accurate and deep thinking from a breadth of business knowledge and insight"? All investment/industry related forums I have come across are littered with junk and noise. Certainly I have never come across another forum where there is a diverse group of millionaires who freely share their private insights.

Investing for consistent outsized gains is very difficult and thus any forum that discusses such investing needs to prohibit just anyone from posting because most people will add just noise. It should be invite-only to post, and those posting should prove themselves with both their investing experience and their depth of thought/writing. It also will take a lot of commitment and leadership to keep the group together. I've thought a lot about this and still trying to figure out if it'd be worth it.

 

[SBenson]

The biggest problem I find myself with is, I have a very hard time telling if the ultimate potential is already priced in. If not, how much opportunity is still left.

To illustrate the point with examples:

So for TSLA we all know it is insanely overvalued based on past/current fundamentals. But in terms of future prospects, there is a huge amount of opportunity still left even after considering the current valuation. Let’s say if we were to say at the end TSLA can easily grow into a $700Bil market cap, we still have a 10bagger left on the table.

Now let’s take NVDA as an example P/E 48, P/S 12, P/B 17
If you look at NVDA's comps (median) P/E 30, P/S 5.5, P/B 6.4
For S&P 500 (weighted average) P/E 21, P/S 2, P/B 3

Now clearly NVDA is overvalued based on past/current financials. But it might be reasonably valued based on future prospects. There might even be a lot of opportunity still, even after considering the current high valuation... For us to know which way it is though, we need to be able to say what the ultimate marketcap is going to be and on what timeline.

For Tesla it's easy, you can look at the current market size of cars and make certain assumptions to come to the answer.

But how do you do that with NVDA? What is the size of the market for GPUs? The future market size, 10 years from now, has no bearing to the current market size. So how do you know what it is? That's just the first question. Then how do you make assumptions for competition and what market share NVDA gets to enjoy. Then after that all, semiconductors tend to fall in prices, so what would that do to the revenue trajectory?

Without knowing the ultimate size and timeline, it is impossibly hard to tell if NVDA is still a good investment or not based on current valuation.

This is the single biggest reason why I am unable to put any serious money in any other name. I just can't tell whether the ultimate potential is already priced in vs not.

 

[DaveT]

The biggest problem I find myself with is, I have a very hard time telling if the ultimate potential is already priced in. If not, how much opportunity is still left.

To illustrate the point with examples:

So for TSLA we all know it is insanely overvalued based on past/current fundamentals. But in terms of future prospects, there is a huge amount of opportunity still left even after considering the current valuation. Let’s say if we were to say at the end TSLA can easily grow into a $700Bil market cap, we still have a 10bagger left on the table.

Now let’s take NVDA as an example P/E 48, P/S 12, P/B 17
If you look at NVDA's comps (median) P/E 30, P/S 5.5, P/B 6.4
For S&P 500 (weighted average) P/E 21, P/S 2, P/B 3

Now clearly NVDA is overvalued based on past/current financials. But it might be reasonably valued based on future prospects. There might even be a lot of opportunity still, even after considering the current high valuation... For us to know which way it is though, we need to be able to say what the ultimate marketcap is going to be and on what timeline.

For Tesla it's easy, you can look at the current market size of cars and make certain assumptions to come to the answer.

But how do you do that with NVDA? What is the size of the market for GPUs? The future market size, 10 years from now, has no bearing to the current market size. So how do you know what it is? That's just the first question. Then how do you make assumptions for competition and what market share NVDA gets to enjoy. Then after that all, semiconductors tend to fall in prices, so what would that do to the revenue trajectory?

Without knowing the ultimate size and timeline, it is impossibly hard to tell if NVDA is still a good investment or not based on current valuation.

This is the single biggest reason why I am unable to put any serious money in any other name. I just can't tell whether the ultimate potential is already priced in vs not.

I think you're on the right course. You need to predict the future to some extent, which is extremely difficult to do if need accuracy. One can say in 10 years more GPUs will be sold than today, but that's so general that's it not helpful. But to get an idea of what the market for GPUs will be in 10 years, one needs to deeply understand the companies and industries that will be in need of GPUs and what their needs will be. Also, one needs to understand NVDA's competitive advantage and if that competitive advantage will be sustainable... not only among current competitors but against future ones too. Also, I think it's important to understand what NVDA is doing to create certain AI platforms. Many startups building AI are building on top of what NVDA provides. But, why? And is that advantage sustainable over time? Another thing with NVDA is the need to understand their data centers and when and if their data center growth plateaus, and what kind of margins they carry.

The problem is that most NVDA investors can't answer even 1/2 of these questions (or even 1/3 or less?).

Give me an hour with a super knowledgable NVDA investor and I'll draw out all this info from that person, if that person really knows what they're talking about.

 

[DaveT]

I was recently interviewed by Rob Maurer of the Tesla Daily podcast.

Enjoy.

09.25.17 – Interview (DaveT, Long-Time TSLA Investor) – TechCast Daily

 

[tlo]

Maybe we should qualify that, making money investing in an epic bull market is not that hard. It's a lot tougher in a bear market, which will be here in due time. And it's a lot tougher to make outsized gains (compared to an index fund) over multiple market cycles over multiple investments. If it was so easy Warren Buffett would be unemployed.

What I'm describing as simple is probably not that simple behind the scenes because you and I and other TSLA investors have spent countless hours doing research and applying our own methodologies to recognize its potential, but it kind of boils down to investing in the best company with the best product, which is not out of reach for normal people to find.

I think the average joe, unaware of better options, can buy-and-hold AMZN and with high likelihood outperform the broader indexes in any market. In a bear market, Joe has a paper loss but the opportunity to buy more AMZN. This sounds so simple it's uninspiring.

I tend to think Warren Buffett would agree investing is simpler than people make it. He did say anyone who put $40 in Coca Cola early would have millions today. He said he could make 50% annual gains if he is a small time investor because he would be able to make investments that he now can't - e.g. he can't put half of his net worth in TSLA or bitcoin like we can because his funds are so large that he would have to buy Tesla or the entire supply of bitcoins outright.

I've had a lot of discussions with very smart people over the years who were very skeptical of AAPL, FB and AMZN... mostly due to valuation concerns. It's not as easy as it might seem. For example, did you have a lot of money in AAPL in 2007 or in FB when it was under $30?

I did invest in AAPL in 2007 but I did not have a lot of money back then. No FB because I was already concentrated in TSLA. I have no intention of saying I'm great at investing because I was actually clueless back in 2007 and had net losses and I'm constantly learning. But I watched the original iPhone presentation live and "knew" that it was going to be huge. Many people felt the same and could have invested in AAPL.

I think a lot of smart people outsmarted themselves. Some of my "smart" friends in tech/finance invested in RIMM (Blackberry) or Nokia because of valuation. I just listened to your podcast interview and learned that you read hacker news. Have you noticed when there are articles about Tesla on HN, most comments are bearish? Even on HN (pretty smart people), the comments are along the lines of "I love their cars and Tesla will be successful, but their stock is way overvalued because GM sells 50x more cars".

I do have my "style" of thinking about valuation. It would take a longer post to describe but I basically care about revenue growth, addressable market, and whether the company can become monopolistic. P/E does not matter in today's world.

Investing for consistent outsized gains is very difficult and thus any forum that discusses such investing needs to prohibit just anyone from posting because most people will add just noise. It should be invite-only to post, and those posting should prove themselves with both their investing experience and their depth of thought/writing. It also will take a lot of commitment and leadership to keep the group together. I've thought a lot about this and still trying to figure out if it'd be worth it.

I hope you figure something out. I would be a regular reader.

I actually can tolerate the current level of noise on TMC. I just wish there is TMC for other stocks and investments that doesn't turn into Seeking Alpha.

 

[smorgasbord]

On another note, here's an interesting blog post on diversification.
Diversification (aka How To Survive A Crash) – AVC

This is an age-old discussion and I don't expect we'll solve it here. Peter Lynch summed up the contrary view by labeling it "Diworsification." Indeed, if you carry diversification to a logical conclusion, then you're buying an assortment of index funds. And to be fair, Buffett has said that most investors should just buy an S&P 500 index fund and then get on with their life. I believe there hasn't ever been a 20 year span where the S&P didn't beat inflation (as a side note, that includes dividends, which account for 40% of the total return when reinvested back into the index).

The market is often pretty efficient - with the potential for greater rewards comes greater risk. Sometimes, however Mr. Market gets it wrong and you can take advantage of that if you have the knowledge and confidence. Still, even if you're right about individual companies, macro events can wreak havoc with your investments. Today, we may be right about TSLA, but we also have to be right about North Korea, for instance. Finally, there's having a long term view. AMZN crashed at the turn of the century, but if you simply held on you'd be sitting on a nice return today. That takes real patience and gumption, though. Back then how did one tell the bookseller Amazon from Pets.com? Easy in hindsight, but not at all back in the day, unless you met Bezos or had some other unique insight opportunity.

I view investing as predicting the future better than Mr. Market. Buying a Tesla in 2011 gave me insights into the company and its products that most people didn't have. Being a part of the Model S first rides, seeing the factory, heck even just owning an EV and understanding the game changer that the SuperCharger network would be were relatively unique insights that I had. But, today, a lot of people have "caught up" on Tesla and EVs, and so my insights are fewer and more about the automotive industry as potential competition (since I have worked in the biz and remain peripherally involved). There are also insights from people like Tony Seba that while not a secret aren't widely read, and even then not believed. So those give me confidence in my TSLA investments still.

There's a public board over at The Motley Fool (subscribe for free) that's about as good as something free and mostly unregulated can get: TMF: Saul's Investing Discussions. It's Saul's board in name but a lot of savvy people post there. Consensus there is about a dozen stocks is the right number for active retail investors. Too few and it gets too risky, while too many is both too hard to track as well as reduces your chances of big wins since no one stock can move the portfolio needle enough. If you're picking 100 stocks in a dozen industries, then why aren't you in mutual funds?

As Dave says, different people have different skills. People also have different goals and the amount of work they're willing to put into investing varies greatly. I find it difficult to recommend investing strategies to the few friends who ask - what works for me may not work for them, even if they're smarter than me. I usually just send them a link to a Buffett quote about investing in the S&P 500.

 

[neroden]

As Dave says, different people have different skills. People also have different goals and the amount of work they're willing to put into investing varies greatly. I find it difficult to recommend investing strategies to the few friends who ask - what works for me may not work for them, even if they're smarter than me.

This is something I can deeply agree with. What people are willing to devote time to, and what they are good at, varies; I can do my investment style because I enjoy intensive deep-dive research into specific industries and companies. Most people don't.

In addition, people have different types of risk tolerance (not just different *levels*, different types). Some can happily ride out 10 years of volatility in a buy-and-hold fashion; others can't. Some can tolerate the risk of management defrauding them; others can't. Some are OK with the risks of leverage; others aren't.

 

[MitchJi]

I hope you figure something out. I would be a regular reader.

I actually can tolerate the current level of noise on TMC. I just wish there is TMC for other stocks and investments that doesn't turn into Seeking Alpha.

Tolerable yes, sort of.

OTOH it clearly isn't optimal and the forum owners and moderators seem to have no intention to try to fix the problems, or even show any understanding of the fact that there is a problem!

 

[erthquake]

It would take the mother of all earthquakes to take out or substantially damage the Fremont factory.

I was working in Sunnyvale during the last big quake. We jumped under a table and a friend who was outside said that he could see the entire building shifting sideways. No damage to that building. We had a bunch of broken glass at home. We started using earthquake latches on our kitchen cabinets as a result.

You can't use the 1989 Loma Prieta quake as a proxy for future earthquakes. The '89 quake was ~ 25 miles from the factory. The Hayward Fault, capable of at least a magnitude 7.0 (Loma Prieta was 6.9), is the greatest threat to the factory and it is less than a mile away. It will shake much harder in during a major quake on the Hayward Fault.

I don't know anything about the factory's structural engineering, except that I'm sure it's current with modern building codes. Note that it is located in an area of "high" susceptibility to liquefaction by the USGS. If part of the ground effectively liquifies, structural damage is highly likely. Even if the factory survives such an event relatively unscathed, the larger concern is the local infrastructure. Major water, natural gas, and electric lines cross the Hayward Fault. If basic utilities are knocked out, the factory won't be producing any cars, even if there's little damage to factory itself. And then there's the delivery infrastructure: rail, freeways, Oakland ports.

In short, a quake occurring on the Hayward Fault with a magnitude similar to the 1989 quake would create a mess. It's not a dismissible risk.

From an investment perspective, I would like to know how long Tesla could survive if they are unable to produce cars. They still have to pay employees, pay rent, and service debt payments. Once they establish other factories, this risk will be much lower, and I'll feel better. Until then, there's always a bit of unease in the back of my mind.

 

[MitchJi]

Investing for consistent outsized gains is very difficult and thus any forum that discusses such investing needs to prohibit just anyone from posting because most people will add just noise. It should be invite-only to post, and those posting should prove themselves with both their investing experience and their depth of thought/writing. It also will take a lot of commitment and leadership to keep the group together. I've thought a lot about this and still trying to figure out if it'd be worth it.

If you want to protect idiots from nonsense I believe that's an impossible goal. OTOH if you want to protect yourself and other intelligent investors from being required to wade through a lot of nonsense in order for gain the benefits of all of the good information that is posted on this forum I think that is a relatively simple goal.

I believe that we could fix most of the problems with this forum (which unfortunately probably will require finding a location other than TMC) by:
Adding a thread for excessively bearish and possibly a thread for excessively bullish posts would, in combination with either equiring the people who have proven themselves either incompetent or willfully destructive to have their posts either automatically posted there of moderated into that thread by the group that has proven themselves intelligent and competent. People who are interested in doing so could still produce long repetitive posts explaining why the plugin Prius isn't a threat to the M3 if they want to do that and those of members of the group who want to read that would be free to reply in that thread but the rest of us could easily ignore those threads.

It would also be useful to create new threads whenever "the sky is falling posts" on a particular topic get started. The group would be able to read a few posts about why the scty merger was a disaster, and a few replies about why that's nonsense, but the discussion would quickly be moved to a dedicated thread so that most of us would not be forced to wade through hundreds of ludicrous repetitive posts on those topics.

I was recently interviewed by Rob Maurer of the Tesla Daily podcast.

Enjoy.

09.25.17 – Interview (DaveT, Long-Time TSLA Investor) – TechCast Daily

Thank You ! Your thoughts about the M3 and testing the M3 are excellent! Should be required listening! On the other hand I believe that your logic on FSD was incorrect (not necessarily your conclusions) and I believe both your reasons and your conclusions about TE are incorrect. If you are interested I'd be happy to (eventually) post my opinions about that.

I believe that the reason that Tesla is trying to limit testing (FDA friend-DA's) is because they believe that the M3 is either equal to or better than the current MS and they are trying to wait for a more upgrades to the MS-MX before they allow that information to come out. In other words it's probably not a good time to buy an MS or MX.

Some questions about your opinions on testing the M3:
Do you believe that if the M3 is equal to the MS or very close that's sufficient for you to be satisfied?

Why do you believe that the MS will have a more comfortable ride? Is a longer wheelbase required for a comfortable ride?

This question is related but not particularly directed to you, unless you happen to know the answer. I would love to have the suspension automatically raise the car for our driveway but I'd prefer not to lose out on ride or handling. How will the (optional on the M3) air suspension effect the ride and handling?

 

[wdolson]

You can't use the 1989 Loma Prieta quake as a proxy for future earthquakes. The '89 quake was ~ 25 miles from the factory. The Hayward Fault, capable of at least a magnitude 7.0 (Loma Prieta was 6.9), is the greatest threat to the factory and it is less than a mile away. It will shake much harder in during a major quake on the Hayward Fault.

I don't know anything about the factory's structural engineering, except that I'm sure it's current with modern building codes. Note that it is located in an area of "high" susceptibility to liquefaction by the USGS. If part of the ground effectively liquifies, structural damage is highly likely. Even if the factory survives such an event relatively unscathed, the larger concern is the local infrastructure. Major water, natural gas, and electric lines cross the Hayward Fault. If basic utilities are knocked out, the factory won't be producing any cars, even if there's little damage to factory itself. And then there's the delivery infrastructure: rail, freeways, Oakland ports.

In short, a quake occurring on the Hayward Fault with a magnitude similar to the 1989 quake would create a mess. It's not a dismissible risk.

From an investment perspective, I would like to know how long Tesla could survive if they are unable to produce cars. They still have to pay employees, pay rent, and service debt payments. Once they establish other factories, this risk will be much lower, and I'll feel better. Until then, there's always a bit of unease in the back of my mind.

I just checked the USGS liquefaction map for the Bay Area. Along the western shore of the Bay and up around Oakland there is a very high risk for liquefaction, but Fremont and San Jose are only in the moderate risk category.

 

[Lump]

If you want to protect idiots from nonsense I believe that's an impossible goal. OTOH if you want to protect yourself and other intelligent investors from being required to wade through a lot of nonsense in order for gain the benefits of all of the good information that is posted on this forum I think that is a relatively simple goal.

Chill out Mitch, the "Basket of deplorables" around really aren't that bad.

What exactly are the qualifications of becoming an elite member of this group & how do you prove who is an intelligent investor? Will there be a TSLA quiz? IQ test? Tax returns proving net worth & TSLA trading history? Who is on the super elite membership committee that decides who is in or out?

 

[erthquake]

I just checked the USGS liquefaction map for the Bay Area. Along the western shore of the Bay and up around Oakland there is a very high risk for liquefaction, but Fremont and San Jose are only in the moderate risk category.

I was using this map: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-444/of00-444_8b.pdf. The factory is just west and a bit south of the site labeled "162". Are you were using this map? If so, it indeed does put the liquefaction risk as moderate. However your map was created using the data from the report that published my map. Since yours is the newer source, I'm inclined to go with the moderate risk. Makes me feel a bit better, but my biggest worry is still all the utility infrastructure that crosses the Hayward Fault.

 

[wdolson]

I was using this map: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-444/of00-444_8b.pdf. The factory is just west and a bit south of the site labeled "162". Are you were using this map? If so, it indeed does put the liquefaction risk as moderate. However your map was created using the data from the report that published my map. Since yours is the newer source, I'm inclined to go with the moderate risk. Makes me feel a bit better, but my biggest worry is still all the utility infrastructure that crosses the Hayward Fault.

Yes, I was using the second one. The PDF is dated from 2000 and the interactive map at the second link is from 2006.

The Geology of California is extremely complex and the understanding of how things work is constantly evolving. I would tend to trust the more recent source.

 

[aubreymcfato]

If you want to protect idiots from nonsense I believe that's an impossible goal. OTOH if you want to protect yourself and other intelligent investors from being required to wade through a lot of nonsense in order for gain the benefits of all of the good information that is posted on this forum I think that is a relatively simple goal.

I believe that we could fix most of the problems with this forum (which unfortunately probably will require finding a location other than TMC) by:
Adding a thread for excessively bearish and possibly a thread for excessively bullish posts would, in combination with either equiring the people who have proven themselves either incompetent or willfully destructive to have their posts either automatically posted there of moderated into that thread by the group that has proven themselves intelligent and competent. People who are interested in doing so could still produce long repetitive posts explaining why the plugin Prius isn't a threat to the M3 if they want to do that and those of members of the group who want to read that would be free to reply in that thread but the rest of us could easily ignore those threads.

It would also be useful to create new threads whenever "the sky is falling posts" on a particular topic get started. The group would be able to read a few posts about why the scty merger was a disaster, and a few replies about why that's nonsense, but the discussion would quickly be moved to a dedicated thread so that most of us would not be forced to wade through hundreds of ludicrous repetitive posts on those topics.

Thank You ! Your thoughts about the M3 and testing the M3 are excellent! Should be required listening! On the other hand I believe that your logic on FSD was incorrect (not necessarily your conclusions) and I believe both your reasons and your conclusions about TE are incorrect. If you are interested I'd be happy to (eventually) post my opinions about that.

I believe that the reason that Tesla is trying to limit testing (FDA friend-DA's) is because they believe that the M3 is either equal to or better than the current MS and they are trying to wait for a more upgrades to the MS-MX before they allow that information to come out. In other words it's probably not a good time to buy an MS or MX.

Some questions about your opinions on testing the M3:
Do you believe that if the M3 is equal to the MS or very close that's sufficient for you to be satisfied?

Why do you believe that the MS will have a more comfortable ride? Is a longer wheelbase required for a comfortable ride?

This question is related but not particularly directed to you, unless you happen to know the answer. I would love to have the suspension automatically raise the car for our driveway but I'd prefer not to lose out on ride or handling. How will the (optional on the M3) air suspension effect the ride and handling?

Whenever I think about forums, discussions and signal/noise ratio, I also think about this:
Precision and recall - Wikipedia
They are important concepts used in information retrieval.
Speaking of a search engine, for example, "high precision means that an algorithm returned substantially more relevant results than irrelevant ones, while high recall means that an algorithm returned most of the relevant results."

These two parameters are inversely proportional, meaning that high precision means also low recall, and vice versa. Meaning, you can't have both at the same time. So, a limited, invite-only forum would be probably high precision, meaning that all posts would be on topic, and probably higher quality.
At the same time, the downside is being less rich, less open to new news/ideas/contributions. Also, much less lively. Maybe it's a trade-off worth doing, but it's there. There is no such thing as a rich, dynamic and thriving forum which is also always on topic and with great posts all the time. If this new forum for expert is done, I'd suggest a way for new users to post messages that are maybe moderated, and can "apply" for writing permission. It think the forum would have more chances of success.

Just m2c.

 

[JRP3]

The simple truth is the current investor forum is only occasionally being degraded by one or two negative posters. That's it. Eliminate them and you eliminate all the replies generated responding to them. Or simply limit them to posting in a dedicated bear thread, that way anyone who wishes can read and engage with them if desired. I think this would also curtail some of the overly positive commenters as well who may feel the need to counter the negativity.

 

[wdolson]

The simple truth is the current investor forum is only occasionally being degraded by one or two negative posters. That's it. Eliminate them and you eliminate all the replies generated responding to them. Or simply limit them to posting in a dedicated bear thread, that way anyone who wishes can read and engage with them if desired. I think this would also curtail some of the overly positive commenters as well who may feel the need to counter the negativity.

Technically the US First Amendment doesn't apply here (this is a private organization and they can regulate speech anyway they want), however, I think it is usually a good idea to let people have their say. They don't have to have their say in the middle of everything else though. I think your idea is a good one.

 

[bdy0627]

If you use the ignore button effectively, it greatly minimizes the noise. That's really the tool to use to help you weed out the posters you don't want to deal with. The posts of others responding to them do show up but it's easy to scroll past those. I feel very indebted to many on this forum, both the elders (by join date) and the relatively new members too. This forum has been, and continues to be, an incredible resource for Tesla investors.

 

[JRP3]

If you use the ignore button effectively, it greatly minimizes the noise. That's really the tool to use to help you weed out the posters you don't want to deal with. The posts of others responding to them do show up but it's easy to scroll past those.

Ignore helps but when too many people are responding it can involve a lot of scrolling. And you have to read some of the responses to understand that they are responding to an ignored member.

 

[SBenson]

I was recently interviewed by Rob Maurer of the Tesla Daily podcast.

Enjoy.

09.25.17 – Interview (DaveT, Long-Time TSLA Investor) – TechCast Daily

Very insightful interview. Thanks!!

Question about Tesla Network:

A lot of people believe that an ICE-AV is fundamentally uncompetitive to an EV-AV... Even if Google, Apple etc want to give the AV tech away for free to automakers, unless automakers are fully into EV making they will still remain uncompetitive right. So for others to put up a fight, they would have to 1) Google/Apple/etc have to develop the AV tech 2) Automakers have to fully integrate into their manufacturing processes (this can take a long time) 3) Develop EVs, fast charging networks or battery swap stations 4) Someone will have to build/operate a network to use these (maybe Uber/Lyft can short circuit this)... It still feel like Tesla has a potential lead of substantial magnitude.

Even if others come in with their own AV networks and try capitalising through ads and content, instead of fares, in theory Tesla could do the same. So an av network can be as lucrative to Tesla as it might be to other big players... Going to your FB example that's what happened right. FB became a behemoth in online ad market, despite Google being there already. So Google/Apple/Uber etc being already there in an AV network doesn't preclude Tesla from making it big there.

Overall I'm having hard time believing that Tesla may not benefit substantially from this. The key risk to Tesla as I see is the risk that it won't be able to attain FSD in a reasonably competitive time. As it stand right now, Tesla seems to be limping. But if it does attain in a good competitive time then Tesla has a fair chance of monetisation I feel.

For the record, I do agree with the Tesla Energy part.