You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
negative people I assume4 out of 4 panelists on cnbc fast money are negative lol
I thought that was weird too.They use the term from the bill 'binding'... I do not think it means what they think it means...
Binding vs. Non-Binding Contracts - LawDepot Blog
I’m pretty sure he just uses his projections and counts how many cars would be produced between now and the current estimated delivery date for each model. Not super accurate, but it’s a number.
You would think projections/estimations are in whole numbers, not 12032...I’m pretty sure he just uses his projections and counts how many cars would be produced between now and the current estimated delivery date for each model. Not super accurate, but it’s a number.
I can already see how the TSLAQ would portray this number. “Demand for Tesla has flatlined as their order backlog has plateaued”.
CNBC is infotainment and nothing more. Whoever pays the most, gets the slant/spin in their direction (aka FUD)4 out of 4 panelists on cnbc fast money are negative lol
The whole x.com thing is a complete wild card. Elon’s plan might be as simple as modifications to and transparency of Twitter’s algos (along with bot eradication) or as complex as establishing a social media/banking/online sales ecosystem. If the latter, I’d sell my left walnut to get in on it early.For some investors, it may be about what it will be worth in 5 to 10 years based on Elon's plans.
We don't know Elon's plans but the investors do. Maybe there is a 10x at play even with a $54.20 entry price.
There's a simple explanation why Elon sold again, even though he wasn't previously planning on it:Yes. And April he said that he has no plans to further sells. Yet he sold.
I will subscribe to your channelThese twitter hacks are really starting to piss me off.
I almost want to make a youtube channel where I just mock every low-IQ (or high-IQ and intentionally misleading) Tesla troll.
If you multiply the “Prod Per Month” Column by the “Wait Time” Column, you end up with the “Backlog”. The total is a simple sum of those rows…You would think projections/estimations are in whole numbers, not 12032...
Good grief! To think that one of my undergraduate majors was English but I have really incompetent grammar sometimes. I did fix it.You doubt that PayPal as it stands would probably not add significant value??
This may be your best post ever. Simple, clear, definitive. The best representation of my own logic I’ve read. I use too many words. You make it beautifully simple.Speak for yourself only. I signed up for the whole ball of wax. All of it. Everything perceived good or bad. I didn’t go all in over 10 years ago to be finicky, overly critical, or second guess the decisions I might not like.
I did my research. I understood from the start the tremendous risk. I understood Elon was going to be both incredibly predictable and unpredictable all in the same breath.
I only have energy enough for an unenthusiastic eye roll for this last set of Elon selling.
Elon is the best show on the planet and the gift that just keeps on giving. I am entertained, Maximus!
Well , I took Elon at his wordThere's a simple explanation why Elon sold again, even though he wasn't previously planning on it:
"sugar" happens.
Check out the chart in the thumbnail below. April 28 was when he made is no further selling statement. Unfortunately, the market plunged in both May and June and Twitter's value dropped with other stocks. Getting other investors to pledge their buy-in funds after the value of the company has dropped but the acquisition price hasn't is tough work. Some partners won't come through with their pledges. Thus, Elon needs more money to ensure he doesn't have to go back to selling TSLA shares if the court orders or a deal is struck to sell Twitter to him.
Elon is an honorable businessman. Someone on one side or the other of a trade will call him a man who broke his word. It truly is impossible to make all parties agree that he has done the honorable thing.
View attachment 839358
One thing I don't understand is why he has to sell right after the shareholder meeting. I heard the case won't settle for at least for a couple of months, does he really need to prove to the court he has the funding right now?There's a simple explanation why Elon sold again, even though he wasn't previously planning on it:
"sugar" happens.
Check out the chart in the thumbnail below. April 28 was when he made is no further selling statement. Unfortunately, the market plunged in both May and June and Twitter's value dropped with other stocks. Getting other investors to pledge their buy-in funds after the value of the company has dropped but the acquisition price hasn't is tough work. Some partners won't come through with their pledges. Thus, Elon needs more money to ensure he doesn't have to go back to selling TSLA shares if the court orders or a deal is struck to sell Twitter to him.
Elon is an honorable businessman. Someone on one side or the other of a trade will call him a man who broke his word. It truly is impossible to make all parties agree that he has done the honorable thing.
View attachment 839358
As @Curt Renz figured out last Friday, Elon tends to sell shares (his own or shares of a Tesla equity offering) when there's clear demand to buy those shares. In both this recent sale and a prior sale, the extra demand for shares was the approach of a stock split. Elon needed to sell after the recent split was approved (annual meeting) but before the demand for shares had be satisfied. It's a narrow window and thus, his timing.One thing I don't understand is why he has to sell right after the shareholder meeting. I heard the case won't settle for at least for a couple of months, does he really need to prove to the court he has the funding right now?
One thing I don't understand is why he has to sell right after the shareholder meeting. I heard the case won't settle for at least for a couple of months, does he really need to prove to the court he has the funding right now?
Maybe his legal advisors read him the riot act.One thing I don't understand is why he has to sell right after the shareholder meeting. I heard the case won't settle for at least for a couple of months, does he really need to prove to the court he has the funding right now?
Not so fast...
Not saying this is accurate. But this could explain the timing if it's accurate.
1. It likely will help with any negotiations.One thing I don't understand is why he has to sell right after the shareholder meeting. I heard the case won't settle for at least for a couple of months, does he really need to prove to the court he has the funding right now?