06-15-2017 , 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Just like when a boat is being lifted by the tide, we could make the point that the rise makes it more likely the boat has levitation abilities using your logic above.
It does, and the higher the boat goes the higher the probability. At 100m above sea level the probability will be close to 1. At 0m it will be lower(close to 0) and -100m even lower given some reasonable assumptions.

Anyway, can we please stick to just posting information relevant to Tesla and leave our difference in conclusions to ourselves?
06-15-2017 , 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heltok
So my background is in sensor fusion and probabilistic robotics. There when we get a measurement we usually assign it a mean and a covariance, that is we describe it by moments. Anyway, there is a duality to this representation called the information canonical form where the information is the inverse of the covariance:
http://ais.informatik.uni-freiburg.d...slam07-eif.pdf

So anyway in this case we get two measurements of two very different increases. One has a large mean 3*10^6 and the other a smaller mean 7. So we enter the measurement into two different system matrices. Since it is very complex systems, and frankly we have pretty much no idea how they work, we set a very low information to these measurement. My point is anyway that no matter how low information we assign to it, it will still be have a mean affecting inference on the system in the same direction. This is what I meant by that this measurement indicates that the market believes it is more likely. Give all the other data inference might indicate a different relationship, but this single measurement is indicating this.
Would be pretty awesome if you were the TSLA bear ITT...
06-15-2017 , 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heltok
Anyway, can we please stick to just posting information relevant to Tesla and leave our difference in conclusions to ourselves?
So post in an investment forum and not discuss opinions on said investments?
06-16-2017 , 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipRick
Would be pretty awesome if you were the TSLA bear ITT...
Not for my bankroll :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me
So post in an investment forum and not discuss opinions on said investments?
I do post in some investment forums, some private ones and also TMC/reddit etc. Not super active in the latter.

I see investing as a three part endeavour
1. Gather information
2. Prediction
3. Action

If me and toothsayer have issues with our communication on 2 we can stick to 1 and 3.
06-16-2017 , 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurious
Quick question to those who say be wary of the competition:
Have you missed that HUGE Diesel scandal? The so called competitive industry had to cheat in order to sell their stuff. If they can only get ahead by cheating how can they compete with an innovative company that has a fraction of the workforce?
I think this is an example of backwards thinking. To me it demonstrates how competitive the auto industry is and how these companies aren't willing to participate in a sector at a loss. Diesel sedans compete with gas, and its not easy

Maybe I'm missing something but tesla cars are just cool e-cars that don't make money. You can offer a luxury product at a loss and the luxury market will put down a deposit and wait for it as if its a Manhattan condo building still under construction. When tesla gets to the point they want to start mass producing cars at a profit, that's when competition will step in and it doesn't seem like theres too many obstacles for other auto makers.

Not that many people are putting down a deposit and on a waiting list for an entry level car. Thats going to create a massive amount of risk and competition for tesla. Pre sales are a financing method for a money losing business at this point

Tesla may be able to keep advancing the company and hold a big e-car market share, but this is not going to be easy imo. It's valued as a successful mass production auto company, not as a niche luxury car company
06-16-2017 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez
Maybe I'm missing something but tesla cars are just cool e-cars that don't make money.
Tesla makes a lot of money on their cars, gross margin is around 25-30%. But they spend even more money on operating costs such as R&D, administration and capital expenses thus making an operational loss per sold car. Investors who are long thinks this is a great idea. Investors who are short Tesla thinks this is a terrible idea. Time will tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez
When tesla gets to the point they want to start mass producing cars at a profit, that's when competition will step in and it doesn't seem like theres too many obstacles for other auto makers.
One obstacle is lack of batteries. If all the major Auto manufacturers are gonna be making >500k BEV/year each in 2020 there will imho be a severe lack of batteries from LG, Panasonic.
06-28-2017 , 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heltok
Tesla makes a lot of money on their cars, gross margin is around 25-30%. But they spend even more money on operating costs such as R&D, administration and capital expenses thus making an operational loss per sold car. Investors who are long thinks this is a great idea. Investors who are short Tesla thinks this is a terrible idea. Time will tell.
If gross margin on an \$80K car with low quality interiors and no middle man isn't at least 30%, something is very very wrong.

You're mischaracterizing the bears imo. No one thinks spending money in a way that improves the long term viability of the business is a bad thing. But Tesla doing that isn't what's causing the money sink. They're just burning money.
Quote:
One obstacle is lack of batteries. If all the major Auto manufacturers are gonna be making >500k BEV/year each in 2020 there will imho be a severe lack of batteries from LG, Panasonic.
Factories are popping up like mushroom all over Asia. Just how many BEVs do you think are sold now? BEVs + hybrids? They all have batteries and the total number sold already dwarfs Tesla.

Question for everyone: do you think the next capital raise is likely to be soon? They certain need it and would be crazy to not take advantage of these highs. It'll also mean a very quick stock drop.
06-28-2017 , 03:42 PM
I don't get why the hell they are not raising money but I think Elon wants no dilution. I would load the **** up now. I would raise quite a lot and have a comfortable cushion for the upcoming recession/downturn (another thing I don't understand why it hasn't arrived yet).
06-28-2017 , 04:12 PM
They only just escaped lockup from the previous shareholder raping, so he couldn't have done it more than a couple of weeks ago. But the next month or two it would be crazy to not to take some more cash. Particularly with interest rates on the rise (TSLA are \$17 billion in debt).
06-28-2017 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Factories are popping up like mushroom all over Asia. Just how many BEVs do you think are sold now? BEVs + hybrids? They all have batteries and the total number sold already dwarfs Tesla.
It's not the the quantity of factories that matters, it's the output volume. And the Chinese factories actually being built which I have seen figures for don't really have a large volume compared to the output of GF1. The chart that was being posted everywhere underestimated GF1 projected output by a factor of 3x.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Question for everyone: do you think the next capital raise is likely to be soon? They certain need it and would be crazy to not take advantage of these highs. It'll also mean a very quick stock drop.
Seems likely. They did recently get some extra credit from DB:
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/2...on-approaches/

But I assume some large constructions are gonna start in China soon and they won't be cheap. So I would guess some capital raise in Q3/Q4.
06-29-2017 , 12:02 PM
Lawsuit against Tesla, hasn't really made the news rounds, unintended acceleration events.

06-29-2017 , 12:10 PM
I think the odds are that it's nothing - Tesla have a more instantly responsive pedal that likely explains this. Still. The data that's emerging is making it clear that Teslas are far less safe than other late model luxury cars. And discovery is an issue that adds some level of risk.

The German motoring authority's report that Tesla autopilot is unsafe is another recent data point.
06-29-2017 , 01:30 PM
Teslas generally have a much higher instant torque, thus an incorrect acceleration (pressing the accelerator instead of the break pedal) will more often lead to accidents.

Fwiw I asked my Tesla representative about the autopilot, what would happen if I slammed the accelerator in traffic and she said that the AEB would prevent an accident by braking. I choose not to verify that claim...

We will see what the outcome of this is, but I would be very surprised if Mark B Spiegel will be right in that this lawsuit will sink Tesla.
06-29-2017 , 01:36 PM
Yeah ignore Spiegel, I couldn't post the "discovery guaranteed" tweet without his.
06-30-2017 , 04:43 AM
07-02-2017 , 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Your own statements prove that you don't invest. Your own claim is that you don't and can't beat the index on a risk adjusted basis:

Thus, by your own reasoning, you have no edge in Tesla and may as well buy a penny stock instead, or Ford, and stop wasting your time thinking about stocks.

This is just comical dude. You're wiping the floor with yourself.
You are such a fool...

I am willing to take more risk than the average investor, so my return will be greater than the market (probably not on a risk adjusted basis though, based on the current accepted definition of risk)

Funny how you haven't responded to the question on how you define risk..
07-02-2017 , 09:34 AM
He doesn't know what it means. He just throws it out there, since it has multiple meanings and is fairly nuanced as a concept.
07-02-2017 , 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez
If your stock nose dives below \$300 and is still there a year or two from now, its not good for them. This could easily happen since its a company skyrocketing on perception and not profits in a market, and more specifically the tech sector, that took off like a runaway train which inflates all prices.
If the stock price is below \$300, how would that impact the company?

I agree with you that this could easily happen. The value of Tesla is not derived from the current profitability of the company, it comes from the probability of executing on a vision and the profitability of the company in that future state.

Quote:
I'm not saying Tesla fails long term but it is still very possible. The competition hasn't really even stepped in yet and it is a competitive industry. Companys that have a history of turning a profit will certainly step in as e-cars become profitable. imo this is going to be a lot harder than stockholders think. I'm not talking about a single factor working against TSLA stock price, there's actually a few.
Juan, i think the most interesting thing to consider about this bear case is --> Where will these legacy auto makers get the batteries and what will be the cost?

Quote:
My opinion is that anyone holding it now should consider the downside is far greater than the upside at \$380 in the near term and although you see some global domination or revolutionary company here, the road to get there could be a lot harder than you think. I hope the people holding here are doing so with the understanding that companies like google, amazon, and Facebook are in a very different situation than tesla
I think you are using your frame of reference for big tech companies and applying it to Tesla. They are two completely different business models that require totally different types of investment in capital ex and human capital. Take a look at market caps, Tesla isn't in the ball park of any of the tech companies you named.

Again, i think it is important to think about things over the long term. I have considered the downside (and lived it via 40% stock price drops). But i have also considered the upside and believe the potential return commensurate.
07-02-2017 , 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipRick
Quote:
Your own statements prove that you don't invest. Your own claim is that you don't and can't beat the index on a risk adjusted basis:

Thus, by your own reasoning, you have no edge in Tesla and may as well buy a penny stock instead, or Ford, and stop wasting your time thinking about stocks.

This is just comical dude. You're wiping the floor with yourself.
You are such a fool...

I am willing to take more risk than the average investor, so my return will be greater than the market (probably not on a risk adjusted basis though, based on the current accepted definition of risk)
Chip,
I understand your clownishly simplistic notions of risk and return. I've been trading derivatives for years and I have a ****ing math degree. You have a fool's ultra-simplistic, I-read-an-investing-book-once notion of higher risk = higher return. The difficulty of that doesn't even rise to high school level. That you think anyone here doesn't understand that super-simple concept just shows that you have a horrible theory of mind as a well as a horrible understanding of investing and risk.

What you don't understand is twofold. First, you don't understand - even after I laid it out for you - how your own claims contradict themselves. Hence "wiping the floor with yourself". There's a reason it's funny and that other people are finding it funny. Because it's true. And still sailing right over your head. I'm chuckling, dude.

Secondly, you don't understand that higher risk does NOT equal higher return. I realize you've picked it up and internalized it as some nugget of wisdom reading "Investing for Dummies", but it's not a law of investing. It's something that's true for things like bonds and easily definable setups like mergers, where the outcomes and risk can be calculated. It's not something that's true in general investing or in many equities. In general, in equities, long term return is inversely correlated with risk. I even showed you a pretty graph for that.
Quote:
Funny how you haven't responded to the question on how you define risk..
You're a low rent fool - your own word - and there's no point talking to you. You have zero insight and a closed mind on top of it.

Risk is the variance in expected return. And no, it's not correlated with return for many classes of investment. You are both -EV and taking on larger variance buying Tesla, for example, or a penny bio stock. You are +EV and taking on smaller variance buying Microsoft.
07-02-2017 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
If gross margin on an \$80K car with low quality interiors and no middle man isn't at least 30%, something is very very wrong.

You're mischaracterizing the bears imo. No one thinks spending money in a way that improves the long term viability of the business is a bad thing. But Tesla doing that isn't what's causing the money sink. They're just burning money.
Yea, im sure they have some awesome cash bonfires..

Quote:
Factories are popping up like mushroom all over Asia. Just how many BEVs do you think are sold now? BEVs + hybrids? They all have batteries and the total number sold already dwarfs Tesla.

Question for everyone: do you think the next capital raise is likely to be soon? They certain need it and would be crazy to not take advantage of these highs. It'll also mean a very quick stock drop.
Stock price will tank just like it did a couple months ago after the last capital raise, right?
07-02-2017 , 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipRick
Stock price will tank just like it did a couple months ago after the last capital raise, right?
Very likely, yes. That's what usually happens. I don't think even heltok disagrees with the likelihood of a secondary popping this bubble a little.
07-02-2017 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Chip,
I understand your clownishly simplistic notions of risk and return. I've been trading derivatives for years and I have a ****ing math degree. You have a fool's ultra-simplistic, I-read-an-investing-book-once notion of higher risk = higher return. The difficulty of that doesn't even rise to high school level. That you think anyone here doesn't understand that super-simple concept just shows that you have a horrible theory of mind as a well as a horrible understanding of investing and risk.

What you don't understand is twofold. First, you don't understand - even after I laid it out for you - how your own claims contradict themselves. Hence "wiping the floor with yourself". There's a reason it's funny and that other people are finding it funny. Because it's true. And still sailing right over your head. I'm chuckling, dude.

Secondly, you don't understand that higher risk does NOT equal higher return. I realize you've picked it up and internalized it as some nugget of wisdom reading "Investing for Dummies", but it's not a law of investing. It's something that's true for things like bonds and easily definable setups like mergers, where the outcomes and risk can be calculated. It's not something that's true in general investing or in many equities. In general, in equities, long term return is inversely correlated with risk. I even showed you a pretty graph for that.

You're a low rent fool - your own word - and there's no point talking to you. You have zero insight and a closed mind on top of it.

Risk is the variance in expected return. And no, it's not correlated with return for many classes of investment. You are both -EV and taking on larger variance buying Tesla, for example, or a penny bio stock. You are +EV and taking on smaller variance buying Microsoft.
Sick risk definition bro, you probably spent allot of time generating that google search.

Again, you play a zero sum game increasingly dominated and ultimately owned by by computers . I make concentrated long term investments in companies.

You have NO skin in this game, I own TSLA.

Heads up to any lurkers, you should heavily discount ToothSayer's opinions on Tesla the company. Maybe he will get lucky and get the direction of the stock price right for you over some short term period, but in terms of a fundamental thesis he is very lost.
07-02-2017 , 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Very likely, yes. That's what usually happens. I don't think even heltok disagrees with the likelihood of a secondary popping this bubble a little.
"popping this bubble a little" is how many % off the price that day?

Nice oxymoron, standard intellectual CYA cowardice
07-02-2017 , 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
Chip,
I understand your clownishly simplistic notions of risk and return. I've been trading derivatives for years and I have a ****ing math degree. You have a fool's ultra-simplistic, I-read-an-investing-book-once notion of higher risk = higher return. The difficulty of that doesn't even rise to high school level. That you think anyone here doesn't understand that super-simple concept just shows that you have a horrible theory of mind as a well as a horrible understanding of investing and risk.

What you don't understand is twofold. First, you don't understand - even after I laid it out for you - how your own claims contradict themselves. Hence "wiping the floor with yourself". There's a reason it's funny and that other people are finding it funny. Because it's true. And still sailing right over your head. I'm chuckling, dude.

Secondly, you don't understand that higher risk does NOT equal higher return. I realize you've picked it up and internalized it as some nugget of wisdom reading "Investing for Dummies", but it's not a law of investing. It's something that's true for things like bonds and easily definable setups like mergers, where the outcomes and risk can be calculated. It's not something that's true in general investing or in many equities. In general, in equities, long term return is inversely correlated with risk. I even showed you a pretty graph for that.

You're a low rent fool - your own word - and there's no point talking to you. You have zero insight and a closed mind on top of it.

Risk is the variance in expected return. And no, it's not correlated with return for many classes of investment. You are both -EV and taking on larger variance buying Tesla, for example, or a penny bio stock. You are +EV and taking on smaller variance buying Microsoft.
The more common definition is downside risk.

But why would anyone expect you to know that when what you mostly do is insult people, make basic mistakes about businesses/finance/risk, and prattle about your undocumented trading history.

The personal insults are really just icing on the cake.

PS: I'd love to see a refutation of risk premium across asset classes. glhf with that.
07-02-2017 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipRick
Heads up to any lurkers, you should heavily discount ToothSayer's opinions on Tesla the company. Maybe he will get lucky and get the direction of the stock price right for you over some short term period, but in terms of a fundamental thesis he is very lost.
Chip,
Everyone knows who the idiot is here. You have Mikhel aka Thremp on your side. Enough said.

If you have any actual meaningful commentary and data or news on Tesla, then by all means post it. Right now you're not saying anything. So far you've waltzed in, gave an opinion that reads straight out of the chapter of "Investing for morons 101", and contradicted yourself wonderfully when challenged on it.

In fact if anyone owns Tesla here that isn't an idiot or a Musk cultist, it'd be great to hear from them. I'm looking for a sane bull case. Does no one have one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipRick
"popping this bubble a little" is how many % off the price that day?

Nice oxymoron, standard intellectual CYA cowardice
It depends on the market at the time (Tesla is 3-5x beta) and the size of secondary. Which makes it range from 2-10%, average about 5, for a day.

m