Why don't Tesla make a trailer with a battery pack under the floor. Then we get the extra range when we need it. Could be for general hauling. And someone like Airstream could build a camper on top of it.
-
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
Why don't Tesla make a trailer with a battery pack under the floor. Then we get the extra range when we need it. Could be for general hauling. And someone like Airstream could build a camper on top of it.
Unless it pulls off some sort of Wall-E move where it would stack up the grass in a nice easily organized compressed cube (heck, maybe even sell it to farmers as hays maybe.
), I see limited deployment in domestic settings. Because you'd rather have long grass that sticks to the ground than all of them laying freely on the ground.
I doubt that Tesla wants the liability involved with people handling that kind of voltage in uncontrolled locations. Also this has been discussed many times before in various threads, and the conclusion has always been that you lose as much as you gain.
ByeByeJohnny
Active Member
This is why I never see a doctor. There's a 50% guarantee he/she is below average at doing their job.
Jeffries raises price target to 2500 from 1200...in case you are wondering what is going on after hours.
Something up? TSLA up $23 after hours. Have not seen anything yet.
Edit: never mind.
Edit 2: Philippe Houchois. Tip Ranks 433 out of 6890, someone who has a reputation that is worth keeping. +22% for year.
Edit: never mind.
Edit 2: Philippe Houchois. Tip Ranks 433 out of 6890, someone who has a reputation that is worth keeping. +22% for year.
Last edited:
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Well into the next century?
Sometimes it can be hard to see the bigger picture when you are trying to look at through a magnifying glass. In 5 years you will see a huge improvement in Supercharger availability in less populated areas and in 20 years the US Supercharger map will be almost solid "pins" and will likely start contributing profit to Tesla's bottom line as abundant solar/storage electrical energy becomes more widespread. But, no, in 80 years there probably won't even be a Supercharger network! That's too far to accurately project anything.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
so the short interest from August 14th has been published and the trend -- of gradual short covering -- reversed. The previous peak was April 15th which was followed by seven consecutive reporting periods of lowered short interest. Looking at the chart the high of $1643 was hit on July 20th and the price declined. By the prior report (July 31st) the stock price had leveled off in the mid 1400s, but then on August 7th the price started to decline, bottoming out on August 11th before climbing again -- either despite the increased short interest or it had reached even higher levels.
This is an unprecedented level of value at risk. Since the apparent $15B ceiling was disproven July 15th when it was nearly $20B this is now just a bit more than $20B. Of course, on the 14th the stock price closed at $1650.71 and here we are at >$2000 so if the shorts are not conceding it is about $24B now. The next report will be for August 31st, fortuitous from my perspective as it will put a clear number on the shorting level post-split, though we will have to wait for September 10th to find out what that is.
To put things into perspective for those who put any faith in @ihors3, he reported that the short interest had continued to decline rather than increase with an error of >13%. Last year when the stock price bottomed out he claimed it was all weak longs selling and that the shorts were covering. In reality it was shorts piling on at the bottom. Even so, his error was only 10.4% (which he made up for by then claiming that short interest was increasing when they were in fact covering, giving him a 12.8% error in the other direction).
He has been even more wrong, his winning figure was just under 19% error Feb 14, 2020 when he was still claiming short covering was substantially less than it really was. This was during the run up toward $1000. Since December 14th, 2018 (the oldest data I have) the first standard deviation for his error is 7.18%, but even more significant is how consistently wrong he is in the direction of the change in short interest.
Most likely this is simply revealing limitations in his model and data sources rather than anything nefarious on his part, but it does illustrate the peril in relying on his claims.
This is an unprecedented level of value at risk. Since the apparent $15B ceiling was disproven July 15th when it was nearly $20B this is now just a bit more than $20B. Of course, on the 14th the stock price closed at $1650.71 and here we are at >$2000 so if the shorts are not conceding it is about $24B now. The next report will be for August 31st, fortuitous from my perspective as it will put a clear number on the shorting level post-split, though we will have to wait for September 10th to find out what that is.
To put things into perspective for those who put any faith in @ihors3, he reported that the short interest had continued to decline rather than increase with an error of >13%. Last year when the stock price bottomed out he claimed it was all weak longs selling and that the shorts were covering. In reality it was shorts piling on at the bottom. Even so, his error was only 10.4% (which he made up for by then claiming that short interest was increasing when they were in fact covering, giving him a 12.8% error in the other direction).
He has been even more wrong, his winning figure was just under 19% error Feb 14, 2020 when he was still claiming short covering was substantially less than it really was. This was during the run up toward $1000. Since December 14th, 2018 (the oldest data I have) the first standard deviation for his error is 7.18%, but even more significant is how consistently wrong he is in the direction of the change in short interest.
Most likely this is simply revealing limitations in his model and data sources rather than anything nefarious on his part, but it does illustrate the peril in relying on his claims.
Semi-Mod: Enough discussion about range. It's all been said before, and it's in the wrong place. --ggr.
Tes La Ferrari
Active Member
Looks like Tesla offering Model 3 chrome delete is solely responsible for the $25 AH price increase.
Tesla is bringing chrome delete to Model 3 - Electrek
Tesla is bringing chrome delete to Model 3 - Electrek
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
After-action Report: Tue, Aug 25, 2020: (Full-Day's Trading)
Headline: "TSLA Shakes off Morning Dip to Close near Intraday High; Major Upgrd Aftr-hrs"
TSLA 1-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $305.98B
TSLA 6-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $184.35B
Nota Bene: Mkt Cap on pace to unlock CEO comp. 3rd tranche Sep 07, 2020
'Short' Report:
Comment: "Options trading halted on some Exchanges; Retail shorting dries up"
View all Lodger's After-Action Reports
Cheers!
Headline: "TSLA Shakes off Morning Dip to Close near Intraday High; Major Upgrd Aftr-hrs"
Traded: $21,306,572,400.33 ($21.31 B)
Volume: 10,658,857
VWAP: $1,998.95
Closing SP / VWAP: 101.24%
(TSLA closed ABOVE today's Avg SP)
Mkt Cap: TSLA / TM = $377.074B / $186.572BB = 202.11%
Volume: 10,658,857
VWAP: $1,998.95
Closing SP / VWAP: 101.24%
(TSLA closed ABOVE today's Avg SP)
Mkt Cap: TSLA / TM = $377.074B / $186.572BB = 202.11%
TSLA 1-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $305.98B
TSLA 6-mth Moving Avg Market Cap: $184.35B
Nota Bene: Mkt Cap on pace to unlock CEO comp. 3rd tranche Sep 07, 2020
'Short' Report:
FINRA Volume / Total NASDAQ Vol = 48.5% (48th Percentile rank FINRA Reporting)
FINRA Short/Total Volume = 58.7% (54th Percentile rank Shorting)
FINRA Short Exempt Volume was 0.37% of Short Volume (43th Percentile Rank)
FINRA Short/Total Volume = 58.7% (54th Percentile rank Shorting)
FINRA Short Exempt Volume was 0.37% of Short Volume (43th Percentile Rank)
Comment: "Options trading halted on some Exchanges; Retail shorting dries up"
View all Lodger's After-Action Reports
Cheers!
CyberDutchie
Active Member
OT: I brought my car in for repair and got to chat for a bit with a Tesla advisor. I told him I may want to trade in my 4-year old X for a new one before Tesla stops making them.
He said Tesla won't stop making the X and there are many enhancements planned, including Plaid in a couple of month, a tri-motor version, and an interior refresh. Was surprised he volunteered so much information, definitely going to wait for what's coming to Model X next.
He said Tesla won't stop making the X and there are many enhancements planned, including Plaid in a couple of month, a tri-motor version, and an interior refresh. Was surprised he volunteered so much information, definitely going to wait for what's coming to Model X next.
Any idea on the pricing of weeklies at strikes 50% above the SP, in the recent months, years?
I was also anyone here been selling weeklies.
I am particularly interested in the pricing of the weekly calls at 50% above the SP?
This Monday (08/24), I looked at the option prices for 08/28.
Although they seem to give return 08/28 $2550C was $7.15, i.e., 1.4% per week, the option prices right now might not be a good sample, given that there are some events upcoming soonish.
I was wondering at what return the weeklies tend to be priced at for strike 50% above the SP.
I was also anyone here been selling weeklies.
I am particularly interested in the pricing of the weekly calls at 50% above the SP?
This Monday (08/24), I looked at the option prices for 08/28.
Although they seem to give return 08/28 $2550C was $7.15, i.e., 1.4% per week, the option prices right now might not be a good sample, given that there are some events upcoming soonish.
I was wondering at what return the weeklies tend to be priced at for strike 50% above the SP.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
No. It usually takes very little volume to move the stock price outside of normal trading hours.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
