i think people need to put in to context that there is a trillion dollar industry in asset gathering disguised as asset management. the industry is milking fees off of passive investors. the nature of the industry forces them to be perma bulls. when they start to sell off tesla, it means something. it doesn't mean they are right though. stocks like tesla, twitter, snap, and cryptos, attract a younger demographic that chases stuff with sex appeal. when the perma bull money managers start seeing valuations stretched in a money losing company surrounded by an entire market (and market sector) in euphoria, its cause to be concerned

its going to be a while before tesla makes money so they need to get to that point before any sort of real fear or panic sets in about the risk involved in turning a multi billion dollar cash burn in to profitably revolutionizing an established, competitive, and constantly evolving industry. the long passive investors in tesla have two things to consider imo. the obvious question is if tesla will achieve what musk is aiming at. its not a slam dunk and there is very real risk here. the other is what will you do if/when the market gets nervous or even panics and (finally) starts to price in things like risk? are you going to be able to hold on if the stock goes below 250? if i was as confident in teslas future i would probably trim my position and look to buy back in at a lower price

They're perma bullish about the economy as a whole but it's perfectly reasonable for them to unload their entire stake in any one company. It's not like there's any shortage of companies they could buy up to make up the deficit. They could have dumped it all, and they probably would have been able to fill the order without the price dipping below 300.

I'm not trying to discredit anyones analysis of the company. I'm just saying the fact that they sold 50% doesn't mean they're bearish at the new price it settled in on.

Tesla going into music streaming because why not?!
https://electrek.co/2017/08/25/tesla...ervice-ttunes/

Baby Elon such a snowflake. Refuses to talk to the Wall Street Journal because they have the nerve to point out basic facts about his company. Con man 101, right out of the Jeff Skilling playbook.

correct. the perma bulls are not bearish

The point is they're not perma bulls on all stocks.

There are plenty of companies, even large companies, that they own 0% of.

Because trying to spin up a production line with aggressive goals in a method that is both innovative and unique is not enough of a challenge. So lets start a small tangential business that doesn't move the needle in any meaningful way.

What a cluster****.

It says a lot about Musk's mind. Vertical integration isn't because he's smart. It's because he's too stupid to understand how to run a non-vertical business, and too mentally ill to not have control over something.

correct

This is a good article. Goes into detail as to why Tesla's gross margins, which heltok keeps bringing up and basing his crazy models on, are pure bull****/accounting fraud.

This is obvious to anyone with a brain already, I'm posting it for those that are slow in that department or aren't used to stock fraud and creative accounting.

With the market at all time highs, the bulls get another chance to get out at $380. You're a nutcase not to sell here. There's nothing good on the horizon.

'[...]the Board awarded Musk stock options based on achieving a certain gross margin threshold, without ever defining how to calculate gross margin[...]'

wow, just wow

First it should be noted that I never posted any of my models, so I don't see how you can know if they are crazy or not. Second that guy who wrote the article has a pretty extensive history of writing negative articles about Tesla:
https://seekingalpha.com/author/mont...gular_articles

Imo the argument boils down to what gross margins Tesla has or doesn't have. It has been debated a lot in the past so I will not waste time on it.

Lol, yes, typically a guy writing bear articles is going to have a history of bear articles (when discussing same topic)

What kind of post is that?

The bull rests entirely on gross margin accounting fraud. You buy into it yourself:

The gross margin is pure fiction. It's broken down in detail in that article.

There is no argument. Tesla have awful gross margins and they do fraudulent accounting to make it look like they have good gross margins, then focus people's minds - including yours - on the fictional gross margin number, to distract them from the massive losses per car and negative real gross margin.

It is not standard at all to include R&D in gross margins for most companies. Also this is a pretty widely known fact that happened from the beginning.

And dealer ship costs can be called distribution costs, also not that non standard to not include that in gross margins. Just because some auto companies do does not mean this is standard.

COGS should generally include what it cost to build it, and OPEX should include distribution costs, corporate R&D etc.

And this has been pretty well known. So horse**** like this:

'[...]the Board awarded Musk stock options based on achieving a certain gross margin threshold, without ever defining how to calculate gross margin[...]'

Is not really that controversial. It is not like R&D was part of COGS at first and Musk pulled a bait and switch. This has been pretty consistent. This guy is obviously pretty biased.

Honestly anybody speaking in platitudes right now about Musk and Tesla (whether they think he is some demigod, or a complete fraud) are overconfident morons.

It is standard for the car industry. Billlions are needed on R&D for each new model. It is part of COGS. It's as much an essential part of the car as the tires.
Of course Musk is involved in creative accounting and fraudulent stock manipulation (he has made multiple statements that any person in his position should know to be false), as well as actual fraud, selling products that don't exist like Fully Self Driving.

So lets break these down:

Imo it makes sense to not include R&D in GM as it then changes with volume.

Sure. But again I am not sure if this should be included in marginal costs. Here I think it is fair to say that Teslas way of doing is closer to what Apple is doing than what GM is doing. How are Apple reporting their GM, do they include Sales Centers in costs?

Again I think this should not be included in GM, especially since it will not be free for Model 3.

Maybe for him. But I find it plenty meaningful and I am happy with how Tesla are presenting them. Accusing them of fraud is a bit excessive imo.

Could make the same argument for computer chips. Yet Intel breaks it out in opex expenses.

You can argue it is actually more transparent. Since you don't have to search through the 10-k to figure out what R&D is. It pops out right away in income statement.

Honestly this is basic addition and division. If you are so convinced it is part of COGS, you can just add it? I guess Tesla did not take into account that some people are so mentally impaired by their Musk hate, they cannot even do basic addition and division.

Whoa, wait, you legit think cogs is 100% variable costs? Wow, do u think this across all industries? This is a pretty amazing level if niavete


In general, I agree RD often is opex, but if industry standard and, what I assume gaap guidance states otherwise, then it's very misleading to report it differently, bordering on fraudulent


The reality is it doesn't matter, it's clearly a metric that can be played with which is what the article pointed out

More unbridled honesty from another one of Musk's companies.

Your truly, far ahead of groupthink analysts:

Has GM Quietly Taken The Lead In Autonomous Vehicles?
GM has autonomous fleets going live right now. Their research budget is a rounding error for them and a fortune for Tesla.

Those of you who swallowed Musk's BS on autonomous driving better start rethinking your positions. You've been mind-pozzed by a charlatan.

More and more articles will come out like this, since it's obvious (and has been for a long time to anyone with a functioning brain) that the majors are far ahead of the likes of Tesla in autonomous driving.

Tesla had the best production automation in the world. Audi is going to be the first L3 vehicle. (Don't know why you linked this GM fluff piece instead of the A8 unveiling.)

Weirdly it has the exact sensor stack I described previously. None of that absurd "need more megapixels" silliness.

ToothSayer now taking a DB analyst's opinion on GM as gospel. What a world.

Tooth do you also agree with this Lache quote from early September?

"We expect Tesla’s Electric Trucks to come soon, with SOP in late 2018 based on plans to utilize slightly less vertical integration (Tesla does not see any reason to make their own Cabs or Gliders), and common sourcing with Tesla’s light vehicles (uniquely possible for EV’s). Tesla’s leadership in AI/Autonomous Driving could also represent a significant advantage in the eyes of fleet operators. We believe that Autonomous Vehicles will be deployed sooner than expected. And we do not believe that there are significant regulatory obstacles (Autonomous Cars/Trucks are allowed as long as they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards —i.e. they must have steering wheels, brakes, etc., even if there is no driver)."

My views are pretty clear:
I made my initial money trading being far ahead of groupthink analysts and cuck wisdom on MSFT ("it's dead money! Not innovative!"). And now I'm far ahead of groupthink analysts and dopey fanbois on Tesla.

The point being not what the analyst says, but that reality is catching with Tesla's false narrative about autonomous driving - pushed by hyperventilating analysts as well as truly deranged fanbois. Autonomous driving is something in which Tesla was never, ever going to be ahead on and which was substantially -EV for them in the long run, given that they are far behind and lack the scale and speed to leverage it even if they weren't.

It just seems odd to use 1 quote from an analyst that fits your narrative but ignore another quote from the same analyst made only weeks prior saying Tesla is a leader in AI/Autonomous driving