Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2014

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TSLA is less attractive as an acquisition target

In fact it becomes more vulnerable to low-tier knock outs and high-tier competition from BBA, if indeed BBA are attracted to the pure EV market by TSLA's move as EM intended. At this stage, TSLA is like an infant to BBA. Not sure how EM and board members agreed on the move. Hope more details come out later.

At first glance, there are conflict of interest here ( EM's mission and shareholder's interest, even employee's interest) and huge risk involved for little and uncertain benefit (larger EV eco system). Maybe EM and the board are very innovative to create some new models to benefit TSLA from this move. Again, I think EM should shed more light on his thoughts. Benefit mankind is good, but whether at the cost of shareholders interest, employee's interest without detailed analysis is questionable; at least there are many ways to be less dramatic than what is currently indicated (all patents free, no string attached)

As for sleepless, IMHO, one should only trade what he/she can afford to loss.

I still believe in TSLA, but I am adjusting my strategy

Shareholders are a subgroup of mankind. If it is in mankind's interest, then it is in shareholders' interest.
 
You know it is the right move when it is the morally righteous move.

I think Elon gets shareholder composition. Just like Warren Buffett, he is making an effort to shape who owns tesla shares. After this move, if you are short term profit focused investor, you will probably get out. But if you are investing in Tesla for a belief in an idea. Then you will stay.

It is one step above warren though as Warren just wants long term investors who cares about profit margins only.
 
Patent availability in good faith.

This is an extremely strong move.

It enables Tesla to sue for any use of its patents in bad faith: i.e. Fuel Cell Vehicles.

It eviscerates any regulatory excuse for polluting vehicles including FCVs.

It shames auto makers that do not offer vehicles that are on a par with Tesla's own both in political circles and in the eyes of consumers.

Auto makers that do want to make use of the patents basically must come to Tesla's negotiating table to define good faith use

BMW already appears to have come to the table.

Tesla will naturally become the consultancy for the implementation of its patents and the source of future development path.

Tesla's gigafactory/gigafactories are de-facto the cheapest source of batteries for those using the patents and the auto industry that does use the patents are automatically lined up to partner on additional giafactories.

There is no downside so long as Tesla continues to out-pace the innovation of other manufacturers, which of course it will as a matter of culture and massive first mover advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

Should also mention that this throws a horrible curve ball to the fossil fuel industry - this kind of behaviour is so unpredictable to a defensive monopoly that from the other side of the fence this is truly frightening.
 
Shareholders are a subgroup of mankind. If it is in mankind's interest, then it is in shareholders' interest.


Your logic is flawed. Why not transfer all know-hows to public domain, all trade secrets to other manufacturers? That's really in the interest of mankind and according to your logic, that kind of move is also in the interest of shareholders.


The point I am trying to make is, there are multiple ways to share patents, create incentive to encourage other EV manufacturers and at the same time protect TSLA shareholders' interest. For example, EM can create a standard group, donate certain patents to the group. Other auto/battery/related manufactures can join the standard group to use these patents, they should also contribute with their fair share of responsibility. I m sure there are better ways than this simple rule, MBAs are good at game theory. It's noble to contribute to the progress of mankind, but at the interest of shareholder and employee is not a necessary cost to pay


People are very creative under certain conditions. Giving out patents free is surely not the best way to encourage other manufactures to nurture the EV market. But again, we need more details on how Elon is going to implement this move. He may disclose more fine print clauses.
 
Patent availability in good faith.

This is an extremely strong move.

It enables Tesla to sue for any use of its patents in bad faith: i.e. Fuel Cell Vehicles.

It eviscerates any regulatory excuse for polluting vehicles including FCVs.

It shames auto makers that do not offer vehicles that are on a par with Tesla's own both in political circles and in the eyes of consumers.

Auto makers that do want to make use of the patents basically must come to Tesla's negotiating table to define good faith use

BMW already appears to have come to the table.

Tesla will naturally become the consultancy for the implementation of its patents and the source of future development path.

Tesla's gigafactory/gigafactories are de-facto the cheapest source of batteries for those using the patents and the auto industry that does use the patents are automatically lined up to partner on additional giafactories.

There is no downside so long as Tesla continues to out-pace the innovation of other manufacturers, which of course it will as a matter of culture and massive first mover advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

Should also mention that this throws a horrible curve ball to the fossil fuel industry - this kind of behaviour is so unpredictable to a defensive monopoly that from the other side of the fence this is truly frightening.

Julian, I think you are distorting the intent of opening patents and stretching the good faith principle into a kind of ultimate gotcha clause. The bargaining table has always been open. The good faith clause is not to force others to the table, but to free them to run with the technology without having to negotiate every detail. The good faith clause is merely there to resist abuse or direct harm to Tesla and other patent users. Musk has said that any potential patent user that is concerned about the good use clause potentially being used against them may reach out to Tesla and they can draw up a simple agreement. The point here is not to negotiate a better deal, but to clarify and put to rest patent user's concern.

That said, I do think that this move strikes a blow at fuel cells. First of all, any automaker that felt pushed to FCV technology because they felt the battery tech available to them could not compete with Tesla's lead now has the option to move forward with identical or better battery tech. Moreover, they are not constrained to buy the packs from Tesla which is already so battery constrained it really cannot afford to sell those packs in the first place. The view that Tesla is opening their patents so that they can become the battery pack supplier to the industry is just plain wrong. They simply do not have surplus capacity to sell and this will be the case for another 15 years. So Tesla is not giving up any business opportunity because operationally they just can't execute on it.

The second way this patent move strikes a blow against FCV is simply that it aims to hasten adoption of EV tech that can out compete ICE. I have my own doubt about whether FCV could ever displace ICE, and I certainly do not see that happening without massive public spending. It may have had a chance to compete with ICE and compliance EV, but I really don't think it can compete with Tesla-grade EV. The key thing is that Tesla-grade vehicles need to scale up to about 5 million vehicles per year. At this level, the number of ICE vehicle made each year will steadily and irreversibly decline from that point onwards. The charging infrastructure will be dense and provide rapid charges. The public will simply prefer their Model S clone to any FCV offered if only on the basis of FCV having inferior infrastructure. Political support for FCV will dry up, if it ever had any, and taxpayers will not want to spend billions building out hydrogen in fracture nobody will use. So basically the sooner, Tesla-grade vehicles can truly scale up, the sooner we can put the FCV foolishness behind us. So the best way to unleash this massive scale up of Tesla-grade vehicles is to open up all the patents and let enterprising companies run with it.
 
Last edited:
I think you are distorting my distortion, otherwise what you said.

Sorry if I misread you. To be sure, other voices are expressing suspicion about the good faith clause as if it is some sort of legal Trojan horse. Of course, some people are bent on twisting Musk's intentions. Definitely not you. I've always appreciated your effort to accurately interpret Tesla. Cheers.
 
Yes I agree it's interesting in the New Yorker and LA Times how they assume that EM is not altruistic I think that he is indeed very altruistic.

That being said yes it is beneficial for tesla but for them to imply that Elon Musk motives are less than genuine is unfortunate and incorrect.
 
I do still have faith. But this movement is really "radical" for most of TMC members, and I think we need more explanation from EM and we need more time to digest. So far, clearly, there are quite some doubts in this forum, not to say the average investors on main street.

Have a little faith. Elon Musk/Tesla haven't done anything to date to needlessly harm the shareholders. In fact, they've done things to protect shareholders. There's no reason to think it'll be any different moving forward.
 
I do still have faith. But this movement is really "radical" for most of TMC members, and I think we need more explanation from EM and we need more time to digest. So far, clearly, there are quite some doubts in this forum, not to say the average investors on main street.

I'm not so sure it's "most" TMC members. Many do not voice their opinion openly on this forum and the members that I personally respect the most for their opinions have not come out against this move. I am certainly not worried, and in fact think it's a huge plus.
 
But this movement is really "radical" for most of TMC members, and I think we need more explanation from EM and we need more time to digest. So far, clearly, there are quite some doubts in this forum, not to say the average investors on main street.

I have no idea where you've gotten this idea. From everything I've read; on the forum, on the Tesla forum and blog, on Tesla's FB page, and comments at the end of several media articles, the response to the open sourcing of Tesla's patents has been overwhelmingly in favor and supportive.

I don't find this move any more radical than most everything else Tesla does. It seems par for the course from where I'm sitting.
 
I'll chime in, as an investor and owner. If what I'm seeing on the social media front is any indication, this move just made one of the largest splashes I've seen as of yet in the non-EV enthusiast crowd for Tesla. a bunch of heads are turning, not the usual ones, and the overall impression I get about how it was received is that Tesla just did one of the more hip and progressive things it could have done. This move will draw more hard core long term support and I suspect that will equate into more long term investors in TSLA. The ripple effect may take some time to be noticed at the trading level, but the articles on this are cranking out daily, it's fun to watch. It may have some short term downward effect as fewer of the momentum short term investors see TSLA as a way to make a quick buck, but I'm not personally worried, I think it was a great move. With BMW being the first big fish to bite, It's already paying off for Tesla.

I do still have faith. But this movement is really "radical" for most of TMC members, and I think we need more explanation from EM and we need more time to digest. So far, clearly, there are quite some doubts in this forum, not to say the average investors on main street.
 
I'm not so sure it's "most" TMC members. Many do not voice their opinion openly on this forum and the members that I personally respect the most for their opinions have not come out against this move. I am certainly not worried, and in fact think it's a huge plus.

I think this is controversial and my initial instinct was that this is not good for shareholders and it freaked me out...but as I think about it I realize:

1)the only 2 reasons in my opinion of why it is not good for shareholders are:

a)there is less of a reason for a much bigger company to buy Tesla now if they can use the Tesla's IP for free to do it themselves. This may not have been great for long term shareholders anyways...AAPL buying TSLA at $300 per share today would be nice today but us long term holders have eyes on over $1000 per share in a few years.

b)there was a possibility that other automakers would eventually license Tesla's IP but now they will just use it for free.


2)Elon Musk is by far the largest shareholder with the most to lose. He also is perhaps the best engineer in the world and most business savvy person in the world right now. I trust his decision making over my intuition. I'm sure Elon understands the big picture much better than I and so I have faith in him and that this will play out very well for TSLA in the long run.
 
So much back and forth about the latest grand act. What Musk does is both simple and ingenious. Often the simple things are so obvious that everyone wonders why they didn't think of it first, but it takes brilliance and vision to see the statue buried in the rock. Musk manages to see the statue before the rock has even been excavated.

The public opinion of the latest Musk act has garnered praise for both his vision and his altruism. But many of his staunchest supporters, or heretofore staunch supporters, are voicing doubt about the benefit to stockholders or motivation for this act of generosity.

Musk hasn't suddenly changed his modus operandi and acted impulsively or recklessly. He has much to gain with the success of Tesla and that gain is necessary to achieve his ultimate personal goal. Along the way, he also wants to improve the world, or at least try to save as much of it as is within his ability. Electric cars accelerate the decrease in dependence on fossil fuels and that benefits all except those who make money killing us through pollution.

I used to think Musk might play with shorts and aid the stockholders, but now I realize he only resented them in the beginning and has proven himself and his company, is insulated enough from risk of failure, and is confident enough that shorts are of no interest to him. He is going to develop Tesla and BEVs in general in whatever way he believes will be most successful. Those who choose to go along for the ride will be rewarded. But expecting his actions to result in immediate gains, as it did a year ago, is probably going to be very frustrating for those who weren't interested in holding for longer periods.

The debate about the likelihood of being overwhelmed by significant competition from the "big boys" is wasted energy. In order to be overwhelmed and left in the dust, the big boys have to make an effort, and I believe the BMW "effort" is what motivated Musk to open the patents for everyone to use.

There are certainly arguments for the I3 as strictly a BEV for those who can utilize it, but I think the competitors offer more value for the money, as long as it is strictly BEV. When it comes to the I8, it is a great looking car and is no doubt great inside, but a BEV it ain't. Musk wants to see only electric cars and no ICE. I agree, and those who believe in the Musk vision are going to stay long and ride the stock for significant gains over time.

The gigafactory planning is important. Doing the prep work for two or three locations at the same time gives Tesla a huge leg up on all competition. The only way the competitors are going to be ready to purchase Tesla batteries is if they buy other components from Tesla. If they don't, and they expect to use the technology detailed in the patents, they still have to develop the vehicles themselves, and then they have to build their own gigafactories or buy batteries from a supplier.

There aren't any suppliers for Tesla battery modules. And Panasonic is completely dedicated to Tesla for the foreseeable future for the individual cells. If you give somebody a significant head start, it gets very difficult to catch and pass them unless you are so much better that it still isn't a contest. Catching Tesla isn't going to be easy even for BMW with all their engineering and capital. When you draft the top ten picks for five years, you haven't left much for others to build a competitive team, especially when the others weren't even drafting the remaining players. Tesla is the superior team, with the premium players, and they have a head start. They just want others to try, so they offer up access to patents to try and make it race.

If you own the stock, relax, it will gain. If you start buying now, you will gain. If you have options, you might be disappointed. I know, I made multiple P85's on options when it popped in February, but then pushed it all back in and lost it. I had fun, but I was lucky, and then learned my lesson. I'll just stick to what I know, So now I just hold the stock.
 
My initial thoughts were quite negative because I was silently hoping that those patents would provide future revenue. As soon as the news broke I sold all my June calls that had any value left. I didn't touch anything else because I saw it as a short term blip.

Now that I have had some time to mull over it I am very in favor of the decision. I think the move is 100% spot on with the company vision to advance the electrification of transportation. I am extremely glad that this was done.

The night before the announcement I was just reading the patents and was fascinated by one of their latest ones where the car auto prepares itself for an upcoming supercharger on the trip by super cooling the battery with the HVAC system so the car can charge faster. I was amazed at how forward thinking the engineers are.

Now with Elon basically shouting with a megaphone that we want the best engineers there is no doubt in my mind that we will be getting the best engineers in the world working for Tesla.

This move makes me extremely proud to be a shareholder. I am so excited about the future of Tesla Motors that it's really quite hard to contain. We are among a company that is not only chalking up the industry it is advancing, it is also shaking up the way to do business.
 
I do still have faith. But this movement is really "radical" for most of TMC members, and I think we need more explanation from EM and we need more time to digest. So far, clearly, there are quite some doubts in this forum, not to say the average investors on main street.

Elon stated that he got some 'wide eyed looks' form some board members but also he got their support regarding opening patents. He also said that board can fire him if they do not agree.

As for shareholders, whoever doubts this move will likely sell. There seems to be no sell out so far.

In my view, this move brings a lot of good PR to Tesla, on top of many other positives as discussed by other posters.

There is nothing lost if there is no one interested in paying for Tesla's IP, and that seems to be the case for at least the next decade. Car makers seem to be moving towards hybrids, fcvs but not after Tesla's patents. The risk of competition catching up with Tesla in bev space is minimal as Tesla is far ahead.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.