TL;DW, summarize please?
-
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
Their lease securitizations suggest you might be incorrect as to the %.
Remember that at higher vehicle values, especially, a prime motivation for leasing is the ability to gain better tax treatment than would eb the case of direct depreciation of a purchased vehicle. Such cases are largely unaffected by purchase options at 'residual value'.
Despite common misconception 'residual value' has nothing directly connected to resale value. It is a contractual termination value at full lease termination. Nothing more or less. Purchase options at lease termination sometimes are beneficial to the lessee sometimes for the lessor. For lessees for financing purposes leases are, in most countries, a seriously bad financial arrangement simply because residual values are frequently subvened and the money factor rarely is, except for very high quality (i..e. those who lease for tax benefits).
Similarly capitalized cost for non-tax lessees is invariably inflated.
In short tax-based leasing si a good deal for nearly everyone. Finance leases are a major profit contributor for dealer and are highly difficult to decipher. Bluntly, very few people who have not been directly involved with auto lease design understand much about them, even auto dealers F&I people usually do not understand.
Large auto dealer groups DO understand this and therefore frequently are major lessors on their own. Some, such as Penske (UK and US), began as lessors of trucks. Commercial leases, though, are an entirely different business, far outside our scope in this thread.
I've been catching up on posts here, waiting to the end to address this.
I voted against the board on that one only.
The only purpose of deep sea bed mining would to gain an ultimately cheaper mineral resource. It is a question of economics not a vital supply resource that can't be found elsewhere. There have been test bed studies that show sea bed mining leaves a desert in it's path and is incredibly harmful.
It needs much further study and analysis before it is allowed, and the International Seabed Authority has been dragging it's feet for some years now in determining regulations because of the uncertainity.
What We Know About Deep-sea Mining — And What We Don’t
Some countries hope to start mining the ocean's floor for valuable critical minerals. But this may pose serious risks for marine life and the planet.
We don’t know. But the non Tesla people in my life mock it ceaselessly and my father and brother cancelled their orders when the numbers were clear.
It’s also unclear still why they throttled back production
And then a couple of things: A more conventional and utilitarian design without stainless and other quirks would likely have sold better up to a point. Pickup owners generally are going to lag car owners in EV adaptation a little, but there is prob still pent up demand.
Last edited:
I don't understand this troll manages to get the car hit these objects, when every video that has been posted by anyone else has the car avoid hitting people of all sizes and shapes.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
?
Just drive the Tesla manually. It will hit any object that you want to hit.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
From a less biased source, I'd wonder. From Dan, I assume it is Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.
Thumper
Active Member
I personally had a pedestrian step in front of me and the MS , driving on FSD, stopped and did not hit him.
cliff harris
Member
Hold on. Your data is that people who dont want one mock it, and your relatives cancelled orders? Thats not data, thats anecdotes. Nobpdy was expecting 100 million sales. If 99% of the population of the planet hate the cybetruck, it can still multiple millions of units.
And what throttle back of production? when? at what point did Tesla claim they are reducing production goals for the vehicle. Show me the primary source.
There has been zero indication of them doing anything other than ramping production as fast as they can.
cliff harris
Member
I would be very happy for Tesla to spend a few million dollars of shareholder funds to sue this guy for defamation. Nothing vindictive, just enough to bankrupt his company and ruin him financially forever.
This is not just twitter banter. Its a guy desperately lying to try and PREVENT life saving safety software being used. He is a dangerous, ignorant man.
To address the first sentence, whatever was going on within Apple on December 1, 2022 is now
moot, with Siri, Safari, and Spotlight to get Apple LLM upgrades in as soon as a few weeks at
their developers conference. This has been an "open secret" to Apple watchers for quite sometime.
Siri for iOS 18 to gain massive AI upgrade via Apple's Ajax LLM
Several of Apple's standard system components are on the verge of receiving significant AI-related enhancements, with Safari, Spotlight Search, and Siri being first in line for the treatment.
appleinsider.com
As for your second sentence, Apple is known to have relatively stable and more-than-competent management compared with other companies. For owners of two billion Apple devices, whatever
they offer in the realm of AI will likely be sufficient no matter what others do.
Last edited:
On the most recent Batteries Included podcast, it was discussed how Chargepoint used a model you describe of servicing chargers/having folks at various locations buying chargers and the site hosts managing/profit from it, trying to make $$ from it, . This model and the chargers eventually become abandoned because it's still not a proven business model that charging can be a big enough profitable business to be worth the high upfront cost.
I personally don't think businesses can make enough $$ from pure charging yet (think gas stations). Charge too high, no one will really use it. Charge too low, you lose $$. If it's too high on corridor routes, most would just take their ICE vehicle.
Tesla had a vested interest in making the SC network awesome since 100% of their customers may or had to use it and unlike gas, they needed the SC network to allow their cars/customers to actually go further than 150-250 miles or a Tesla owner would've never really been able to leave their city.
Pushing this on a 3rd party who again, is only going to do it for profits seems short sighted, especially if it's truly that profitable as you seem to claim. With Tesla cutting expansion, new sites and not wanting to own it themselves, complaining that profit margins aren't what they want (hence, the move to software margins), how are you going to convince a local entity to do this when they really don't care what their customer's drive to their store/destination and Tesla doesn't want it?
The current live/deployed SC network should be fine (for now unless they can the whole service/maintenance team). Tesla will only be shooting themselves/all their customers in the foot if service/uptime got worst. It affects very little other users since most other EV brands can't use the SC yet.
Last edited:
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
You do understand the comment, "would likely have sold better up to a point" that you reference is completely unsupported by the facts, right?
Cybertruck demand for a "less conventional and utilitarian design" is so massive that it will take years to work through the millions of existing reservations on a production line that might be able to ramp to 500K by 2026.
Let's do the math, 2 million, divided by 500K equals 4 years, right? And this is only once the CT lines have ramped to full capacity, so add another year or two for good measure and to account for new reservations coming in.
Nobody will be able to take delivery on a Cybertruck from a fresh reservation for a very, very long time.
Explain how this is a problem for Tesla again?
This unprecedented backlog for a couple million reservations is certainly an indication of "pent up demand" and the "lag" is only because there is no EV availability for immediate delivery of pickups, and there won't be meaningful production and deliveries to new orders from any manufacturer into the near future.
Ford and Rivian are the only other EV pickup lines producing what might be euphemistically called meaningful numbers, and their ramp rate has been glacial so far. GM is just trying to show their shareholders that they are making EVs, and hope nobody notices they aren't making many of them.
Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Then why use Say if this concerns you (which I agree it should?)
There’s no passed involved…
Log into your Tesla account -> profile settings-> shareholder preferences -> verify manually
Where you’ll find:
Manual Verification
Manual shareholder status verifications will be reviewed internally by TeslaPlease submit your brokerage statement as of April 15, 2024. This document must show:
- Your full name
- Number of TSLA shares held
- Statement date of April 15, 2024 (or your April 2024 statement)
- Other information, such as account number, address, and non-Tesla holdings, can be redacted
- Please submit a single PDF document for all your brokerage statements
One PDF file, max size 10 MB
cliff harris
Member
also worth remembering this is cybetruck V1. I expect it to get better and better.
There are scads of videos showing Tesla hitting fake children:
There's basically a cottage industry in trying to make FSD look bad.
I think the latest FSD versions are much better.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
