Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[brian45011]

I'd be shocked if material, forward-looking, previously undisclosed data is produced and makes it into the official record. If I remember correctly, this is the BS lawsuit claiming Tesla lied about past production/sales projections. At best, I think we'd see evidence supporting why Tesla made the projections they made in the past and perhaps why they didn't materialize, which wouldn't be of much use now. e.g., "the reason we projected production of 2k/week is because we reconfigured the line to do X and our tests showed Y output. We missed projections because of a supplier/broken machinery/whatever."

If there even is a legal opinion on this eventually (very unlikely), the judge probably will likely not get into this nitty gritty detail in any event.

Many defendants have assumed nothing was under the covers before plaintiffs started pulling strings in discovery. Let's wait and see.

 

[esk8mw]

That makes more sense... GM would be crazy to have that much degradation after 100K. It's a shame GM is getting hit with this clickbait

I don't think it's clickbait. "Depending on use, the battery may degrade as little as 10% to as much as 40% of capacity over the warranty period. " The most important part of the language for me is the 10% minimum.

These are significantly worse projections when compared to Tesla. All batteries are not created equally. To me, this reaffirms Tesla's lead in the battery tech space...which is important.

If this is a legal CYA, it's either a horrific job (if testing actually shows like 10-12%, this language sets off alarm bells for no reason) or it's reflective of the actual tech (which is garbage compared to Tesla/Pana). Either way it's bad news for GM and shows they have no interest in standing behind their product as they will not have to pay out any battery claims (owners' biggest fear) with this range.

Contrast with Tesla - Elon initially backed up his tech with money out of his own pocket, RVGs, unlimited mile warranties, the works.

 

[brian45011]

Maybe people are overreating to:
GM warns of potential battery degradation of up to 40% for Chevy Bolt EV during warranty period or 100,000 miles

Personally I'm blaming my bank for not getting funds transferred to my trading account until tomorrow.

Does Tesla cover any pack degradation in its warranty?

 

[esk8mw]

Many defendants have assumed nothing was under the covers before plaintiffs started pulling strings in discovery. Let's wait and see.

Anything is possible in theory, but the odds of a successful trial by the plaintiff or getting significant material data out of the suit in any fashion is exceedingly low.

Reality - this will be dismissed or (more likely) settled out of court for a small amount to make them go away. If something comes up in discovery (again, very unlikely, companies have broad discretion to give guidance), then it will just be settled out of court at a slightly higher amount.

 

[austinEV]

Does Tesla cover any pack degradation in its warranty?

Not explicitly. I think this 40% GM number is a case study in dumb specsmanship. They had to address degradation so they bounded it with numbers that would have a high probability of being the outside bound: 10-40%. This way they limit, to very low, their liability for battery degradation. Tesla, facing a similar problem, just punted and gave no number. GM is arguably being honest and tone-deaf.

 

[Papafox]

Does Tesla cover any pack degradation in its warranty?

My 2015 Model S battery is covered against failure for 8 years and unlimited miles, but it is not covered against gradual battery degradation with time, according to my warranty doc.

 

[ggies07]

Honestly, besides AI, what else is there to invest in for the long term in our lifetime? There should be minimal shorting of this stock.

 

[Kenriko]

Not explicitly. I think this 40% GM number is a case study in dumb specsmanship. They had to address degradation so they bounded it with numbers that would have a high probability of being the outside bound: 10-40%. This way they limit, to very low, their liability for battery degradation. Tesla, facing a similar problem, just punted and gave no number. GM is arguably being honest and tone-deaf.

By limiting it so much (E.G shafting the buyer) it shows you should not touch a Bolt with a ten foot pole. Tesla has been known to replace packs FOR FREE that have degraded less then the minimum (10%) that GM says is normal.

 

[racer26]

Speaking of Bolts, has GM actually delivered any to a customer yet? T-24 days to 2017.

 

[ZsoZso]

I don't think it's clickbait. "Depending on use, the battery may degrade as little as 10% to as much as 40% of capacity over the warranty period. " The most important part of the language for me is the 10% minimum.

These are significantly worse projections when compared to Tesla. All batteries are not created equally. To me, this reaffirms Tesla's lead in the battery tech space...which is important.

If this is a legal CYA, it's either a horrific job (if testing actually shows like 10-12%, this language sets off alarm bells for no reason) or it's reflective of the actual tech (which is garbage compared to Tesla/Pana). Either way it's bad news for GM and shows they have no interest in standing behind their product as they will not have to pay out any battery claims (owners' biggest fear) with this range.

Contrast with Tesla - Elon initially backed up his tech with money out of his own pocket, RVGs, unlimited mile warranties, the works.

warning: pure speculation follows

Maybe it went down like this:
GM lawyer: We need to put in some language to protect ourselves from claims on battery degradation. What do we expect In 8 years / 100K miles ?
LG engineer: About 10% would be still normal.
GM lawyer: What about worst case scenario ?
LG engineer: Lets say 20%.
GM lawyer: OK, lets double that to be safe.

 

[esk8mw]

Speaking of Bolts, has GM actually delivered any to a customer yet? T-24 days to 2017.

Didn't they have a spokesman specifically say that they "released" it in 2016 just so they could have a chance at winning car magazine awards?

I don't blame them; Model 3 is going to clean house in 2017 - wouldn't want to be head to head with that in a comparo.

 

[Curt Renz]

Trump to tap Oklahoma attorney general to lead EPA -transition team

Keep in mind that these nominations must be approved by the Senate when it convenes in the new year. Republicans will have a slim majority. A number of those Republicans are supportive of environmental protection and never jumped on the Trump bandwagon. Filibuster is still available to Democratic senators.

Nominations of over-the-top deniers of anthropogenic climate change may simply be a temporary nod by Trump to those who voted for him for claiming that climate change concern is a hoax. He may actually realize that he could eventually have to nominate more reasonable individuals, if they are to be approved by the Senate.

I recently emailed those who represent me in Congress with the request seen below. You may want to do the same.

Please do not allow Mr. Trump to put people with pro-fossil fuel and internal combustion engine agendas and feigned ignorance about the dangers of climate change in charge of our Department of Energy, Department of Transportation or Environmental Protection Agency. Such backward choices certainly would not be ways to “make America great again”. America has been made great by its people adapting to new realities with necessary innovations, not by falling back into the norms of a previous century. Such a denial of reality from our government could make America destitute, not great. Please actively do you part to protect all of us and our posterity.

 

[brian45011]

​

Contrast with Tesla - Elon initially backed up his tech with money out of his own pocket, RVGs, unlimited mile warranties, the works.

Really? An oral promise? What's the consideration? Or is it Promissory Estoppel? It's basically an all or none bet. If the bet bombs, the IB's banking affiliates will execute on their security and there will be nothing left for those who relied on those promises. Place your bets.

 

[racer26]

Didn't they have a spokesman specifically say that they "released" it in 2016 just so they could have a chance at winning car magazine awards?

I don't blame them; Model 3 is going to clean house in 2017 - wouldn't want to be head to head with that in a comparo.

Well, we already know that its not going to be a 50 state launch, but rather, a CA and OR only launch, followed (maybe) by 50 states next year sometime. But in order to call it a launch, you have to actually deliver a car to a customer.

 

[brian45011]

Keep in mind that these nominations must be approved by the Senate when it convenes in the new year. Republicans will have a slim majority. A number of those Republicans are supportive of environmental protection and never jumped on the Trump bandwagon. Filibuster is still available to Democratic senators.

Nominations of over-the-top deniers of anthropogenic climate change may simply be a temporary nod by Trump to those who voted for him for claiming that climate change concern is a hoax. He may actually realize that he could eventually have to nominate more reasonable individuals, if they are to be approved by the Senate.

I recently emailed those who represent my in Congress with the request seen below. You may want to do the same.

Please do not allow Mr. Trump to put people with pro-fossil fuel and internal combustion engine agendas and feigned ignorance about the dangers of climate change in charge of our Department of Energy, Department of Transportation or Environmental Protection Agency. Such backward choices certainly would not be ways to “make America great again”. America has been made great by its people adapting to new realities with necessary innovations, not by falling back into the norms of a previous century. Such a denial of reality from our government could make America destitute, not great. Please actively do you part to protect all of us and our posterity.

Curt,
Any news about your petitions to POTUS?

 

[esk8mw]

warning: pure speculation follows

Maybe it went down like this:
GM lawyer: We need to put in some language to protect ourselves from claims on battery degradation. What do we expect In 8 years / 100K miles ?
LG engineer: About 10% would be still normal.
GM lawyer: What about worst case scenario ?
LG engineer: Lets say 20%.
GM lawyer: OK, lets double that to be safe.

Intelligent companies would run important communications like this by groups that are not egghead engineers and lawyers (I can say that, I am one)...like the communications department. They have to know this sends a tremendous negative signal regarding the car's reliability. Even worse since substantially all of their communications to date have harped on the 238 mile range. The last thing they want to do is project that this range will/might degrade significantly, but that's what they just did.

Again, it either reflects a horrible reality or shows they haven't done their homework. Compliance car.

 

[esk8mw]

​

Really? An oral promise? What's the consideration? Or is it Promissory Estoppel? It's basically an all or none bet. If the bet bombs, the IB's banking affiliates will execute on their security and there will be nothing left for those who relied on those promises. Place your bets.

....what? The RVG isn't some random oral promise. The unlimited mile/8 year battery warranty isn't a random oral promise (and we have an actual track record of them replacing batteries resulting from excessive degradation. I believe Elon also did a battery replacement type of guarantee on early Roadsters that came out of his own pocket.

Also, your doomsday scenario seems misplaced and very highly unlikely.

 

[vgrinshpun]

​

Really? An oral promise? What's the consideration? Or is it Promissory Estoppel? It's basically an all or none bet. If the bet bombs, the IB's banking affiliates will execute on their security and there will be nothing left for those who relied on those promises. Place your bets.

Close to 200K people around the globe did by buying Tesla vehicles.

 

[FredTMC]

But the disclaimer implies GM is not confident enough in their (LG's) battery management system to backup a 40% degradation over eight years/100,000 miles. A Bolt owner could lose 40% capacity in the first 4 years (for example), and GM is legally covered to tell the owner that he or she is SOL.

Can you imagine if Tesla had such a disclaimer? They'd be ripped to shreds.

Seems like Tesla was smart not to say anything in their warranty about battery degradation. Us early owners were a little concerned, but as it turned out, degradation with tesla battery chemistry is minimal.

 

[hobbes]

Does Tesla cover any pack degradation in its warranty?

At electrek is often worth reading the entire article and not just the headline :

For comparison, Tesla warns that it does not cover battery degradation from “battery usage” under its warranty:

“The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this Battery Limited Warranty. See your owner documentation for important information on how to maximize the life and capacity of the Battery.”

Of course, it covers any defect on the battery, including if the defect results in abnormal capacity losses, but it doesn’t really define a normal capacity loss. Early data shows a trend of reaching 150,000 miles before coming close to a 10% capacity loss, which is the minimum loss expected by GM under its warranty. Tesla’s battery and drivetrain warranty is for 8-year and with unlimited mileage.

GM warns of potential battery degradation of up to 40% for Chevy Bolt EV during warranty period or 100,000 miles