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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But they didn't say it like that, they said the American consumer doesn't want smaller more efficient cars, there is no demand. And, of course, if they can't make them efficiently, there is no demand because they cost too much. It's a manufacturing problem, not a demand problem. A much smaller car should cost much less to make.
I do believe there is a demand problem: people want everyone to drive smaller cars, but they want a big car themselves. It's not accident that even in Europe (compact) SUV's are the biggest sellers, and car brands are happy to oblige because margins are bigger on SUV's than on compact cars. In Europe, Nissan was pretty much dead, until they came up with the Qashqai which was a compact SUV and their current European lineup is 4 SUV's, the GT-R and 2 compact cars.. Daihatsu, specialised in compact cars, completely left the European market. VW and its subsidiaries Audi and Skoda came up with a lineup of compact SUV's, as did BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Even Opel, Citroën, Peugeot and Renault went into SUV's.

There is just no money in compact cars, nor is there a large demand to offset lower margins.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Lessmog
TSLA continually getting hit with selling volume whenever the macro's do a new push higher. Could be Elon selling or......(goes check max pain/options) it's MM's wanting to prevent a paying out the 1150/1160 Calls and definitely the Call Wall at 1200 (and they likely supported the stock yesterday because they don't want to pay out the 1100 Puts).
 
Barron's - 11:18 EST: Tesla Is a Defensive Stock Now. It’s a ‘Twilight Zone World’.

Excerpt:

Investors might figure that a high-growth stock with a big valuation and iconoclast CEO would be risker than the overall market. It may not be the correct call in the case of Tesla.

Tesla stock (ticker: TSLA) rose 0.7% on Tuesday. The market, of course, had another rough day as investors digested news about the Omicron variant of Covid-19. plus word from Jerome Powell that the Federal Reserve might end its bond buying sooner than it had planned. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both dropped 1.9%.

It was, frankly, a good day to be overweight Tesla in a portfolio. What is curious about Tesla stock is that the same statement turned out to be true about half the the time the market went down over the past year.
 
I do believe there is a demand problem: people want everyone to drive smaller cars, but they want a big car themselves. It's not accident that even in Europe (compact) SUV's are the biggest sellers, and car brands are happy to oblige because margins are bigger on SUV's than on compact cars. In Europe, Nissan was pretty much dead, until they came up with the Qashqai which was a compact SUV and their current European lineup is 4 SUV's, the GT-R and 2 compact cars.. Daihatsu, specialised in compact cars, completely left the European market. VW and its subsidiaries Audi and Skoda came up with a lineup of compact SUV's, as did BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Even Opel, Citroën, Peugeot and Renault went into SUV's.

There is just no money in compact cars, nor is there a large demand to offset lower margins.

I agree, with increasing standard of living comes increasing expectations with regard to comfort and functionality. People want their cars to be big enough that they are not scrunched inside and they can transport the things they want to move. But it's also an economic equation. How much does it cost? People want comfort, functionality AND value and that's what Tesla is focusing on. As the EV cost curve continues to decline, most people will see the wisdom of only buying what they need to achieve comfort and functionality and that line will be different for everyone. The important thing is they will all have a cost of ownership that is lower than their ICE counterparts. That's where the Cybertruck comes in. There will be more products too. First there was the Roadster, then there was only the Model S, then there was the Models S &X, then there was S,X & 3, then there was S, X, 3 & Y. Then there was S, X, 3, Y and Cybertruck. Expect this progression to continue. Tesla is very aware of market needs and desires as they address one market segment at a time.

My comment was looking at how GM lies about wanting the taxpayer money to fund development of more modern, efficient vehicles when they never had any intention of doing that. Tesla is a real wrench in their spokes because Tesla is doing exactly what the market needs and wants, before the market even knew that's what it wanted, and only Tesla will be able to do it at low prices and in high volumes. Basically, Tesla looked at the problem using first principles reasoning and created the logical path to fix it.
 
Last edited:
Yep, the automakers are already telling us they are going to ask for bailouts if you read between the lines. Of course, it will be couched as necessary to help the workers and save the pensions of the retired autoworkers.

In 2008 GM made the case that the American automakers were worthy of government guaranteed loans so they could re-tool to make fuel efficient cars. They got the money and proceeded to make bigger trucks than ever, bigger SUV's and stopped making smaller sedans and passenger cars, saying they couldn't make them at a profit. But they didn't say it like that, they said the American consumer doesn't want smaller more efficient cars, there is no demand. And, of course, if they can't make them efficiently, there is no demand because they cost too much. It's a manufacturing problem, not a demand problem. A much smaller car should cost much less to make.

This problem is compounded by the wealth divide. If all the profits flow to the top 20%, then new car buyers will have a surplus of money and will be able to easily afford big, fuel guzzling cars. Then the trickle-down autos will be used fuel guzzling vehicles for the lower-middle class to buy when the top 20% decides to upgrade to the latest and greatest. When I was young there was a surplus of used, efficient cars on the market. The used car buyer in America today has no such choice. For the same amount of money they can buy a big powerful guzzler or an old, sacked out Honda Accord. This is a direct result of the wealth divide and it benefits oil companies by keeping new car production focused on supplying the market with gas guzzlers. The automakers and the oil companies with their big refineries are almost one and the same - they are co-dependent. It's time to break that co-dependency.

I say, enough with bailing out the big automakers who always promise to make smaller, more efficient vehicles but, as soon as they get the money, then turn around and say "There is no demand for smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, we make what the market wants or we go out of business". This distortion of capitalism has gone on long enough, let them eat their own words - don't give them money to build smaller, more efficient vehicles because they have already told us there is no demand for that! Let's take them at their word. No more money to make EV's, there is no demand for EV's. They will take the money and continue to make big gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's.

How many times will the American tax payer be fooled? We can't blame this on politicians because we are the ones who let them do it. Let's let capitalism work!
Let free market enterprise work.
crony capitalism distorting the market leads to misallocation of capital
 
That Barron's article from which @Curt Renz just provided a snippet not only has enough clothes on it to fill an emperor's wardrobe, but - to my reading - is suggestive that at long last, Barron's finally is slowly giving up on their decade-long distaste for Tesla and implacably bearish stance on its stock. Although I strongly suspect that the old bastions of Wall St wisdom - WSJ, Fortune, Forbes, Barron's (but never, ever IBD - no sobersided denizen I know of in Wall St. in my or previous generations ever took Wm. O'Neill's newspaper seriously) - have anywhere near the pre-internet clout or stature they once had, they still have more than a modicum of followers, supporters and overall cachet. Today's lines from Barron's may be the first acquiescence - grudging as it is - that could be prelude to a more reasoned stance in times to come.

A prelude - just a prelude. The article - which I urge all to read - also provided a single graph showing how it is possible for an 'investor' to have lost more money on TSLA than on the market as a whole. What magnificently tortuous logic there!

Here's my own snippet from it, fixed: It was has been, frankly, a good day decade to be overweight Tesla in a portfolio.


".......Then you win" comes to mind.
 
TSLA continually getting hit with selling volume whenever the macro's do a new push higher. Could be Elon selling or......(goes check max pain/options) it's MM's wanting to prevent a paying out the 1150/1160 Calls and definitely the Call Wall at 1200 (and they likely supported the stock yesterday because they don't want to pay out the 1100 Puts).
Max pain is at $1115, up from $1100 Monday and $1105 yesterday. Looks pretty good to creep a bit higher and close at $1149. Booooor-ring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisStockGood
Yep, the automakers are already telling us they are going to ask for bailouts if you read between the lines. Of course, it will be couched as necessary to help the workers and save the pensions of the retired autoworkers.

In 2008 GM made the case that the American automakers were worthy of government guaranteed loans so they could re-tool to make fuel efficient cars. They got the money and proceeded to make bigger trucks than ever, bigger SUV's and stopped making smaller sedans and passenger cars, saying they couldn't make them at a profit. But they didn't say it like that, they said the American consumer doesn't want smaller more efficient cars, there is no demand. And, of course, if they can't make them efficiently, there is no demand because they cost too much. It's a manufacturing problem, not a demand problem. A much smaller car should cost much less to make.

This problem is compounded by the wealth divide. If all the profits flow to the top 20%, then new car buyers will have a surplus of money and will be able to easily afford big, fuel guzzling cars. Then the trickle-down autos will be used fuel guzzling vehicles for the lower-middle class to buy when the top 20% decides to upgrade to the latest and greatest. When I was young there was a surplus of used, efficient cars on the market. The used car buyer in America today has no such choice. For the same amount of money they can buy a big powerful guzzler or an old, sacked out Honda Accord. This is a direct result of the wealth divide and it benefits oil companies by keeping new car production focused on supplying the market with gas guzzlers. The automakers and the oil companies with their big refineries are almost one and the same - they are co-dependent. It's time to break that co-dependency.

I say, enough with bailing out the big automakers who always promise to make smaller, more efficient vehicles but, as soon as they get the money, then turn around and say "There is no demand for smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, we make what the market wants or we go out of business". This distortion of capitalism has gone on long enough, let them eat their own words - don't give them money to build smaller, more efficient vehicles because they have already told us there is no demand for that! Let's take them at their word. No more money to make EV's, there is no demand for EV's. They will take the money and continue to make big gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's.

How many times will the American tax payer be fooled? We can't blame this on politicians because we are the ones who let them do it. Let's let capitalism work!
Reposted just in case you didn't read this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul_SF
Separate from but really a continuation of my prior post, my letters to our client base have included, for the last 6 or 7 quarters, reference to how TSLA no longer is strictly an Aggressive Growth stock but a Safe Harbor one as well, joining other long-term Safe Harbor holds like AAPL, SBUX, AMT, COST and V, although none of those also are Aggressive Growth.


Mod Note, though: mention of those other names in passing does not provide a means to veer this thread off of a discussion of TSLA.
 
Unfortunately, I decided to wrap up presents for my contractor and his family and get the Christmas cards going (yes, the old fashion kind with hand-written greetings and well wishes; I know!!!) and missed the entire one hour, thirty-eight minute and twelve second sale that these suckers were available for. Now I will have to patiently wait for the Tesla kazoo. *sigh*
Don't you have four Teslas? A good tradeoff, I'd say.
 
Porsche Whistleblower: “60% of all delivered Taycan have battery issues that caused replacements, damages and fires”

Every time I see non Tesla EV showing off impressive charging speed I think ... yep thats cool but how many times can this battery handle it.

The real lead Tesla has on today's competition will show in 3-4 years, when differences in long term durability and reliability will become apparent.
 
Every time I see non Tesla EV showing off impressive charging speed I think ... yep thats cool but how many times can this battery handle it.

The real lead Tesla has on today's competition will show in 3-4 years, when differences in long term durability and reliability will become apparent.
Reading the article, it’s worse than that. Some of the worst issues are at slow charging speeds. So if you frequently trickle charge from 110v (I do), your battery is screwed. Or if you leave it in direct sunlight for too long (I also do this).

Their battery warrantee is utter crap and it’s pretty clear why.