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

[Tslynk67]

Think about those toddlers and infants, their eyes are much more sensitive than adults'. They might need laser goggles.

 

[sundaymorning]

January 14th Tesla registered 11,121 new M3 vins, 100% dual motors.

Model 3 VINs (@Model3VINs) on Twitter

Highest vins way above 240,000s.

 

[lklundin]

In the Munich Tesla store I was told 0.17 € / minute, i.e. 0.085 € / kWh @ 120 kW. (Mod: edited at user request. --ggr).

Barring some misunderstanding, the Munich Tesla store misinformed me regarding the price of supercharging, since I was apparently quoted the tier 1 price without any mention of the tiered pricing structure, nor the power limit of 60 kW. Without this information, I could not avoid incorrectly deducing that the supercharging price under ideal circumstances would be 0.085 €/kWh.

I deliberately write 'misinformed' because in the Tesla community it is common knowledge that Supercharging should optimally be done at the highest power possible and the Tesla staff should know this too. As such it would have been more fair to give me the tier 2 price (of 0.34 €/minute) - or explain the tiered system, which under ideal circumstances corresponds to a price of 0.17€/kWh, i.e. twice as much as one would deduce from the information that I was actually given.

It must be assumed that (in Germany) Tesla buys its electricity not at retail but at utility price, which is around 0.13 €/kWh. So considering the cost of establishing and maintaining the Supercharger stations, I would say that 0.17 €/kWh is a good price.

On the topic of the maintenance of the Supercharger network, the crowdsourced monitoring of the European CCS upgrades now indicates that about 30 Supercharger locations in Europe have (some of) their stalls upgraded to also support CCS.

 

[nursebee]

I'd like to apologize for interrupting the useless chatter round here

https://research.ark-invest.com/hub...b82977f8|7114deb8-15db-4540-81d7-4a5f7de51e66

 

[Dan Detweiler]

That's the thing: China is basically a 52th U.S. state, using a currency that is tightly coupled to the dollar (the Yuan), doing much of the U.S.'s high-tech manufacturing.

The "trade deficit" is basically an artifact of that arrangement, and the "tariffs" are basically a tax on U.S. high-tech companies like Tesla or Apple, and on U.S. consumers. Tariffs are also hurting consumer spending in China ... the largest market of many U.S. high-tech firms.

This is why Trump's China tariffs have triggered a 30% drop in the NASDAQ and are causing recession fears - the Trump administration is misunderstanding how the U.S. economy works.

The "trade wars are easy to win" statement by Trump turned into "our own foot is easy to shoot" reality.

Sorry but if China is the 52nd US State, then who is the 51st? The last US history course I took in high school only had us at 50. Did I miss something? lol

Dan

 

[SPadival]

Huh. Do people not know that u/cliffordcat is a notorious anti-Tesla troll who got perma-banned from r/TeslaMotors and then made his own anti-Tesla sub because of how mad he was about that? Posting in that guy's sub is like commenting on Seeking Alpha. Don't waste your time there unless you hate your mortal lifespan and wish to destroy it more quickly.

I wasn’t aware of the history. Anyway, as I said I was posting good news while complying with the rules - it didn’t take much effort and cliffy amused me, trying to come up with some excuse to ban me. I won’t be going back. It’s pretty dead in there.

 

[Carl Raymond]

I think they're trying to suppress the stock and make it unappealing to investors. They don't care about losing a few million in order to do this.

Mmm. Either stupidity, or malice. If it’s malice against cleantech as we stare down the barrel of the Keeling Curve, then that is stupidity. Let me start again...

Either it’s stupidity, or it’s malice *and* stupidity.

 

[lklundin]

Denmark is a tiny country with pretty low consumption that can dump it's excesses (or borrow from) Sweden, Norway and Germany.

Wind power wont be more than a supplement. It's too variable. Power generation goes to the fourth power of wind speed, so forecasts being off by just hugely impact power generation.

It's nowhere near as predictable as solar. It can generate nothing for weeks at a time then generate at 100% for weeks at a time. Adding a full day of storage to something like that doesn't increase the capacity factor as well as something like solar.

Offshore wing is not cheap either, it's triple the cost of onshore wind, and future price declines are 100% in solar's favor since wind still needs huge amounts of steel and concrete structures.

When we get all of our power from renewables it's going to come from solar in sunny places with dependable sunlight for all seasons pumped to where it is needed... For Europe that means Northern Africa.

When all the fossil plants are dead that's when the nuclear plants should be taken offline, IMHO.

About 15 years ago, traditional wisdom held that any power grid would become unstable if as much as 8% of its power came from wind turbines. So getting to 50% takes a number of small steps. None of these require per se a small country, I will try and list them below (although I may forget some):
1) A climate with sufficient wind is necessary - and a sufficient area is necessary.
Denmark has been a pioneer in this and has accepted this rule of thumb for the amount of electricity that can be harvested from a given area on the sea:
E = pi * 10 kWh / m^2 / year
A well run (0.91 capacity factor) nuclear reactor with a 1 GW nameplate capacity will annually produce 8 TWh of electricity.
A 16 km by 16 km wind turbine park in the North Sea will produce the same.
Parts of the USA are as favorable (except for the even lower cost to establish land based wind turbines).
2) From the North Sea and to some extent also the Baltic Sea enormous amounts of electricity can be harvested, due to their shallow waters (e.g. 40 m) and prevailing wind patterns. The UK, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have built and are building substantial wind turbine parks on shallow banks in these waters. The most recent pricing I know of is 50 € / MWh for sea based wind turbine electricity, which is good enough that no subsidies are needed (other than access to the fair market). I believe US land based wind turbines allow for 20 $ / MWh, i.e. much lower.
3) The wind turbines are now so tall that most birds typically fly below the area swept by the turbine wings.
4) Political will is required to make this work. Poland has reserved areas for wind turbines in the Baltic, without further progress. All Russia has done is to let its navy harrass cable laying ships (in international waters).
5) Specifically, the regulators have to put into place a fair and open market for the exchance of electricity. Denmark is part of Nordpool, which has an order book (with ask and bids) open to the public, with contracts settled daily for next day delivery (in increments of 1 MWh). This is part is non-trivial, in some countries (e.g. Spain) the established electricity producers have subverted the regulators and control the market at will.
6) Excellent interconnectors between grids are essential for this power exchange to function (not only technically but also economically). Sea cables are much easier to get permission to lay, so again the North Sea and the Baltic Sea is a great advantage, especially to Denmark that lies between them. As for the permits, that is again a question of political will, China has for example no problem to prioritize the good of the country over the individual land owner.
Since the above plot was made, the interconnectors of Northern Europe has grown with new ones on the way. The Cobra Cable between the Netherlands and Denmark is underway, and the even longer Viking Link between England and Denmark is also progressing (although the Brexit may change its feasability to the point that it gets cancelled).
7) Unlike the above plot, no serious grid is based solely on wind. Rather, a mix of electricity sources is necessary to ensure the grid stability. As such, the degree to which one can rely on non-dispatchable electricity sources (such as nuclear, wind and PV) depends on the access to (either locally or via interconnectors) dispatchable power sources. Depending on local factors, an optimal mix of wind and PV seems to be up to a factor 2 more of one than the other. The single most useful dispatchable power source is hydro. Denmark has excellent interconnectors to Norway and Sweden, that have enormous amounts of hydro power (and they themselves curtail the use of that resource with a growing number of wind turbine parks). Other mountainous and rainy regions exist (Northwest America?). For the non-dispatachable part of the grid, traditional sources can over time be replaced by an increasing fraction of a combination of wind and PV, with a higher amount of PV in more sunny (and less windy) parts of the world.
8) Numerical weather forecasting of the wind is an important part of predicting the next day's supply and thus the pricing. As such weather forecasting, specifically of wind patterns is now a growing business.
9) The pricing mechanism of the electricity market can benefit from compensating traditional turbine driven electricity producers, so they choose to remain operational although the only actually deliver power at a small fraction of the time (corresponding to a low capacity factor). Having large, idling turbines connected to the grid helps to stabilize the frequency.
10) An emerging factor in favour of non-dispatchable electricity such as wind and PV is the large battery banks that Tesla makes. Especially as larger numbers of used BEV battery packs become available, this has the potential to allow for even more wind and PV than what is currently seen.

 

[Fact Checking]

Or can we really assume that the process of inclusion is completely objective?

Yes I believe it's 100% objective, despite the S&P committee having discretion: they would have to significantly break their own inclusion rules to not include Tesla.

Note that Twitter only narrowly met the inclusion criteria last year (only had around $10m of cumulative profits), yet was included.

Big passive index funds try to gather re-indexing shares in advance - the committee won't interfere with that.

 

[Fact Checking]

Sorry but if China is the 52nd US State, then who is the 51st? The last US history course I took in high school only had us at 50. Did I miss something? lol

Dan

Small joke: "50 states" is a political, not an economic term, so I tend not to use it in economic discussions.

Gives me the opportunity to make these points:

Both Washington DC and Puerto Rico are part of the U.S. economy, with around $100b economies each, yet neither are states politically. There are 10 U.S. states with less GDP.

Both territories/districts will eventually gain full political representation as they should. (I expect Puerto Rico to be added the moment Democrats have the presidency and the Senate as well: in 2020 or 2024 at the earliest.)

So economically the U.S. has 52 states if we require an economic size of at least Vermont, and China is the virtual 53rd.

 

[shlokavica22]

So economically the U.S. has 52 states if we require an economic size of at least Vermont, and China is the virtual 53rd.

What are you trying to achieve with this claim? Do you expect us to take seriously the claim that somehow China is under US "rule" (political or economical)?

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Small joke: "50 states" is a political, not an economic term, so I tend not to use it in economic discussions.

Gives me the opportunity to make these points:

Both Washington DC and Puerto Rico are part of the U.S. economy, with around $100b economies each, yet neither are states politically. There are 10 U.S. states with less GDP.

Both territories/districts will eventually gain full political representation as they should. (I expect Puerto Rico to be added the moment Democrats have the presidency and the Senate as well: in 2020 or 2024 at the earliest.)

So economically the U.S. has 52 states if we require an economic size of at least Vermont, and China is the virtual 53rd.

Ah, ok. I've been to Vermont. What it lacks in economic impact it more than makes up for in natural beauty...especially in the fall. I certainly prefer it over both D.C. and Puerto Rico, but hey that's just me. lol

Dan

 

[Pezpunk]

generally i just buy and hold, but a few days ago i sold 10% of my shares hoping to buy back in lower. so now i'm in this weird limbo where i feel conflicted whether the stock goes up OR down! (right now, it's basically in the exact same spot as where i sold)

 

[jbcarioca]

OT
If Apple builds iPhones in China, sells in US, and in the end American company gets the $$, how does the trade deficit thingy work?
I am sure they are many more US companies that do the same ..

Good question. Luckily, There is decent data to evaluate that question:

We estimate China only makes $8.46 from an iPhone – and that's why Trump's trade war is futile

The $8.46 referenced is really gross margin, rather than actual cost, but total US content of current generation Apple products should be much higher than the $228 mentioned in this article. Few have publicly assessed what would happen to trade deficit were Apple to assemble in the US. It seems likely there would be neglible net effect other than loss of much of China sales.

FWIW, aircraft, and other high-technology products tend to assemble in large local markets even though, due to widely dispersed parts sourcing the net economic value of such operations is primarily cosmetic, but offer some savings in shipping and final assembly costs..sometimes.

Specific cases in point: Embraer and Bombardier US assembly, happening specifically to nominally have US production credibility. Now that those aircraft are majority owned by Boeing and Airbus, respectively, that is less material since both do US assembly for most US-destined aircraft already.

For motor vehicles the biggest news is that BMW, Mercedes-Benz and VAG all produce many SUV in the US destined for export to China, Europe and elsewhere:

German car exports to China from U.S. fell 37 percent in 2018: Auto Association

Investing.com

An interesting aspect of this is that all US vehicle exports to China actually dropped more than that percentage. Automotive News (paywall) has had quite detailed evaluations of parts and materials sourcing, model by model.

By all indications, I think, but have not the exact data to prove, that Tesla has among the highest US content of US vehicle exports (~80% to ~50% depending on model- peresent S the least, present MR 3 the highest). More importantly Tesla has by far the highest US$ export value per vehicle of any US exporters.

Present US trade policy seems mostly centered on brand names, so ignores exports by foreign companies from the US, and also US-controlled (albeit, GM giving Europe to PSA, and Ford struggling so sharing with VAG just as they’ve tried in the past). Even though Tesla seems ignored in all this furor, it seems Tesla is perfectly positioned to weather the storm. First, TE is growing in reputation, capability and price competitiveness, all three at the same time. Second, Tesla automotive products are still several years abreast of competitors.

Anybody who doubts the last assertion needs to evaluate the Jaguar iPace, new BMW i3S , Hyundai Kona as comparison. From pure initial driving, they are all nice, but none have real OTA, none have solid integrated nav/charging planning, none have the net driving experience. All of them are worthy, but...

I tried them all as I was doubting I wanted to wait so long for another Tesla. Then my spouse pointed out the reality: none of those are really directly conpetitive as an ICE-replacement for us.

All this adds up to Tesla undoubtably continuing as a major US exporter with acceleration as GF-3 opens. Why? top-end M3, all S and X will be produced in the US and exported to China. One way or another duties will not hamper those models from being both well priced and profitable.

Obviously, the conclusions are my opinion, not facts. Nonetheless, they are part of my pricing model for Tesla shares. I am long TSLA.

 

[Fact Checking]

What are you trying to achieve with this claim? Do you expect us to take seriously the claim that somehow China is under US "rule" (political or economical)?

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the economic reality that China's trade deficit to the U.S. is an artifact of the contract manufacturing China has been doing for the U.S. for decades.

Politically and culturally China is of course a proud, independent, sovereign nation. Economically, in terms of the U.S.<->China trade deficit of around 500 billion dollars a year, it's grown to the hip of the U.S. and the U.S. has grown to the hip of China - and the operation without anesthesia the Trump administration is performing right now is predictably very damaging to both countries.

Under no way do I claim that China is under the 'rule' of the U.S. - it's a symbiotic relationship.

You are free to reject my analogy, and I admit that it's not a perfect one.

 

[Fact Checking]

Ah, ok. I've been to Vermont. What it lacks in economic impact it more than makes up for in natural beauty...especially in the fall. I certainly prefer it over both D.C. and Puerto Rico, but hey that's just me. lol

Dan

Absolutely - I'm not arguing for the exclusion of any U.S. state, I'm arguing for the inclusion of Puerto Rico (and full political integration of DC), but this is getting seriously off topic.

 

[jbcarioca]

...Since the tail's mostly being pinned on the Trump donkey...

Are you quite certain that that is not an elephant?

 

[shlokavica22]

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the economic reality that China's trade deficit to the U.S. is an artifact of the contract manufacturing China has been doing for the U.S. for decades.

Politically and culturally China is of course a proud, independent, sovereign nation. Economically, in terms of the U.S.<->China trade deficit of around 500 billion dollars a year, it's grown to the hip of the U.S. and the U.S. has grown to the hip of China - and the operation without anesthesia the Trump administration is performing right now is predictably very damaging to both countries.

Under no way do I claim that China is under the 'rule' of the U.S. - it's a symbiotic relationship.

You are free to reject my analogy, and I admit that it's not a perfect one.

It's simply misleading.

generally i just buy and hold, but a few days ago i sold 10% of my shares hoping to buy back in lower. so now i'm in this weird limbo where i feel conflicted whether the stock goes up OR down! (right now, it's basically in the exact same spot as where i sold)

Some possible actions you might choose to take:
- sell short term put option at strike you are happy with. If the stock goes down, you will get called on the option and you will end up with a cheaper stock (compared to the case where you buy the stock today). The negative is- you will miss on a sudden upward stock move.
- sell short term put option and with the same money buy midterm call option.
- buy midterm/long term call option

 

[avoigt]

Could be his car is in the first batch on sea now...


Kristof Lambrecht‏ @Kristof_1978
Tesla just called to schedule my Model 3 delivery for end of February.

#tesla #model3 #belgium

4:12 AM - 15 Jan 2019 from Kortrijk, België
Kristof Lambrecht on Twitter

Just received a call from Tesla. My 3 is on the boat as well with delivery end of February/ early March. Looks like Tesla has learned a lot and is now much more reliable with dates they confirmed.

IOW, Germany is included in the first batch of EU deliveries.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Absolutely - I'm not arguing for the exclusion of any U.S. state, I'm arguing for the inclusion of Puerto Rico (and full political integration of DC), but this is getting seriously off topic.

I thought topics were totally arbitrary here. LOL!

Dan