Here is the actual spy video of the Apple car:

Subfallen,

The way Elon would have gone net negative is basically by creating non dischargable debt in excess of his various bankruptcy exemptions. By far the most likely option is that he obtained all those loans fraudulently.

That is the joke. It seems you aren't aware that it is damn near impossible to go net negative without sizable student loans or being an outright criminal. (I guess there are some marriage/divorce related circumstances.) But this is another case of where you are repeating something that someone has said without any idea of its veracity while simultaneously mocking someone else for a lack of facts.

Mihkel,

I am absolutely certain that Elon Musk and Steve Jurvetson know what they are talking about when they say net negative net worth.

You are trying to argue semantics, it's laughable.

Is this just an appeal to authority or can you specifically point out what I'm missing? I'd love to learn.

Thanks!

You have not demonstrated how a negative personal net worth is impossible. So I assume your argument is based on the fact that someone could declare private bankruptcy and be clean of the debt (given that you specifically mention student loans where this would be the case). This leads me to believe that you equate negative net worth with bankruptcy which would be a false equivalence.

Tesla trials trial software and DLC:

I assume this is for Tesla owners who haven't activated the feature but got the gear on the car?

Oh, sorry, I forgot the other fact that Elon's voice is like a virus spread by sound waves, and anyone who hears it IRL is immediately transformed into a PR functionary for Elon's personal brand.

So of course Jurvetson (a Stanford MBA and world-class VC) cannot be trusted to accurately represent the effect of Tesla's financing arrangements on Elon's net worth, since HE HAD JUST HEARD ELON SPEAK NOT EVEN 15 SECONDS EARLIER. Duh. My bad.

fake

also watch the video in that channel S:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitl...ink#.uk8za9bDz

People need to realize that when autonomous vehicles can be built at scale, everyone will be beholden to the car manufacturers. Like Tesla, Ford, GM, and Google.

Nothing can change the fact that Uber cant manufacture autonomous vehicles, and their entire business is at stake because of how laughably easy it would be for any of these companies to create a ride sharing network that communicates through an app on a smartphone and completely usurp Uber and Lyft's entire business.

Further, someone is going to build an app that can turn your personal car into a ride sharing service while you sleep, at work, or on vacation. Just like people airbnb their places for big local events-- worldseries, superbowl, conventions, inauguration, etc.

So honestly, I've got no idea why people trash Tesla like autonomous driving will only be possible in 2040, or that it has to be "90%" safer than humans, w/e. Have you seen Google's cars? Those things look like they arent even designed to go past 35mph. You guys are just completely pulling arbitrary numbers out of your ass, and it makes no ****ing sense, because the recent congressional hearings demonstrate that ****ing no one has any idea how to build a regulatory scheme around it. So Tesla and Google are just going to keep pushing forward until the technology will make regulation moot. Their technology will be so good that it wont matter, and if Google's plan is to deploy cars locally for small trips that feature no highway driving, I would bet everything that their cars are already atleast 1 order of magnitude safer than human driving. People ought to look at mortality rates vs speed before they just spew garbage around here.

aggo,

That is totally absurd. Like the idea that Uber which has raised billions of dollars and is valued at 2x Tesla (albeit a small slice of their company with favorable terms) can be replaced by 12 guys coding for a month or that any of these competitors has the know how. (Develop and distribute an app to hundreds of millions of users, globally.)

Furthermore you appear to be out of date with your news: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/18/11...cedes-bmw-audi

So I guess they'll probably figure out a way to either buy cars, develop their own tech they can retrofit to existing cars, or partner with a smaller carmaker to build SDC.

I dont understand why you would use that link to refute my argument, because it only supports my thesis-- that Uber is completely beholden to car manufacturers. It doesnt matter how much they are worth privately, they dont manufacture cars. They dont manufacture hardware. They dont install hardware. Uber writes software, and at some point they will be forced to marry their software into cars that they cant manufacture themselves in a timeframe which will effectively guarantee that they will not be anywhere close to first to market.

Unless they announce a partnership where they bring certain technology and software to the manufacturer, they are going to sit at the back of the bus while manufacturers use partnerships with software and hardware companies that have actual demos that more align with their business plans. Like Nvidia has with drive PX 2 with the major car manufacturers.

So if autonomous driving cars can be manufactured before Uber can acquire them, private citizens are going to be able to share their car while they sleep, work, or vacation.

But Apple is worth more than Daimler.


https://global.handelsblatt.com/brea...pple-over-icar

Note the VLP-16 in the front.

Clarification from Tesla (or at least from a VP of Investor Relation) on two important points that have been discussed recently itt:

Electrek has requested a transcript of the call so take the above with a slight grain of salt.

I'm going to short TSLA into the print next week. Should be interesting, I think you would be crazy to invest in TSLA up here. Valuation is astronomical and it's definitely optimistic to think they can grow into it....

That reasoning is as strong as "got up on the wrong leg, going to short TSLA."

Even if your call is correct, you're reasoning was certainly not the reason why you got there.

Shorting a company because the valuation is astronomical?? See NFLX.... The risk is to the downside IMO and the potential reward when it does come crashing down is too lucrative to pass up.

"See NFLX" perfectly sums up your reasoning. Thanks for sharing, stop shorting, you'll get burned - one way or the other.

okay I'll go sell out of all my puts and short positions right now, thanks! on a side note, 30% of the float in TSLA is short, so I'm not the only crazy one that should close my shorts........ I'll run really fast and go tell everybody.

Who do you think is crazier/holding more risk on a 1 month, 6 month, 5 year time frame? The longs or the shorts?

Didn't you say you don't even trade? The Musk nut huggers in this thread are weird people.

You have claimed repeatedly to have never traded anything other than options so the hypocrisy here is pretty thick.

Anyway, lemme know the trades you advocate. You have never before, but that is w/e.

His short thesis is terrible, it's finger in the air and hope.

Long term TSLA is a clear long, 1-6 months I don't give a ****.

Yeah I don't trade. This thread is not for trades only.

I'd love to see someone include the cost for shorting TSLA in this comical imaginary trades.

But lets make this "imaginary neckbeards make fake trades" thread.

TBF I can see why TS pushes every thread into a discussion about trading. Look at what happens when he tries to discuss the underlying business models or technology?

Because?

Tesla is priced at over 50% of Ford while making 1% of their cars, at a massive loss (Ford has a P/E of 8 paying 4% in dividends).
They'll make 80K cars/year this year.
By their own most optimistic estimations, they'll make 10% of Ford's cars in five years time, not at a profit.
They consistently and reliably overpromise and underdeliver.
The next stage of their development involves mass market, low margin competition, against competitors with 10+x the productive capital each, enormous cash flow, and economies of scale.
They are burning cash like crazy.
They competing in one of the most cutthroat free market industries in the world (very different to the space industry, for example, where a low competition pork barrelling oligopoly was the norm).
Have no moat of patents or proprietary tech that matters.
Their current advantage (the expensive unnecessary work they've done to duct-tape engineer not-ready battery tech at a loss) will soon be commoditized as battery factories pop up like mushrooms in China, and tens of billions are poured into battery research, commoditizing batteries and making them cheaper than ICE, at which point everyone will get in on the game with hundreds of billions behind them.

How on Earth is all of your upside not priced in? They're clearly already priced with extreme amounts of optimism.