Sadly if there waiting for omicron to go away it’s not going to happen this could go on for months (close/open/close/open) until they give up. let’s hope they change there policy sooner than later.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
He's said, on investors day, chips are solved by the end of this year. That's done. Batteries is the constraint for next year and frankly for 2024 as well.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
What is the current lead time for William Tell Overture Performance Model orders?
I had heard it is getting shorter now that production is ramping.
I had heard it is getting shorter now that production is ramping.
Aside from Tesla, auto companies are more intent on selling stock than selling EVs.
Because the original, patient investors want a big payday?
That's more Honda than GM. Honda is in a really difficult position at the moment.
Words of HABIT
Active Member
Agree with your text in bold above as it relates only to BEVs. However Tesla is more than BEVs, and Energy is just getting started, FSD yet to be released to the masses, Bots are still on the drawing board, and who knows what else Elon stirs in the mix, so no, as a company Tesla is definitely nowhere near the steepest part of earnings growth curve, not even close. Tesla as a company is just beginning. Share price will follow.
Last edited:
Europe looking good! Best quarter ever, even though Q1 is usually not as strong as later Qs. Hope it stays that way with Shanghai shutdown (lots of cars going to Europe from there).
Via @Troy :
Details in our wiki: Wiki - Tesla Europe Registration Stats
Via @Troy :
Details in our wiki: Wiki - Tesla Europe Registration Stats
Japan Inc is the one in trouble in the world and nobody in more trouble than Honda. First, Japan Inc depends on autos to a greater extent than any developed country, just a much greater slice of GDP. Secondly, Japan Inc moves slowly and has made some horrific bets in the past (analog HD TV is the most famous example but not the only one). They bet big...big on hydrogen fuel cells. They are loathe to walk away from that.
Lastly, Toyota has funded climate change denials and lobbied to do anything to stop/slow legislation. They are huge Trump backers, anti US union folks.
The core competency of Japan Inc is still the engine. The next is efficiency. EVs of course have no engine and the lack of parts and simplification of manufacture erode OEM advantage. Virtually anyone can stand up an EV company and judging by the 300 Chinese EV companies and Lucid...they have. Then Honda is particularly at risk because they have the best small engines of anyone. Hands down...the best. Honda mowers, etc they are all the best. EV applications are going to completely displace these products over the next decade and all that investment will be sunk. I can't tell you the number of outdoor machine applications that rely on Honda engines. It's a lot.
Then we get to batteries. Boy Japan inc blew it. Could have been legend. Could have bought the LFP patents 30 years ago, could have pushed all that forward but Japan inc had decided on fuel cells because that maintained ICE competency and differentiation. Now they'll race to be relevant and without Tesla wouldn't be. Panasonics decision to break with Japan Inc made them a bit of a pariah for a decade. Now they'll have to play savior and lead the way for Sony and others to re-establish any footprint. Maybe too late. To think Nissan beat Tesla to market with the Nissan Leaf, now the battery spin out is owned by Envision and they have minority stake. I mean...how stupid could you be. Selling your battery manufacturing capability in 2018...Tesla was knocking on the door in 2018. So there you go. Three Japanese battery efforts, all different, could have owned LFP, could have developed 4680, could have done much. Now playing second fiddle and making the USA look...not as idiotic as Japan.
Last edited:
Would you please spell out your decision criteria for exercise vs. sell for profit, and timing?
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
200 is entirely appropriate for this phase of operation. We're days away from the announcement of how the plan to "dramatically scale" will be executed.
4Q was the first truly cash register profitable quarter IMO and the next two confirm the trajectory. We're still in the 1000% growth phase you noted above. The world is only just now looking at TSLA from an earnings perspective.
Combine that with Tesla being right at the nexus of everything human civilization wishes to accomplish over the next ten years and I think a 150-300 multiple will be palatable for at least the next year.
If there's one thing we know for sure, TSLA will NOT simply churn upward at a rational PE.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Highly complex creatures are fuel cell powertrains. Highly engineered and complex. You actually increased complexity going from ICE to FCEV. Going straight to EV greatly reduces complexity. It is very doubtful that China Inc could have successfully competed with Japan Inc on FCEV for decades. Japan Inc expenditures on FCEV could have funded a sea change in battery capabilities, instead they worked on the moat for FCEVs. They correctly surmised that there was no moat with EVs. it was a lost cause but Japan has been great with lost causes. Sort of a mythos re the same. They are pivoting today but when Ford has pivoted 4 years faster than Japan inc...welp, Japan Inc is in trouble.
The upcoming vote is for increasing the number of outstanding shares and not directly tied to any particular split. eg They could authorize 100x more shares and do a 5-1 split. After that they would still have a bunch of room for future splits without having to increase the limit again.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Some types hydrogen vehicles burn the hydrogen.
true, but then these also maintain and extend ICE moat competency to the OEMs.Some types hydrogen vehicles burn the hydrogen.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Agreed. That is how it works.
It bugs me a little how the media consistently talks about "the vote at the annual meeting to approve the split" as if the board needs a shareholder vote to approve the split.
It didn't need shareholders to vote for a split last time and doesn't this time.
This only reinforces just how little the talking heads actually understand what they spend their time covering.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I imagine the explanation here will be both were intentional as a middle finger to the SEC.
As to how it relates to Tesla, you can be sure the SEC will cite these additional violations of regs in court in their ongoing disputes regarding Tesla as Musk being willful and intentional in his violation of SEC rules and authority.
(and they'd be right- Elon has been pretty clear he has no respect for the SECs rules or authority.... where this gets tricky is he objectively has solid points on why they suck- but so far the actual judges hearing the cases seem more interested in sticking to the rules than how much the SEC sucks)
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
