What do you hear about MX in China? It looks like you have one leg here in the US, another one in Beijing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I
I mostly agree, but I think AP2.0 may be a big deal. The next generation electronics for all cars will be shown before the second half of next year.
Tesla will then do an equity raise and apparently fund the solarcity operation with that capital. How the market reacts to the merger of solarcity's financials into Tesla is a big unknown. I have a hard time believing any institutional investor is going to be comfortable with the debt level of the combined companies.
I mostly agree, but I think AP2.0 may be a big deal. The next generation electronics for all cars will be shown before the second half of next year.
Tesla will then do an equity raise and apparently fund the solarcity operation with that capital. How the market reacts to the merger of solarcity's financials into Tesla is a big unknown. I have a hard time believing any institutional investor is going to be comfortable with the debt level of the combined companies.
racer26
Active Member
What if, for once, Elon's estimate was actually realistic, to even slightly pessimistic. They were expecting the MX ramp to get to 2400 cars/week by the end of the year. What if they got there by the end of Q3?
Elon and JB have repeatedly said that predicting the precise shape of the S curve is difficult to impossible.
We know that they exited Q2 around 2k/wk and with 5k in delivery at quarter end.
I believe that they will end Q3 with less in the pipeline (more in line with previous quarters at around 2k), but a pessimist would say they'll end with as many, or even more in the pipeline, say 6k.
I would say an optimistic to the max view would put Q3 at a linear ramp between 2k and 2400 by Q3 end. 400 cars/wk change over 13 weeks is 31 cars per week gained. 13 weeks on the linear ramp gives me 28,821 cars produced. +3k from the pipeline drain, my optimistic to the max deliveries is 32k
My pessimistic bound is to assume no growth over the rate at Q2 exit. 2k/wk. And assume 1 week is lost to no production for some unknown reason. 24k produced. -1k to pipeline growth. My pessimistic bound is 23k deliveries.
My realist view is taking Elon at his word that we exit Q3 at 2200/wk. Linear ramp between 2k and 2.2k, 200 cars/wk change over 13 weeks is 15 cars/week. Total produced is 27,365 cars. Assume little change in pipeline size. 27k delivered.
I predict Q3 deliveries will be within the range 23k - 32k, with my realistic expectation right in the middle of the range at 26-28k.
Elon and JB have repeatedly said that predicting the precise shape of the S curve is difficult to impossible.
We know that they exited Q2 around 2k/wk and with 5k in delivery at quarter end.
I believe that they will end Q3 with less in the pipeline (more in line with previous quarters at around 2k), but a pessimist would say they'll end with as many, or even more in the pipeline, say 6k.
I would say an optimistic to the max view would put Q3 at a linear ramp between 2k and 2400 by Q3 end. 400 cars/wk change over 13 weeks is 31 cars per week gained. 13 weeks on the linear ramp gives me 28,821 cars produced. +3k from the pipeline drain, my optimistic to the max deliveries is 32k
My pessimistic bound is to assume no growth over the rate at Q2 exit. 2k/wk. And assume 1 week is lost to no production for some unknown reason. 24k produced. -1k to pipeline growth. My pessimistic bound is 23k deliveries.
My realist view is taking Elon at his word that we exit Q3 at 2200/wk. Linear ramp between 2k and 2.2k, 200 cars/wk change over 13 weeks is 15 cars/week. Total produced is 27,365 cars. Assume little change in pipeline size. 27k delivered.
I predict Q3 deliveries will be within the range 23k - 32k, with my realistic expectation right in the middle of the range at 26-28k.
I'm Chinese and go back home (Beijing) at least once a year. I haven't heard or seen much about the MX in China when I was back there in July because the very first batch just arrived. But August seems to be picking up the pace.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
That depends on what you want to accomplish (accumulate for the long term or short term trade), what you think the SP is going to do, and how confident you are in your opinion. Most of the participants on this bullish forum seem to believe that we're closer to the bottom than the top. But if you think the SP is going to hit $140-$160 soon, if you're correct, it's a great time to sell.
But it doesn't sound like you're highly confident of anything related to the SP. The best course of action might be to gradually continue to accumulate shares while the SP is relatively low.
Unfortunately it had happened many times in the last a few years. You will be screwed if you drink cool aid from TMC forum. I'm just kidding
Anyone with naked eye to see the TA charts will find alarming sign for TSLA.
1) SP essentially declining step by step after Q2 ER while the general market hit ATH again and again
2) SP hit through all supporting MAs (20, 50, 200)
I don't know what'll happen. Just watch the show.
Last edited:
Unfortunately it had happened many times in the last a few years. You will be screwed if you drink cool aid from TMC forum. I'm just kidding
Anyone with naked eye to see the TA charts will find alarming sign for TSLA.
1) SP essentially declining step by step after Q2 ER while the general market hit ATH again and again
2) SP hit through all supporting MAs (20, 50, 200)
I don't know what'll happen. Just watch the show.
Yep, sure thing, except if you choose to listen to this guy: It's about time to buy Tesla: Trader
Did not keep them from buying TSLA in Q2. Total institutional ownership increased by 7M shares, with five largest institutional owners all increasing their stake in Q2, by total of 9.5M shares, from 44.5M to 54.1M shares.
mmd
Active Member
Or some long TSLA positions in margin accounts got sold, decreasing available shares to short. But we can all choose to see what we want to see
Or some long TSLA positions in margin accounts got sold, decreasing available shares to short. But we can all choose to see what we want to see
The absolute majority of shares available for shorting are sourced from accounts owned by institutions, and then, whatever residual demand for borrowing left after they lend ALL shares they wanted is satisfied by the institutions sweeping client's margin accounts for additional shares available for lending. Why settle for fraction of the interest, while creating more work for themselves keeping tabs on zillion of small parcels of lent shares, when they can have entire interest, with way less work?
The scenario you've outlined is very unlikely.
TSLA buy opportunity has to come with volume panic sales, there was no exception in the past a few years. We are not there yet. If you listen to that guy, please show your buy order
TSLA buy opportunity has to come with volume panic sales, there was no exception in the past a few years. We are not there yet. If you listen to that guy, please show your buy order
Bought on Friday: Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016
Incidentally, why didn't you buy SCTY instead of TSLA and pocket the discount?
Or some long TSLA positions in margin accounts got sold, decreasing available shares to short. But we can all choose to see what we want to see
MMD, for that to happen, we'd need about 25% of longs to have sold today to reasonably account for the decline in short shares available, if we expect a reasonable distribution of shares available to short within the long community. Nope, we didn't see 30 Million + shares sold today.
mmd
Active Member
@Papafox, If your premise that (no. of shares available to short) is proportional to (the total long position shares) is correct, then total long position shares must have been zero when there were no shares available to short. But we know for sure, that wasn't the case, as we have many steadfast TSLA longs right here
Also, here is the latest short interest, which continues to decline. Remember, a decrease in short position also indicate an equal decrease in long positions.
Read more: Tesla Motors, Inc. (TSLA) Short Interest
"Presumption is the mother of all failures" - MMD.
Last edited:
@Papafox, If your premise that (no. of shares available to short) is proportional to (the total long position shares) is correct, then total long position shares must have been zero when there were no shares available to short. But we know for sure, that wasn't the case, as we have many steadfast TSLA longs right here
Also, here is the latest short interest, which continues to decline. Remember, a decrease in short position also indicate an equal decrease in long positions.
View attachment 192089
Read more: Tesla Motors, Inc. (TSLA) Short Interest
"Presumption is the mother of all failures" - MMD.
Nope, I'm looking at changes taking place within one day. Looking at a wide range of dates during which short shares and short interest varied significantly renders the exercise unworkable. You're dealing with way too many variables when looking at a large stretch of time that contains significant changes in the composition of shorts vs longs.
BTW, mmd, that was nice of you to include such a large, red-text display of the stock price drop today. If a semi-blind man was standing 30 feet away from his computer, he stands a reasonable chance of readng it.
Last edited:
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I believe that the major institutions have completed buying shares and that some of the current weakness of the Tesla SP is due to the fact that the major institutions have stopped accumulating shares, rather than due to any underlying weakness in the stock. In other words I think that we've just completed Phase 1 of the SCTY Acquisition Squeeze.
I wish I knew what Phase 2 will look like, but that requires both specific squeeze related information and context information (any catalysts happening at that time). I believe that the major squeeze related factors will be the number of days of advanced notice for the record date and the number of short shares held by smaller institutions (e.g. pension funds).
I agree that nothing else will match Fremont production hitting 40k cars per month (in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018). OTOH I think it's possible that you are both incorrect (I hope so!).
1. Even if achieving non-GAAP profitability doesn't move the SP executing on their production and delivery goals in the second half of the year to the extent necessary to do that should at least help. And Elon sounds pretty confident.
2. TE. I didn't realize the depth of the skepticism in TE until I saw this post by DaveT.
1. GF cell production starting, probably at about 15 GWh per year.
2. TE V2, with about 25% increased capacity, with some combination of reduced prices or increased margins.
3. Cheaper and better inverter.
If number 1, above happens it strengthens the case for M3 production being on schedule. austinEV if that doesn't happen by Q1 I recommend dumping your J18 LEAPS! OTOH an announcement when they start producing automotive cells will be a plus.
Something else that could provide a nice boost, either before or after the merger that SCTY is cash flow positive for Q4.
Between now and the record date any of the above catalysts (partly depending on the timing) could produce a bigger than expected result, possibly even a squeeze, due to the fact that the number of shares available to purchase is abnormally low.
After the record date I believe that the institutions are likely to sell the shares that were purchased in order to vote, possibly making just before the record date (depending on any possible catalysts happening, or not happening at that time) a good time to buy puts.
I wish I knew what Phase 2 will look like, but that requires both specific squeeze related information and context information (any catalysts happening at that time). I believe that the major squeeze related factors will be the number of days of advanced notice for the record date and the number of short shares held by smaller institutions (e.g. pension funds).
I agree that nothing else will match Fremont production hitting 40k cars per month (in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018
). OTOH I think it's possible that you are both incorrect (I hope so!).1. Even if achieving non-GAAP profitability doesn't move the SP executing on their production and delivery goals in the second half of the year to the extent necessary to do that should at least help. And Elon sounds pretty confident.
2. TE. I didn't realize the depth of the skepticism in TE until I saw this post by DaveT.
Elon said that he expects TE to ramp in Nov-Dec. Even if that slips by a full Quarter we should see a financial boost by the Q1 May ER. Which will be accompanied be the following announcements and product introductions. I realize that announcements and product introductions don't normally move the SP, but if these are accompanied by a TE production ramp I think it will be different:
1. GF cell production starting, probably at about 15 GWh per year.
2. TE V2, with about 25% increased capacity, with some combination of reduced prices or increased margins.
3. Cheaper and better inverter.
If number 1, above happens it strengthens the case for M3 production being on schedule. austinEV if that doesn't happen by Q1 I recommend dumping your J18 LEAPS! OTOH an announcement when they start producing automotive cells will be a plus.
Something else that could provide a nice boost, either before or after the merger that SCTY is cash flow positive for Q4.
Between now and the record date any of the above catalysts (partly depending on the timing) could produce a bigger than expected result, possibly even a squeeze, due to the fact that the number of shares available to purchase is abnormally low.
After the record date I believe that the institutions are likely to sell the shares that were purchased in order to vote, possibly making just before the record date (depending on any possible catalysts happening, or not happening at that time) a good time to buy puts.
mmd
Active Member
This is ridiculous! The proportion of texts is exactly same as original; you can check by clicking the link.
I tried copy-pasting the text, but the spacing and lines were completely messed up. So, I took a snippet and pasted here. No need to read ulterior motives here
I have a 52-year old Ph.D. field in international economics from a well-regarded practitioner but I've never taught the subject and only used simple terms when teaching general courses in international relations. So what follows is not authoritative and bear in mind I've strung together insights from several forests to raise questions about a particular tree. Like saying a beech is, of course, just a pile of sand, no?) That should be warning enough not to tread further.
Following on earlier discussion of the disconnect of TSLA price and rationality, complexity adds to our understanding of why markets seem irrational.
Via Mark Thoma:
Complexity and Economic Policy
For whatever its worth Alan Kirman argues explanations based on individual behavior fail completely to capture the behavior of the whole for complex interacting systems like the economy. I would say the phenomenon applies to the market as a whole as well as the behavior of any widely traded stock.
At first blush one might conclude with artificial intelligence, deep learning, or machine learning, this puzzle might be solved and perhaps it is given the sophistication and rapid responses of high frequency traders. But there remains no clear understanding of what the machine is doing. See, for example, the difficulty researchers are having in teaching computers to talk.
Technology Review Alumni - September October 2016 - 32
Also there is this from Larry Summers, courtesy of Thoma:
Disappointed by what came out of Jackson Hole | Larry Summers
Most of his argument is understandable to a novice like me, except for the final paragraph where a negative is completely confusing:
“If a greater than 1/3 chance of a rate increase in September was not in markets, the cost of credit for small business would be lower and mortgage rates would decline. Employers would be more confident about hiring. And pressures would be removed from emerging markets. The world economy would be more robust.”
It seems Summers is using markets to predict what will happen to interest rates, emerging markets, and the world economy, the reverse of what is possible because of complexity.
In any case, I don't see the logic of why he concludes what he does here although I agree a dovish response was needed given his earlier caveats. Paul Krugman has been saying for some time not to increase rates until "you see the whites" of inflation's eyes. Can anyone help?
Following on earlier discussion of the disconnect of TSLA price and rationality, complexity adds to our understanding of why markets seem irrational.
Via Mark Thoma:
Complexity and Economic Policy
For whatever its worth Alan Kirman argues explanations based on individual behavior fail completely to capture the behavior of the whole for complex interacting systems like the economy. I would say the phenomenon applies to the market as a whole as well as the behavior of any widely traded stock.
At first blush one might conclude with artificial intelligence, deep learning, or machine learning, this puzzle might be solved and perhaps it is given the sophistication and rapid responses of high frequency traders. But there remains no clear understanding of what the machine is doing. See, for example, the difficulty researchers are having in teaching computers to talk.
Technology Review Alumni - September October 2016 - 32
Also there is this from Larry Summers, courtesy of Thoma:
Disappointed by what came out of Jackson Hole | Larry Summers
Most of his argument is understandable to a novice like me, except for the final paragraph where a negative is completely confusing:
“If a greater than 1/3 chance of a rate increase in September was not in markets, the cost of credit for small business would be lower and mortgage rates would decline. Employers would be more confident about hiring. And pressures would be removed from emerging markets. The world economy would be more robust.”
It seems Summers is using markets to predict what will happen to interest rates, emerging markets, and the world economy, the reverse of what is possible because of complexity.
In any case, I don't see the logic of why he concludes what he does here although I agree a dovish response was needed given his earlier caveats. Paul Krugman has been saying for some time not to increase rates until "you see the whites" of inflation's eyes. Can anyone help?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
