You triggered bro?

what are you guys even arguing about?
tooth himself is saying that most likely nothing big will come of that lawsuit, yet it gives an inside view of how the company is run.

i mean, what's the point? are you arguing those internal emails and testimonies by musk & the board member aren't real?

Not at all.

ok, so... what's the point?

people are trying to make informed investment decisions here.
i'd say board testimonies and internal emails are definitely something worth talking about.

Of course they are. What I'm saying is that to take them out of context is not smart. Tooth is mad about that.

Btw I'm not really arguing with tooth. I'm right. I just like to make fun of him when he says dumb things. I think of my interactions with tooth as prodding a drunk baboon to throw his **** on the wall. I get a kick out of the spectacle, not much else.

still don't get it. look at the original twitter link:

do you think kimbal's margin calls would have been at another pricepoint if his own lawyer asked him about it?
would rive not have had liquidity issues if kimbal was asked by his own lawyer?
would kimbal know how to calculate earnings per share if his own lawyer asked?

so if you're not disputing those facts ot what happened, what are you arguing about? that nothing will come of the case? well, no one here made huge calls about that.

The most irritating part about TS (and there's a lot there) is the reactions he generates in other people. Like, holy ****, people go crazy.

I think TS is wrong on a bunch of things, but he's rarely wrong on factual things or the logical arguments around those factual things. His issue is usually ignoring/being ignorant of other evidence (by the way, this goes for lots of smart people). Like his arguments on TSLA seem pretty solid and rationale. If he ends up being wrong about it (not talking about a results-oriented meaning of 'wrong') it's almost certainly because he missed / ignored / didn't properly weight some other factor(s).

So if you're trying to argue with him about really simplistically obvious ****, you've probably already lost.

It's all about the framing and a number of other factors. Frankly, I don't feel like spending a long time explaining legal nuance. You seem nice so I'll try to make it quick. It's like is recieving a blowjob sexaul relations or only giving a blowjob sexual relations? (one of the issues in the Clinton impeachment). It could be, it could not be. This is why lawyers get paid a lot of money.

Like, define liquidity issues? It gets grey real fast. To think this is a simple exercise when there are people being paid, or hoping to get paid on the plaintiff's side, millions of dollars is naive. It's very complex and pulling a few lines from a depo or plaintiff's complaint is really bad lawyering in Tooth's case (lol just kidding, he's no lawyer) or just inexperienced naivety in anyone else's. What he is doing is the science equivalent of pulling only the good data from a study and holding it up as truth. (OMG he's not a physics guy either)

well, that's not the case here, is it?

kimbal brings up the term "liquidity issues" himself.

and there's two direct quotes from rive to define it: "Would love to, but cash strapped." & "Margin calls are getting close and need to sell a little SpaceX to get some cash."

what would be your spin here? make that sound good to me as a hypothetical tesla shareholder.

TT you've lost the plot a bit on this one. You started this whole conversation by quoting morishita, not TS. Morishita is actually a lawyer afaik. Your issues have nothing to do with anything going on itt

just to add to that:

i don't care how this plays out in court. we've all seen the fake buyout and what came of it. i don't care about this lawsuit for my investment thesis. all these testimonies do, is confirm what people were already suspecting about the scty merger.

we've all seen that no judge or government agency wants to be the one to bring the company down.

i can already see the headlines when this whole thing is over:
"why didn't the sec do X" - "why didn't auditors do Y" - "why didn't the judge do z?" - "why didn't the board act?"

there is no sec, no auditor, no judge, no wall street analyst and no board of directors to save shareholders.
shareholders begged them to stay away and asked for what's coming.

It's hard to be right on facts when you ignore facts.

It's also a lot easier to have internally consistent logic when you don't even try to address inconvenient facts.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...3-3k-per-week/

If true, Giga 3 would start producing at a rate equal to 41% of Tesla's total production for 2018.

Assumptions:
* Total production (2018): 350,000 cars
* 3,000 M3s per week, 12,000 per month = 144,000 per year

It's pure bullshit of course. Just like when Musk said 5000 per week by the end of 2017 (result: 100 per week). Manufacturing just doesn't proceed that quickly. They'll do 1000/week by mid 2020 I'd say - provided someone wants to buy them, which is a big if.

Isn't it basically not possible for TSLA to be long term zero given their product, factories, and charging network infrastructure? Musk can **** this all up as bad as possible and they'd still be acquired, no? The root of any problem Tesla has all comes back to Musk, and even then it's not all bad. He's high variance.

All the competition out there has their own plan as ICE goes out and hybrid/electric moves in. Particularly the majors, they've probably all taken a look at Tesla, or are keeping a keen eye on them 1) because they're unique and first to the all electric scene, luxury component notwithstanding and 2) because they might make a great acquisition, arguably at perhaps even a perceived high price...Why build into the future when you can just buy what Tesla already has and meld it into the brand and go from there?

Do you have any idea how much property Enron owned? Or PCG? Enron had $60 billion in assets on the books, didn't stop them being a zero.

Who would buy Tesla? What would for example VW gain from buying Tesla? An antiquated factory in high-wage Calfornia with pathetic throughput. A battery factory that Panasonic owns. The FSD is worth <$0 given the severance required to shut it down. What exactly are they buying?

For VW for example, they spent $6 billion on their electrification strategy, using the Taycan as a testbed, and it kicks the **** out of Tesla with a much higher voltage meaning faster charging, no overheating, future proofing and far better sustained performance. The 2020 VW ID.3 with Model 3 superior range at <30K euro is also starting production today. What on Earth do they have to gain from Tesla?

Tesla is definetely worth something, but they also have a ton of debt. Add on that the ridiculous valuation at which Tesla is trading, and there are imo only 3 scenarios at which the current valuation is justified:

1/ ICE is the future of automotive, and Tesla crushes the competition and becomes one of the largest car manufacturers in the world.
I think there are multiple issues with this, mostly:
A/ The scale-up that needs to happen is crazy, we're already seeing multiple signals that Tesla's huge growth days might be over, and that major price decreases are necessary to keep selling current production rates.
B/ The automotive industry is brutal. If a major recession happens before Tesla reaches this scale, all bets are off what will happen with Tesla.
C/ It seems like all major players are also betting that ICE is the future of automotive. Tesla will face more & more competition, and the big players will be significantly less restricted to scale-up ICE production if the market keeps moving in that direction.

2/ Tesla will actually be the first one to solve FSD, and is years ahead of the competition.
I personally think that the probability of this is close to zero. Solving FSD at scale is also probably >10 years away, who knows where Tesla will stand in even 5 years?

3/ Somebody (competitor or some OPEC-country fund) buys Tesla at a crazy valuation.
I think this is the most likely to happen. Still very low probability, I think anyone considering to buy Tesla, is smart enough to wait until the valuation drops significantly. Still, as long as debt is cheap and OPEC-countries are trying to buy up strategic assets, it could happen.

Jaguar was acquired for 2.6 billion with production and sales volume in shambles, selling 200 some k vehicles a year. Tesla sells about as many cars now and its brand/sales are on upward trajectory, even profits and cash flow are arguably improving, so Tesla's floor is probably higher than 2.6 billion.

But I doubt the "rescue" white knight takeover floor is over 10 billion now (it could be post China factory and if the volume at that factory is close to sold out).

Like I have been saying for a while, Tesla actually wants more competition.
1. The firm is already firmly entrenched as THE brand for unapologetically fast EV.
2. Tesla just doesn't have enough money/customers on its own to establish enough of a super charger network to make EVs viable alternative to ICEVs. More EVs, even if they are from competitors, will lead to faster build out of charging stations and expand the addressabele market for Tesla. You saw the same phenomenon with many other markets.
3. Musk cares more about his ego than his wallet. He's probably actually sincere about using Tesla as a vehicle to put as many EVs on the road as possible and making money is not his primary objective.

Can anyone besides Porsche make an EV that doesn't look like dog ****? That 2020 VW ID.3 (great name, too) looks awful. I'd be embarrassed to pick up an order of soy lattes in that thing. Arguably the most valuable thing Tesla has is sexiness, and most of that comes from their styling. The Model 3 looks like a sexy sports car. The ID.3 and the i3 look like some meter-maid ****. The e-tron and iPace are also nice, but not the same price point as the Model 3.


ICE stands for internal combustion engine.

*** BREAKING ***

Tesla announces model C (for carbon).

https://www.spiegel.de/international...a-1293415.html

EU evs spooling up fast. Guess they finally sent a ship over.

Yeah, Europe has never had a month with sales as low as October - it's half their worst quarter.

My theory is they timed the shipping to desperately manufacture a small beat on deliveries, cutting off EU shipping that wouldn't make the delivery date and pumping the rest out in NA which they could deliver immediately. Their inventory went down despite a much higher EU/foreign market mix YoY (US was down 30%), which supports that theory pretty well.

At the same time they hit up suppliers/Panasonic and did other one-time tricks to manufacture a fake profit, which they desperately needed at $240. Had they missed at say 93K cars (because a ship was on its way to Europe), or missed on profit, the stock would have tanked.

Musk is a pretty talented money hustler and stock pumper. And considering the utter **** he has to work with (Tesla), it's even more impressive.

https://marketrealist.com/2019/11/te...s-running-out/