TS,

I'm mostly here to watch you say crazy and incorrect stuff. I don't support Chip. I just think you're a rude and uneducated guy who posts wrong stuff all the time who is likely mentally ill (Narcissistic Personality Disorder, maybe some Grandiosity Complex).

Perhaps if you had a business degree (or a finance degree) you'd understand the basic meaning of words like "risk". Or how businesses operate.

Lol @ correlating narcissism w/ a mental illness. How many people were hospitalized for Narcissitic Personality Disorder this past decade? How many psychiatric prescriptions were written?

Why do you care if someone acts like a**hole on a forum if they provide information or insight that you couldn't simply regurgitate from a finance 101 PowerPoint slide?

It may sting to have your ego bruised, but you should be thankful that someone is willing to challenge your worldview, and quite possibly correct your flawed perspective.

Forget about Business 101 or Finance 101, you might need to take a course in Psychology 101 to learn self-awareness and understanding when you have fallen victim to herd psychology.

Nobody who gets duped realizes it while it is happening to them.

Con artists (like Musk) spend all of their time, not on building profitable businesses, but on conniving ways to prey on weak-minded people to get a hard-on over his B.S. utopian vision for the world, while all he cares about is wiping his anus with your hard-earned dollars

What on earth are you talking about? In finance, risk is most commonly used to describe downside risk. Variance is a secondary definition, and his entire spiel about the lack of risk (in terms of variance) not being correlated with returns is just flat out wrong across asset classes.

That is literally all I'm commenting on. I've warmed up to Tesla actually. Musk appears to be able to raise infinite money and can get away with doing a variety of illegal things. Both are very very strong indicators of future success.

This can't be serious. I'm dying laughing right now. So is Bernie Madoff and all of his clients. We won't even touch Enron.....

In regards to raising money, of course Musk can raise money. Herd psychology indicates that sheep will follow the "alpha" or the "charismatic leader".

It's why Obama got elected, why Trump got elected, and why Kim Kardashian will get elected in 2020 (joking, but do you see a trend developing?).

Reality stars don't make great leaders. They can only run their con for so long before the organization's they lead begin to erode from the inside.

Also, why are you getting your panties in a bunch of over the formal definition of risk? How big of a nerd are you?

LOL, no you are not

So was there any news? I guess he didn't specify which Sunday lol. I saw the news about faster acceleration for the non P versions of model S. Maybe that is what he was talking about?

TS troll account confirmed

he set a date so he's gonna miss it. expect news tomorrow or tuesday.

The announcement is: First model 3 to be completed on Friday. First 30 in July. Next 100 in august, 1500 in September and "looks like" 20000 in December.

So Tesla has confirmed they are behind schedule yet again? Musk originally said he'd hit a 5000/week in September. That's now been moved out 3 months later, with a "looks like" "we can reach", which means he's going to miss.

Musk - nerd Trump - is a genius spin artist. That was a huge positive at lower prices, but it's a warning bell on the stock at this price, not a positive. Because at some point fundamentals will matter, and he's inflated it well beyond with his spin.

The weasel wording is also hilarious. First he promised 5000/week. Now he's claiming it "looks like" he can hit 20,000/month in December (which is actually 4500/week given that a month has 31 days). So his own words confirm that they're going to miss their own claimed production schedule yet again. And even the missed number he's not confident on. Yet rather than present that honestly (4500/week), he's now switched to a month timeline to hide the fact.

Like Enron, one day Musk will be studied in business and marketing school as an example of how to get away with securities fraud for years on end. These aren't honest mistakes any more - he's missed every timeline or production target or profit guidance given, and obfuscates hard to cover it.

Also, the end of the tax credit is really, really going to matter for Tesla in 2018 and 2019. Manufacturers get a $7500 tax credit for the first 200K BEV cars they sell in the US. Tesla will hit that limit about 70K cars into the Model 3.

Meanwhile, most car manufacturers have used little to none of their BEV credits. So there are 750,000+ BEV cars coming onto the market in 2018/2019 that will be $7500 cheaper than a Tesla, or have $7500 worth of extras (+ the manufacturing cost advantages of the majors). That's a HUGE amount of money or features at $35K - $45K per car. It's hard to see how they cope and compete. Indeed:

That's not even considering the vast competitive subsidizing power that the majors have once EVs are worth building for the majors - 10s of billions without breaking a sweat- vs Tesla which has none, and in fact has a 100+ billion money drain as they build up the capital to compete.

Buy/hold Tesla at these highs though guys!

Those examples are the literal opposite.

I'm not sure why you're focused on things I didn't claim. I find it hilarious he's bashing another man's intellect over a finance concept that he doesn't understand. Risk is a nuanced and multi-faceted concept. To toss it out while being so incredibly wrong (Risk and return are highly correlated across asset classes, both in terms of downside risk and variance.) Is just classic TS. Guy still thinks Google is a search company and their search algo is their moat.

If you're an idiot, sure. But arithmetic is a "nuanced and multi-faceted concept" if you're an idiot.
As I've said, it only true for instruments in which risk can be clearly determined. In things like bonds it's very true. When comparing equities, which is what Chip was talking about, risk and long term return are inversely correlated. The moron (and you) think that buying riskier bets means that you're going to get better long term returns on average, which is false. Hilariously false, in fact. I mean, I'm glad that idiots believe it, and that it's become accepted wisdom, or intelligent people wouldn't have outsized returns.
The architecture astronaut strikes. Able to abstract, but not think. A dangerous combination.

This is basic finance 101. Risk means multiple things, what you think it means is not what it actually means in common finance parlance. If you had even bothered to read wikipedia or even spoke to someone who had take a single finance class, you'd understand this. You just openly admitted to having literally no education on the subject.

Show your work. Small caps outperform large in return while having larger variance and downside risk. This isn't up for debate. Its a fact. You can't live with it. Its k.

I don't really understand why the moderation allows you to continue with your stream of wrong and poorly thought out posts coupled with insults and other silliness. But I don't volunteer my time to shepherd a public form.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar...ktcaprisk.html

Stick with what you know. Ranting and raving, maybe some peacocking about your non-existent trading history.

I've given a perfectly valid definition of risk. That you have too little math and finance education (or intelligence?) to understand that it encompasses all definitions (not to mention, put/call parity), isn't my problem.
I already have. You are either blind or stupid or both.
The highest P/E instruments have by far the highest variance (and downside risk) and the lowest return. Guess where Tesla fits on this chart? Guess where the market as a whole fits on this chart if you're buying or holding right now?

I provides lots of content. You're a garden variety troll who provides zero worth, and is unable to even stay on topic. You don't even trade or know basic trading terms....which makes your participation here weird to say the least. Shall we have a contest where the forum votes on who gets banned? I'll gladly do a thread on that. Do you have any balls? Let's find out.

I'm sorry you're upset I made you look like a fool on the autonomous driving thing, and now follow me from place to place doing off-topic, zero content trolling. That's what happens when you have emotional problems and pigheadedly take the wrong position.

Post something on topic about Tesla or GTFO.
Yes, this (and other reasons) are why there is a common wisdom (as I've stated many times) that risk is proportional to return. You can pull small contrary differentials out of any data set if you compare enough items. It's a false belief, though, if you look at all the data.
I've posted multiple trades with entries and exits in this forum in REAL TIME. You don't even trade, so you don't know what that means.

P/E segmentation has never been used to determine asset class. You don't even understand what an asset class is.

That graph does not show variance as well.

Beyond the fact that you keep insisting that risk, as a term of art, is incorrectly used by the bulk of financial professional, wikipedia, investopia, and people like Aaron Brown who manage low 12 figures and dedicated their careers to modeling and describing various aspects of risk.

I don't understand how this is trolling. Without any knowledge of basic finance terms, it becomes difficult to talk about an investment in comparison to other investments. This forum is BFI. This covers literally all three of those items. Feel free to report my post if you feel its off topic trolling. I think everything I've said here is correct and well understood by anyone with passing familiarity with the field.

Best of luck in establishing the level of knowledge you can garner from a couple hours reading wikipedia.

Unless something is off with the data, this is shocking YoY sales news for Tesla. Just released. Model S sales hugely contracted while X didn't grow.

http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Model S, June:
2016: 3700
2017: 2350

Model X, June:
2016: 2145
2017: 2200

And this is while the whole plug in EV category is growing about 15% YoY overall.

probably the model 3 arriving in a few months slows down sales. Not surprising at all, I'm sure the same thing happens when a new iphone model is imminent.

It is also nuanced and multi-faceted if you are bright.

Consider the integers, and use the Peano axioms to derive arithmetic. Then the Paris-Harrington theorem is an example of a natural, true statement which cannot be proved within your framework.

Slightly more on topic, I would argue that variance etc. are risk measures rather than risk itself. There is a huge body of literature on desirable characteristics of risk measures. The classic paper is "Coherent measures of risk" by Artzner et al.

river,
Touche. I know little about what you're talking about.
1. Model 3s are reserved out to 2019, you can't buy a new one
2. Model S/X is a completely different car. Different price range (by 100+%), different size, different category, very different capabilities. The overlap would have to be near zero. This is like Ford blaming poor Focus sales on the GT.
3. Tesla is priced as a rapidly growing company; to go backward year on year by such a large amount is shocking.
4. None of the projections have anything but continued Model S + Model X growth while the Model 3 comes out. A slowdown is one thing - this is a large step backwards.

The best you can hope is that this is some kind of outlier or a bad estimate by InsideEVs. But the magnitude of the miss is large and the whole quarter doesn't compare well with last year. So I dunno. Maybe they got the guess wrong, although they've been very close on all their estimates.

Somewhat related to this, have you ever noticed how much Tesla deliveries are weighted in the third month related to the majors? I mean sure I get u push to get things out at the end of the quarter, but it's drastic for them, always made me suspect of deliveries especially with the mysterious "china" revenue

So Tesla reported (and confirmed, it seems) the numbers after market close today:
Beautiful timing - after hours right before Thanksgiving.

Anyway, this seems bizarre given reports of large inventory builds at dealers. If the above is true, it seems that Musk's supply chain management is so incompetent that he can't get the batteries he needs as he switches over to Gigafactory production. Right when it's going into a ramp for building Model 3s.

Yet more proof that Musk is a fraud who overpromises (aka lies) and underdelivers. The "Giga"factory can't even produce batteries for a couple of thousand cars? WTF? The Gigafactory was supposed to be finished by now. And now today he weasel words his way out of the fact that he's going to miss Model 3 production numbers by at least 10%, even with his new optimistic estimates.

Seems like a guy who's going to take over the auto world. Tesla is already valued at the level of Ford while making 2% of their cars - 100K/year - and they struggle to do even that 10 years after beginning. But to the moon, guys!

Do we even entertain the idea the shortfall excuse is true? Seems pretty obvious that it's an after the fact excuse, no one posted it here, but there is a huge discount on all 100D on ev-cpo.com