Where is your trade from the $150?

Congrats on 56k on that account from almost 3 years ago. Really feel like you're bolstering your case here.

it's not about the lead that they have or don't have. it's about the significance of the lead and the marginal use of an extra mile.
in theory: if tsla has a 100miles lead at an industry average of 250-300, that's significant. people are willing to pay for that because it is useful in their daily life. 3-5 years from now we might be talking about an industry average of 500-600 miles. 100miles more or less at that point will not be as significant.

this is also why a later model3 start will really hurt their long-term outlook. now is their time to deliver and make tons of cash (from the business, not from shareholders) which they need to become a big car manufacturer. the later they start, the harder it gets.

If tesla has an industry average ranged battery but is able to produce it at significantly less costs that still seems valuable?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I trade on 10 minutes - several day time frames. Long bets on high vol names like TSLA are way overpriced.
That $56K is not my account value, that's the PROFIT from that 20 minute trade. I guess you don't use IB so you don't know what it all means. I thought all professional traders did. But it's you that doesn't trade, isn't it?

I stopped posted trades in 2014 when I got dozens of PMs asking for advice, wanting to invest. I only posted real time trades and screenshots the in private 2p2 chat after. But I'd posted dozens of real time entries and exits with solid profit in these forums.

I trade. I proved it...as for you, do you even trade, bro?

No. Why would I trade? This forum has nothing about trading explicitly in the name. Its BFI. Don't see any mention of trading.

I'm just here hoping to clear up your fundamental misunderstandings of various businesses.

But glad you've admitted to not actually posting any trades in the last three years. You had contended that you were doing this previously. I'm happy you're becoming more forthright and less deceptive.

sure. but for how long? some day batteries will be commoditized. they will take up less and less % of the car's total cost, hence their advantage will be less and less significant. plus, batteries are a highly competitive business, just staying in the race will cost them tons of cash (which they do not really have, their competitors however do).

This is another thing where TSLA is behind on. Trump-level branding from nerd-Trump with words like "Giga"factory fry your brain and make you think they're at the cutting edge - a lot like their "Fully Self Driving later this year" bull**** (can I please have automatic braking first, sir?), and their "machine that makes the machine" bull**** designed to get losers to think they'll have some magic advantage in car manufacturing (as if cars aren't already built by the machine that makes the machine); it's nearly all cutting edge robotics in many factories.

You're being had, sir. And here's some indication:

And the "Giga"factory (you can't just call it a factory; that is so boring and not futuristic and doesn't help idiots to buy your stock so you can sell secondaries) is owned by Panasonic, not Tesla - they will sell it to whoever comes knocking.

The amount of money going into batteries and battery research and battery factories is truly extraordinary; it dwarfs TSLA's spending. Success and market lead in new basic technologies tends to flow to research dollars spent. You can see that in the solar industry, for example.

Finally, Tesla's battery pack model is likely to be an expensive mistake. It worked when he was buying cheap off the shelf batteries, but it has many flaws. The Porsche Mission E, for example, has a battery design that charges in 15 minutes, because it has far higher voltage. Indeed, an automaker consortium in Europe is making chargers that dwarf the "Super"charger stations (there's that cuck-friendly superlative prefix again).

So yeah. I think the idea that TSLA will have some large advantage in batteries going is:

- Unproven
- Improbable

Meanwhile, the current insane valuation requires that that number is 100%.

Why can't people just admit they don't know what is going to happen? It's that simple with this name, also I think it's ridiculous how some can't separate the stock from the company. It's pure momentum, the valuation is insane.

just look at it this way, tsla is trying to compete in a lot of fields against some of the biggest companies in the world, who are highly profitable and have basically infinite ressources. they are competing against every car manufacturer, every battery company, every company that's in autonomous driving and, since they wanted to have solarcity, every solar company in the world.

to become that big battery-, solar-, car-behemoth that some people think they will be, they will need to gain a significant share and stay competitive in all of those market.

problem is, those companies are the likes of GM, LG Chem, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Google, Intel (since they bought Mobileye) and so on.... they all have infinite amounts of cash, tsla balance sheet is already ****, and it's not getting better without diluting shareholders.

adding up capex and r&d of those companies, just in the fields in which they compete against tsla, will be well over 100bn$/year. tsla is spending about 2.5bn$, financed by dilution....

Add to that the fact that their only success so far is in losing vast sums of money subsidizing the sale of expensive novel toys to rich people, and it's not looking good.

They've missed every single deadline they've set. They've accelerated cash burn while they (and analysts) predicted profitability just around the corner. They alienated suppliers by acting recklessly and decapitating one of their customers; MobileEye's sudden breakup and pulling support for Tesla is thought to be because of this event; 9 months their in-house team can't even do emergency braking.

The only thing Tesla has ever succeeded at is pushing subsidized toys (on which they have a monopoly, because they're not viable to build and sell without the subsidy) out to rich people.

Quoting a former GM exec's estimate of Tesla's battery cost (estimating it is ~20% higher than GM's mind you) seems quite ridiculous. Aside from the fact that you are using an article titled "Tesla's Battery Pack Costs Are Cheaper Than You Think" as a counter argument to their lead in battery tech.

I know you love to ignore the chart in this article https://electrek.co/2016/12/01/tesla...ry-cost-chart/ but if Tesla has such a large lead in power packs I don't understand why it is unfathomable to believe they have an equally large lead in car batteries.

To me the most shocking thing is that we are even still having this conversation considering we are 20 months from this slam dunk prediction.

Why is it that people who like Tesla have problem parsing the meaning of simple text? It's incredible.

Idiot Tesla bulls and some in the financial media were claiming that there might be upside to TSLA because Apple might be wanting to acquire it. I was pointing out why that was absurd - that if Apple wanted to make their own car, they'd be far better off poaching Tesla talent, destroying the value of the company, and THEN buying it - hence there would be no upside if Apple turned out to be so interesting in making a car that they'd acquire Tesla. I was mocking the notion that Apple would buy or would want to buy Tesla at $33 billion + premium. I bolded the bits where I make that plain to help you out.
It was a hypothetical to counter the notion insane bull notion #334 that Apple was about to buy Tesla, which was another one of the idiot bull's claims and which rumors sent the stock soaring.

Do you see an Apple offer for TSLA?

Anyway, Apple reportedly abandoned their car project last year - I have no idea why - so the interest in both Apple's acquisition and what it meant for Tesla - a disaster due to poaching and competition - also finished.

This was your response to the Apple news in September 2015.

We must have different definitions of "finished".

What is the timeline here? 20 months and counting not to mention new all time highs.

The prediction was completely wrong. Certainly enough time has passed for it to play out, but it was finished a year ago with the news that Apple were abandoning their project. The decline was predicated on the claim that Apple was getting in the electric car business and hiring thousands of engineers, which was widely reported in reliable media. Either the story was false or Apple abandoned it (who knows why). Had they continued, it would indeed have been the end for Tesla. A high end, stylish, brand recognized, endlessly capitalized (100s of billions) competitor with serious hiring power and supply chain weight would have let to the decline of Tesla. The project didn't eventuate.

The meaning of the headline is that Tesla battery packs could be far cheaper than the enormous cost they are today. A Tesla battery pack currently costs many hundreds of dollar per kWh - why do you think they're losing billions on $80K cars with <$30K worth of non-battery parts?? Being "cheaper than you think" doesn't mean they have a lead. Indeed, the article quotes $190 as being "cheaper than you think". I have no problem thinking that TSLA are at $190/kWh, it seems reasonable.

The chart is chart is cost per warranteed kWh, not cost per kWh. Unlike other battery packs, Tesla offer an enormous 10 year warranty to get sales and make it look like a good alternative to grid power. Many of these packs won't last 10 years; Tesla are basically pushing replacement costs into the future in a kind of ponzi scheme. It's smart if dishonest business, but it has nothing to do with Tesla's cost per kWh.

I'm open to the idea that Tesla could obtain an advantage. So far there is no evidence of it, and indeed, 10s of billions are being spent every year on research and battery factories in lower-cost places than Nevada.

I'm happy to take GM's claim on battery pricing for LG. It was privately shown at a conference and reported. I can't imagine any PR reason for reporting that; it will create downward pressure on LG's prices with GM's competitors. It's a stupid thing to do.

Tesla in line with schedule for Model 3.

Pretty quick $25 shaved off ATHs, who is buying/adding?

LOL. The actual article title is: Tesla cutting it close with Model 3 production.

Tesla have a 0% success rate on meeting their own timelines; they have frequently been over a year late. That the robots just got delivered indicate that Tesla are way behind.

You think they're going to be on time for the biggest production ramp yet? There's about a 0% chance of that. There's a world of difference between making 30K extra cars in a year on top of current production, and making 400K new cars in a year - of a new model, no less, for which they're getting paid $40K, not $80K - $120K (so far less fat and room for error). Yet this is the change that Tesla are promising when they say they'll get to 10K/week run rate in 2018.

Long term like 10 years out I think you're looking at it all wrong arguing whether Tesla or GM or whatever car manufacturer will "win" the electric car market. I think the earnings of Uber will dwarf all car manufacturers once they make car ownership obsolete for everyone except a small segment of the population. Global annual car sales will fall off a cliff. All the money will be in providing rides not in selling cars that hardly anyone buys anymore. It's the software that's valuable not the hardware.

And how are they going to do that? Uber isn't going to win the autonomous car race. In fact, they've practically guaranteed they will lose it with their recent actions.

Maybe it won't be Uber, but they are certainly the favorites right now even with their current legal and PR troubles. The winner is much more likely to be a software and marketing company than a hardware manufacturer like Tesla or GM though. Uber doesn't need to have the best and safest driverless car technology they just have to not be like 50% worse than their next competitor to win because of their already massive userbase. The amount of cars sold per year WILL drop drastically in the coming years and that money that was previously being spent on car purchases will instead go toward purchasing rides.

This conversation is probably better suited for the Uber thread but I disagree.

Why would you stick with Uber if the prices were higher? The switching costs are 0 and driverless cars will be a lot closer to the way airline fares work today. People only care about the price and don't stick to one platform. Building up the userbase is incredibly easy. Running the business model is difficult and if Uber has to buy all the cars, they'll be out of the market soon. Companies like Tesla (GM most definitely not) will be able to build up their own and have lower costs of acquiring the cars.

The analogy to airlines only works if 90% of the population could afford to buy a 747. The car manufacturers still have to compete on price with regular consumers or they will go out of business. There's already hundreds of ride sharing companies and yet Uber owns 80% of the market. The 20% savings or whatever # the car manufacturers save as profit by using their own vehicles instead of purchasing from an outside vendor is a very small competitive advantage compared to the data that Uber has already collected on millions of rides.