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.
Did I miss the conversation on the bomb dropped in this Jeff Dahn video about 4680 progress?

"going from wet to dry electrode"

"bringing that equipment up to mass-production scale"

"those challenges are virtually now overcome"
That info was announced on the Q2 call. And here is an article talking about that quote from Q2, and the tweet a few weeks ago on the progress in Texas.

Article from Jan 3, 2023

 
Last time I checked over the last 2 years the bears have still won and haven't actually lost money if they held the short.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and start saying this will be the single best performing stock over the next decade.
Short sellers lose money everyday until they take profit as they are hammered with interest. And if any short actually shorted the stock at 150 2 years ago and the stock ran up to 400, that short seller most likely got squeezed out 9.9 times out of 10 as the person have lost almost 2x their money. There's no way to hold that dumpster fire unless the short seller triple down at sky high interest rates just to cover collateral. We know even the biggest bulls capitulate at 70% down, imagine being 200% down.
 
Again, I am definitely not an expert on this and it may be that Cybertruck will be approved, or modified so that it will be approved, but I do think it is very silly to jump to the conclusion that any post that raises any question about Tesla would be repeating TSLAQ talking points.

The statement I took issue with:

I thought they would not be permitted under EU safety rules, due to how dangerous they will be to pedestrians.

That allegation is most certainly is a TSLAQ talking point and it's a false allegation because there has never been a Cybertruck tested under European NCAP protocols for pedestrian safety. We have zero reason to believe the Cybertruck would fail those tests and every reason to believe that Tesla has designed the Cybertruck to pass them.

Like any new, untested car, it's still an unknown but what I find ridiculous is that armchair safety experts are claiming the Cybertruck will somehow be more lethal to pedestrians without any evidence that it's true. If anything, the hood that slopes to a relatively low height compared to a traditional 1/2 ton pickup (which can be sold in Europe) would seem to be safer, not more deadly, than the tall vertical front of traditional trucks but we simply won't know until the tests are performed.

Your statements were simply repeating unproven and non-sensical TSLAQ talking points that argue the Cybertruck will be too dangerous to be sold.
 
Markets are more complex than the simple rule of buying X shares brings the stock price up so much and selling X shares pulls the stock price down so much. Instead, buyers and sellers are affected by expectations as well as disinformation.

Take, as an example, the inability in recent days for TSLA to climb above $200. Market makers and hedge funds have been shorting TSLA as necessary (capping) to keep TSLA below 200 when it is quickly heading for a higher price right after market open. If you were planning to sell some Tesla and you saw TSLA moving quickly upwards, your tendency, if you wished to maximize profits, would be to hold off on selling until TSLA looked closer to a top. What the capping through short-selling does is create an artificial top for the day that would not otherwise be present with normal market dynamics. The seller sees TSLA bounce off 198 and head down to 197. He decides this is the best TSLA will do for the day and sells here. His selling may contribute to a further dip in the stock price. Meanwhile, there are buyers waiting on the sidelines for either a deep dip or a strong increase which they don't want to be late buying into. When TSLA bounces off 198 and settles lower, these sideline buyers decide there's no reason to invest in TSLA this day because the stock is clearly not going to run much higher than it already is. They stay on the sidelines and fail to put upward pressure on the stock.

Of course eventually the cap fails. We saw such a failure in recent days when a known resistance point of TSLA, 167, was breached. Many buyers were aware of the resistance point and when TSLA broke through 167 you saw strong buying take it much higher. A quickly rising TSLA changes both buyer and seller expectations with sellers holding off selling until a higher equilibrium price is reached and buyers accelerating buying so as to catch the run-up early. It's all about psychology. The short-sellers who capped can slowly buy back throughout the day if they have succeeded in holding the cap, and they can finish with buying to cover during the 4pm closing cross when that buying has negligible affect upon the day's stock price and even less affect upon the inclinations of buyers and sellers going forward.

Shorting a stock during the day and then covering during the 4pm closing cross is just one technique for holding the stock price back. There's spoofing, as well, where hedgies and MMs may put in large sell orders above a certain price without the intention of actually selling. If the stock price gets too close to this selling price, they will pull the order before it is executed. What the spoofing looks like to an advanced seller or buyer with access to the TSLA order book is that there's a price above which TSLA will not rise because of the abundance of sell orders just above that price. Sellers decide that since TSLA won't rise above that price, they'll sell below. Buyers see TSLA unable to climb above that price and figure there's no more upside for the day (best to hold off buying until another day).

I'm sure @Artful Dodger and others could expand upon these observations, but the bottom line is that not all buying and not all selling affects the stock price equally. That buying or selling that changes the expectations of the market clearly has a larger affect on the stock price than trading that doesn't.

Hoping this explanation has been helpful.

Very clear and insightful post. Would like to propose this post to go to the thread "Moderators' Choice: Posts of Particular Merit". 🙏
 
What a tragedy that Elon chose to ignore the advice in that letter. It was absolutely spot on.

Much respect for Ron Baron.
He didn't ignore the advices in the letter, he has followed advice #2, he hasn't donated to any politicians or parties since 2020, and Tesla has stopped contributing to politicians via PAC or directly since 2020 as well.

As for advice #1, it's hard to ignore your antagonists when they're literally part of the US government, I bet Baron didn't see this one coming.
 
I think it is interesting that they claim their battery warranty is better. But only on half of the terms, as Tesla is 8 year/120,000 Mile, so Tesla could make the same claim. (For me the extra time Hyundai offers would be more valuable, as I am unlikely to hit the 120k mile limit in 8 years.)
Hyundais battery warranty HAS to be better. None of these cars has more the 100k on the odo and by their ultra fast charging times they will not hold up longtime. It’s a marketing plot for a shortcut in the bloody race to catch up to the leader. These batteries are ripe with max cobalt.

Simple 1x1.
 
This looks a bit more promising than the usual "battery breakthrough!!!" papers.


Anybody want to offer an informed opinion?
Sounds interesting. I'm curious what the depth of discharge was to get the 1000 cycles. For instance, a typical LFP battery might get 3,000 cycles at 100% DoD, and 10,000 cycles at 60% DoD.
 
This looks a bit more promising than the usual "battery breakthrough!!!" papers.


Anybody want to offer an informed opinion?
Seems a bit similar to QuantumScape.

The challenge is going from lab-scale, bench-scale to mass production.

I tried to decode an interesting Tesla (Maxwell) patent in the engineering thread.

Lyten and GMG are also interesting battery concepts, and much closer to mass production.

I think that one of these will eventually work, but no idea which one.

I would like the Tesla patent to work out, it seems to offer higher energy density, lower cost and support for Sodium-ion, Aluminum-ion and others. But I suspect it also is barely lab-scale and a long way from mass production.
 
Seems a bit similar to QuantumScape.

The challenge is going from lab-scale, bench-scale to mass production.

I tried to decode an interesting Tesla (Maxwell) patent in the engineering thread.

Lyten and GMG are also interesting battery concepts, and much closer to mass production.

I think that one of these will eventually work, but no idea which one.

I would like the Tesla patent to work out, it seems to offer higher energy density, lower cost and support for Sodium-ion, Aluminum-ion and others. But I suspect it also is barely lab-scale and a long way from mass production.

A couple of things stood out for me:

"cathode is that it is made of molybdenum phosphide, which is abundant and inexpensive" - molybdenum is not that cheap, it is 3x the cost of Cobalt, or particularly abundant (less than 2x production of Cobalt). Apparently there in increased demand from the steel industry, and producers are really struggling to increase output.

"they developed a lightweight polymer-ceramic composite" - does not sound easy or cheap to make.

"One key problem with using Li2O at room temperature is that the transition state — Li2O2 –would rather donate its electrons back to oxygen. How do the researchers keep that from happening when by definition there is lots of oxygen available? They freely admit they don’t fully understand the process yet" - Lots of theoretical work still to do.


The actual paper this is based on is in Science https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347

Looking at the suplementary material (I don't have access to the actual paper) the production processes they used are costly in energy and time, they would have to be completely changed for mass production.
 
Short sellers lose money everyday until they take profit as they are hammered with interest. And if any short actually shorted the stock at 150 2 years ago and the stock ran up to 400, that short seller most likely got squeezed out 9.9 times out of 10 as the person have lost almost 2x their money. There's no way to hold that dumpster fire unless the short seller triple down at sky high interest rates just to cover collateral. We know even the biggest bulls capitulate at 70% down, imagine being 200% down.
Yes there is the interest + if you got in at a low you most likely would have exited at 400 (or earlier) unless you were Bill Gates but my main point is more that we should not be saying that this will now be the BEST performing stock over the next decade.
 
Yes there is the interest + if you got in at a low you most likely would have exited at 400 (or earlier) unless you were Bill Gates but my main point is more that we should not be saying that this will now be the BEST performing stock over the next decade.
Law of big numbers dictates that Tsla will not be the best stock over the next decade. It may just out perform the other megacaps but there will be some small or micro cap stock outpacing tsla by 5-10x easy.
 
The statement I took issue with:



That allegation is most certainly is a TSLAQ talking point and it's a false allegation because there has never been a Cybertruck tested under European NCAP protocols for pedestrian safety. We have zero reason to believe the Cybertruck would fail those tests and every reason to believe that Tesla has designed the Cybertruck to pass them.

Like any new, untested car, it's still an unknown but what I find ridiculous is that armchair safety experts are claiming the Cybertruck will somehow be more lethal to pedestrians without any evidence that it's true. If anything, the hood that slopes to a relatively low height compared to a traditional 1/2 ton pickup (which can be sold in Europe) would seem to be safer, not more deadly, than the tall vertical front of traditional trucks but we simply won't know until the tests are performed.

Your statements were simply repeating unproven and non-sensical TSLAQ talking points that argue the Cybertruck will be too dangerous to be sold.
Alright, let me clarify and rephrase then: I am certainly no expert on safety and have never claimed to be one, all I know is that I have read that Cybertruck cannot be sold in the EU now as it does not currently fulfil EU regulations and that in the EU, emphasis is put on passive protection of vulnerable road users, including energy absorbing structures. In my layman opinion, it is reasonable to assume that a very heavy steel car may have problems meeting these requirements, but I am happy to be proven to have erroneously jumped to that conclusion. For those interested in Euro NCAP testing, some information here Lower Leg Impact | Euro NCAP
 
He didn't ignore the advices in the letter, he has followed advice #2, he hasn't donated to any politicians or parties since 2020, and Tesla has stopped contributing to politicians via PAC or directly since 2020 as well.

As for advice #1, it's hard to ignore your antagonists when they're literally part of the US government, I bet Baron didn't see this one coming.
Elon and Tesla have been attacked by politicians all along the way, of course Baron saw it since it was already happening.