Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Lump]

-$3.33 @ 172 AH, any news?

Tesla Motors: Three Big Risks Heading Into Earnings - Stocks to Watch - Barrons.com

UBS analysts
Colin Langan and
Eddie Hsieh see three risks for Tesla Motors(TSLA) heading into earnings:#1 Rising SG&A and R&D costs pose risk to 2016 EPS
The focus in Q4 will be on Tesla's '16 outlook. One key risk is SG&A & R&D. Historically these costs have been volatile, ramping up significantly in '14. These costs will likely continue to accelerate ahead of the high volume Model 3 launch.
#2 Expect downside to +75% y/y deliveries in 2016
Based on prior guidance of 1.6-1.8k vehicles/week in '16, Tesla projects total shipments to increase from 50.6k in 2015 to 88.4k (mid-point) in 2016, +75% y/y. We expect 2016 deliveries at the low-end guidance as Model X production ramp appears to be progressing slower than expected (prelim Q4 results indicated 238/week in the last week of 2015 vs. management's prior guide of several hundred/week by end of 2015). We are cutting our target shipments for 2016 to 84k. Given the little known details of the Model 3 so far, we see the March reveal of the car as a potential catalyst. However, given Tesla's history of delayed launches, we expect delays to the current late-2017 launch timing. Additionally, the mass-market EV segment is becoming increasingly crowded with the introduction of the Chevy Bolt this year. Together with low gas prices, we believe there is significant downside to Tesla's target 500k shipments by '20.
#3 Stationary storage headwinds persist
In Q2, Tesla guided to storage sales of $40-50m in Q4, $400-500m in '16, and $2-5bn in '17. 2016 production is reportedly "sold out," suggesting that Tesla will likely hit the Q4 & 2016 targets. This is consistent with our belief that early, "green" consumers are driving up initial orders. However, we still struggle to see storage demand continuing to grow at this pace given low energy prices, slow initial adoption from utilities given costs, & lack of demand outside of green consumers. We also remain cautious about storage margins given competition.

 

[dc_h]

Aha! TSLA is not linked to crude oil, it has a dependent correlation with LNKD!

If someone wanted to pick up more shares of TSLA in after hours they are at $170.90 at the moment for 100 shares. I'd expect most everyone would want to see where we start tomorrow, but interesting that LinkedIn caused such a drop in Tsla.

 

[AlMc]

Well, LNKD exceeded Q4 estimates but gave soft/revised downward guidance and got wacked...... OK. Tesla/EM: If we get a decent but not a big beat on Q4ER I guess we need EM to give a great presentation/guidance on CC. So, if the steak just is OK, I guess I want to hear sizzle? Opposite my mantra.....:scared:

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

This link, and a shorter version of this post was posted in the News section, but in my opinion deserves to get posted in this section since this will very significantly effect the amount of money available for Grid Storage, Electric Vehicles, Solar Panels, Microgrids, and other clean energy technology.

Also, this thread gets a lot more attention and this is important enough for everyone to read.

First off, the $10 per barrel is a fee, not a tax!

I can't think of any reason it won't be implemented. In theory, even Republicans should be thrilled to support this since it isn't a tax.

Most people probably wouldn't notice an increase of 25 cents a falling at the tank, at a time when gasoline is between $1.50 and $2.00 a gallon. This is also the only way for the USA to pay for to replace our crumbling infrastructure. It would also create millions of jobs.

Heck, this might provide the USA with a way to meaningfully reduce the Federal debt. I recommend everyone watch this video.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Infrastructure (HBO) - YouTube

In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.

With this new fee, that would give the Federal Government $69 billion every year to invest in infrastructure projects.

Also, I don't see how any sensible Republican could oppose this.

1) It's not a tax.
2) It's a subsidy reduction. Every sane economist who hasn't been paid off agrees oil subsidies are a major drain on the economy.
3) Does Obama need approval to implement this fee/subsidy reduction?
4) The tax on gasoline is absurdely low.
5) It is impossible for Gasoline prices to go lower.
6) Every state would benefit.
7) Most consumers wouldn't notice the difference. Those who do would support it. Do people like paved roads, sidewalks, reliable access to energy, reliable bridges, reliable trains/buses/public transportation, snow removal, etc?
8) This will prevent deflation from occurring.
9) This will reduce the federal defect and will give states enough cash to invest in essential projects, upgrade infrastructure, and create millions of jobs.

Interesting precident.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/01/31/op-olc-v006-p0074.pdf

Interesting NYTIMES article from 1985 that sounds identical to the current situation, and makes it clear the president has the power to impose a fee on Oil if it he declares that the current price of oil is a threat to national security.

ISSUE AND DEBATE - SHOULD THE U.S. IMPOSE A TARIFF ON IMPORTED OIL? - NYTimes.com

The President, however, could not impose an import fee - which from 1973 to 1979 was on the books at an inconsequentially low rate - on his own without declaring that imports were a threat to national security.

 

[dc_h]

Maybe stewart aslop can help on the presentation?

Well, LNKD exceeded Q4 estimates but gave soft/revised downward guidance and got wacked...... OK. Tesla/EM: If we get a decent but not a big beat on Q4ER I guess we need EM to give a great presentation/guidance on CC. So, if the steak just is OK, I guess I want to hear sizzle? Opposite my mantra.....:scared:

 

[mrdoubleb]

Tesla Motors: Three Big Risks Heading Into Earnings - Stocks to Watch - Barrons.com

UBS analysts
Colin Langan and
Eddie Hsieh see three risks for Tesla Motors(TSLA) heading into earnings:#1 Rising SG&A and R&D costs pose risk to 2016 EPS
The focus in Q4 will be on Tesla's '16 outlook. One key risk is SG&A & R&D. Historically these costs have been volatile, ramping up significantly in '14. These costs will likely continue to accelerate ahead of the high volume Model 3 launch.
#2 Expect downside to +75% y/y deliveries in 2016
Based on prior guidance of 1.6-1.8k vehicles/week in '16, Tesla projects total shipments to increase from 50.6k in 2015 to 88.4k (mid-point) in 2016, +75% y/y. We expect 2016 deliveries at the low-end guidance as Model X production ramp appears to be progressing slower than expected (prelim Q4 results indicated 238/week in the last week of 2015 vs. management's prior guide of several hundred/week by end of 2015). We are cutting our target shipments for 2016 to 84k. Given the little known details of the Model 3 so far, we see the March reveal of the car as a potential catalyst. However, given Tesla's history of delayed launches, we expect delays to the current late-2017 launch timing. Additionally, the mass-market EV segment is becoming increasingly crowded with the introduction of the Chevy Bolt this year. Together with low gas prices, we believe there is significant downside to Tesla's target 500k shipments by '20.
#3 Stationary storage headwinds persist
In Q2, Tesla guided to storage sales of $40-50m in Q4, $400-500m in '16, and $2-5bn in '17. 2016 production is reportedly "sold out," suggesting that Tesla will likely hit the Q4 & 2016 targets. This is consistent with our belief that early, "green" consumers are driving up initial orders. However, we still struggle to see storage demand continuing to grow at this pace given low energy prices, slow initial adoption from utilities given costs, & lack of demand outside of green consumers. We also remain cautious about storage margins given competition.

Huh. And someone told me here a few weeks ago the market is not expecting 85-100k cars! Btw, classic. They took 1700 cars per week and multiplied it by 52. Completely unrealistic to expect non-stop 52 week production and not count with holidays and scheduled maintenance, but who cares, at least now they could claim Tesla disappoints if they only announce 80-85k cars.

 

[Fallenone]

Fee will be transferred to consumers. Last time I checked, US people are generally enjoying the low gas price and hate when it gets higher.

This link, and a shorter version of this post was posted in the News section, but in my opinion deserves to get posted in this section since this will very significantly effect the amount of money available for Grid Storage, Electric Vehicles, Solar Panels, Microgrids, and other clean energy technology.

Also, this thread gets a lot more attention and this is important enough for everyone to read.

First off, the $10 per barrel is a fee, not a tax!

I can't think of any reason it won't be implemented. In theory, even Republicans should be thrilled to support this since it isn't a tax.

Most people probably wouldn't notice an increase of 25 cents a falling at the tank, at a time when gasoline is between $1.50 and $2.00 a gallon. This is also the only way for the USA to pay for to replace our crumbling infrastructure. It would also create millions of jobs.

Heck, this might provide the USA with a way to meaningfully reduce the Federal debt. I recommend everyone watch this video.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Infrastructure (HBO) - YouTube

In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.

With this new fee, that would give the Federal Government $69 billion every year to invest in infrastructure projects.

Also, I don't see how any sensible Republican could oppose this.

1) It's not a tax.
2) It's a subsidy reduction. Every sane economist who hasn't been paid off agrees oil subsidies are a major drain on the economy.
3) Does Obama need approval to implement this fee/subsidy reduction?
4) The tax on gasoline is absurdely low.
5) It is impossible for Gasoline prices to go lower.
6) Every state would benefit.
7) Most consumers wouldn't notice the difference. Those who do would support it. Do people like paved roads, sidewalks, reliable access to energy, reliable bridges, reliable trains/buses/public transportation, snow removal, etc?
8) This will prevent deflation from occurring.
9) This will reduce the federal defect and will give states enough cash to invest in essential projects, upgrade infrastructure, and create millions of jobs.

 

[renim]

First off, the $10 per barrel is a fee, not a tax!

Call it what you want, I understand it to be an increase in the federal excise tax to include non transport, non combustion users of oil, (road construction, lubricants, engineered plastics, pesticides, other chemicals) and of course other federal excise exempt users of oil, ie farmers, shipping, heating etc.

as an non american, i can see that USA road users don't fully fund road use, this just embeds that mentality further

as an engineer, I also understand the Generalized Fourth Power Law, that damage caused by vehicles is 'related to the 4th power of their axle weight' once I did the calcs, to analyse the sensitivity, of where one additional passenger on a bus causes more road damage than if they drove a single occupant passenger car. explaining that in a politically acceptable manner is not simple.

 

[jhm]

Drinkerofkoolaid, how is this not a tax? Sure, one can call it a fee, but what exactly is one getting for this fee? It will certainly called a "tax" by those who do not want to pay it.

I am a bit concerned that it will engender a political backlash. Keep in mind that Australia had carbon tax. Voters got ride of that administration an promptly replaced it will one of the world's most anti-climate administration ever. The carbon tax set back responsible climate policy in a very big way.

A carbon tax would probably be better received by the oil and gas industry than a barrel fee. A carbon tax has about an 80% bigger impact on coal than natural gas. So it can actually support natural gas prices while thrown coal out of the market. So the oil and gas industry would like that.

 

[dha]

Huh. And someone told me here a few weeks ago the market is not expecting 85-100k cars!

Analyst estimates !== "the market." If they were equivalent, then TSLA would be trading at the $278 consensus.

Btw, classic. They took 1700 cars per week and multiplied it by 52. Completely unrealistic to expect non-stop 52 week production and not count with holidays and scheduled maintenance, but who cares, at least now they could claim Tesla disappoints if they only announce 80-85k cars.

Are you suggesting that holidays and scheduled maintenance were not factored into Tesla's guidance of 1600-1800 average production / deliveries? What is the meaning of "average" then? I think you're ascribing malice here when there is none.

 

[Fallenone]

Well said. That's the rebound effect I had in mind.

Drinkerofkoolaid, how is this not a tax? Sure, one can call it a fee, but what exactly is one getting for this fee? It will certainly called a "tax" by those who do not want to pay it.

I am a bit concerned that it will engender a political backlash. Keep in mind that Australia had carbon tax. Voters got ride of that administration an promptly replaced it will one of the world's most anti-climate administration ever. The carbon tax set back responsible climate policy in a very big way.

A carbon tax would probably be better received by the oil and gas industry than a barrel fee. A carbon tax has about an 80% bigger impact on coal than natural gas. So it can actually support natural gas prices while thrown coal out of the market. So the oil and gas industry would like that.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Drinkerofkoolaid, how is this not a tax? Sure, one can call it a fee, but what exactly is one getting for this fee? It will certainly called a "tax" by those who do not want to pay it.

I am a bit concerned that it will engender a political backlash. Keep in mind that Australia had carbon tax. Voters got ride of that administration an promptly replaced it will one of the world's most anti-climate administration ever. The carbon tax set back responsible climate policy in a very big way.

A carbon tax would probably be better received by the oil and gas industry than a barrel fee. A carbon tax has about an 80% bigger impact on coal than natural gas. So it can actually support natural gas prices while thrown coal out of the market. So the oil and gas industry would like that.

See the revisions and citations I added to the post.

Also, just a guess, but it would probably be more difficult for Obama to implement a carbon tax during his remaining time in office. A carbon tax is harder for politicians to understand, and would be further reaching, and therefore by definition harder for Republicans to support, or for him to implement using his executive power.

Also, slight reminder, Reagan was a republican.

Mods: I think my original post and the responses from people might need its own thread, to avoid confusion. I hope some legal experts and people who know more than I do will shed their views on the Presidents authority to use his executive power to impose a fee on oil.

This will very materially effect demand for oil and capital that can be invested in companies investing in Electric Vehicles, and clean technology such as Tesla Motors and SolarCity.

 

[renim]

... Keep in mind that Australia had carbon tax. Voters got ride of that administration an promptly replaced it will one of the world's most anti-climate administration ever. The carbon tax set back responsible climate policy in a very big way. ....

aside from the politics, the other big problem was how that tax was implemented. I'm from Aus, a close family friend had an electronics manufacturing business with about 20 employees. Some obscure electronic part from China which formerly cost them less than $100 became a $15,000 part because of that tax. crazy, but there were ludicrous application fees for that electronics part because of some obscure gas used in its own manufacture.

 

[stealthology]

What a negative article (& comments) on GreenCarReports regarding Model 3.. or am I just being too biased?

Tesla Model 3 March 'Debut' May Not Be A Car, But...Pictures?

 

[bonnie]

All I'm gonna say is I'm glad I sold some off when it was at a high point and I wish I had waited til now to completely buy back in. But I've been buying it all back as it fell ... luckily had just a bit more for the current fire sale. It's worked out well. Love this stock. Love the product.

 

[aznt1217]

All I'm gonna say is I'm glad I sold some off when it was at a high point and I wish I had waited til now to completely buy back in. But I've been buying it all back as it fell ... luckily had just a bit more for the current fire sale. It's worked out well. Love this stock. Love the product.

Rare to see you here Bonnie. Figured you'd be too busy driving the impossible car to build

 

[AlMc]

All I'm gonna say is I'm glad I sold some off when it was at a high point and I wish I had waited til now to completely buy back in. But I've been buying it all back as it fell ... luckily had just a bit more for the current fire sale. It's worked out well. Love this stock. Love the product.

Now if we can just get to posts that say DaveT and Nigel are buying we will have called the 'bottom':biggrin:

 

[bonnie]

Now if we can just get to posts that say DaveT and Nigel are buying we will have called the 'bottom':biggrin:

Hahaha. That's the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Rare to see you here Bonnie. Figured you'd be too busy driving the impossible car to build

Oh I stop by and read most of it. I just feel like I rarely have anything to add above and beyond all of this group's posts.

 

[flankspeed8]

Drinkerofkoolaid, how is this not a tax? Sure, one can call it a fee, but what exactly is one getting for this fee? It will certainly called a "tax" by those who do not want to pay it.

I am a bit concerned that it will engender a political backlash. Keep in mind that Australia had carbon tax. Voters got ride of that administration an promptly replaced it will one of the world's most anti-climate administration ever. The carbon tax set back responsible climate policy in a very big way.

A carbon tax would probably be better received by the oil and gas industry than a barrel fee. A carbon tax has about an 80% bigger impact on coal than natural gas. So it can actually support natural gas prices while thrown coal out of the market. So the oil and gas industry would like that.

They can call it what they want, but certainly it is a tax. Who oversee's how this money is spent or does it just become another pool of money to delay the need to do the inevitable and that is reign in spending. We are on a dangerous trajectory with the debt ballooning. Our politicians have shown pure political cowardice in using our tax dollars wisely with fraud, waste, abuse and crony capitalism rampant. Instead of fixing fundamental problems, lets just throw more money at it. This is true with education, defense, healthcare, etc. Lets reform the systems that we have, not expand them.

Let's use gas tax revenue for transportation upgrades, not boondoggles. Why is Obama not advocating a gas tax increase instead? That would be far more palatable and I actually think a fair number of Republicans would go for it if it was guaranteed it would go to infrastructure and not just general revenues. This current federal government in the United States is now taking in the most revenue they have ever had, raised taxes on the rich, and the not so rich, yet our deficits are still hundreds of billions a year. They all (dems and repubs) suck at being good stewards of the tax payers hard earned money. This proposal boils my blood because it is just business as usual...more more more.

 

[dmunjal]

Jobs report tomorrow. I think bad news is good news again. If we get a sub 200k or even sub 100k print, the market will probably be up a few hundred points based on no further rate hikes by the Fed. Over 200k and we could go back to the current trend.