https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-subpoenas-tesla-over-musks-150554519.html
It's on... SEC subpoenas Tesla over Musk's tweets.
It's on... SEC subpoenas Tesla over Musk's tweets.
Mr. Trumpster has asked the SEC to study ending quarterly earnings reporting in favor of six-month reports....
What is ATOTs thoughts there?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ling-system-for-companies-trump-idUSKBN1L217G
I don't know enough about it, but if the idea is that it realigns interests more with long-term, stable growth rather than knee-jerk short-term profits that only benefits traders and to hell with the economy, then I'm all for it.
...But, I'm not sure how shrinking 4 annual reports to 2 would make a huge difference here? Seems like European markets do it this way, but they really aren't any less volatile than US markets...they seem more so, really.
I wonder where Trump got the idea. Being the owner of a secretive family business that is not beholden to boards or public filings, he really has no clue how corporations run.
If it hits under 300 I'll buy a few more since people are overreacting.Holy crap, "funding secured" is going back under $300!
I'll wait until it hits the April 2nd price of $252.If it hits under 300 I'll buy a few more since people are overreacting.
I'll wait until it hits the April 2nd price of $252.
So apparently Musk is addicted to Ambien. Stock down 8% today to 307, a far cry from the 420 "Funding Secured".
Mr. Trumpster has asked the SEC to study ending quarterly earnings reporting in favor of six-month reports....
What is ATOTs thoughts there?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ling-system-for-companies-trump-idUSKBN1L217G
I don't think it will help much in terms of volatility. It will cause a stock to fall for 6 months instead of 3 after a bad report, and companies can hide misdeeds for longer. The latter is probably why Trumps wants it.
I don't think it will help much in terms of volatility. It will cause a stock to fall for 6 months instead of 3 after a bad report, and companies can hide misdeeds for longer. The latter is probably why Trumps wants it.
They originally announced the "$35,000" Tesla Model 3 back in 2015, and they are still nowhere near that price point.
Tesla Inc. is expected to lose about $6,000 on every cheaper, base-version Model 3 sedan it will sell because the electric car's powertrain isn't as cheap as expected, analysts at UBS said in a note Thursday.
The analysts based their assumptions on a teardown of a higher-end Model 3, costing $49,000, which included a more powerful battery option and a higher-end trim. Tesla's profit on that pricier model is around $3,430 per car, they said.
A base version of the Model 3, costing the roughly $35,000 that Tesla (TSLA) has promised, would be unprofitable for the company to the tune of $5,900 per car, the analysts said.
Model 3s currently available to order start at $49,000 for a rear-wheel drive model, and quickly get pricier for "performance" sedans. On its web site, Tesla says a cheaper Model 3 with a "standard" battery will be available in five to eight months.
The ability to sell a vehicle that would appeal to the masses is the cornerstone of Tesla's expansion plans, and the Model 3, which Tesla began making a year ago, is a high-stakes car that is critical to Tesla's transition to higher-volume from niche car maker.
Tesla's powertrain, although lauded by UBS' engineering partners as an engineering feat that beat peers, was not as cheap as expected, the analysts said.
Its overall cost of $178 per kilowatt hour is only about 6% better than Tesla's estimate of around $190 kWh for the models S and X provided two years ago and "well above Tesla's guidance of below $100/kWh ending 2018," the analysts wrote.
General Motors Co. (GM) Chevy Bolt's powertrain clocked in at $205 per kilowatt hour and at $442 per kilowatt hour on a 2014 BMW i3, which would go down to $300-$320 in a newer BMW (BMW.XE) model, they said.
UBS said its teardown experts provided a "full breakdown" of the electric vehicles' major components, including powertrain and battery, controlling electronics, and body and chassis, with each component removed and scrutinized.
The analysts reiterated their sell rating on Tesla and kept their $195 price target on the stock. Contrary to what the company has said, the analysts said they don't see "sustainable profitability" for Tesla in the second half of the year, but given the higher-priced Model 3 in the company's initial mix, a third-quarter profit "is possible" if Tesla can average production of more than 3,000 a week.
Here is the latest turd that came flying out of Elon Musk's mouth:
"We can produce a $25,000 car within 3 years"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/18/elon-musk-tesla-could-produce-a-25000-car-in-3-years--.html
Wow... what a crock of crap. They originally announced the "$35,000" Tesla Model 3 back in 2015, and they are still nowhere near that price point.
While he's spewing verbal diarrhea like that, maybe he should promise that SpaceX will put a person on Mars by 2025 as well. Oh, wait... he already promised that for 2024.
Chase joins the chorus of TSLA sub $200. Musk should step down since he is stressed. Then he can focus on getting that funding full time.
The lower the stock goes the harder it will be to secure $420 a share.
I was going to stay out of this thread due to all the ignorant lemming comments but I guess I'm like Musk in that I'm glutton for punishment. If you watch the interview, he said they could possibly make $25,000 car in 3 to 4 years if they work really hard and everything works out. But he mentioned they had lot on their plate right now and limited resources. It's a fact that the batteries are getting cheaper and better. And if you know anything about Musk and Tesla, you would know Musk mentioned he would like to build small cheap city car. Small city car size of something like Honda Fit or smaller possibly could be made for $25k in 3-4 years. That's if everything goes well. Tesla still needs to work on getting out the cheaper Model 3 SR, Model Y, Semi, and the Roadster first and getting that Gigafactory in China built along with the Gigafactory in Europe. That's pretty heavy workload.Here is the latest turd that came flying out of Elon Musk's mouth:
"We can produce a $25,000 car within 3 years"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/18/elon-musk-tesla-could-produce-a-25000-car-in-3-years--.html
Wow... what a crock of crap. They originally announced the "$35,000" Tesla Model 3 back in 2015, and they are still nowhere near that price point.
While he's spewing verbal diarrhea like that, maybe he should promise that SpaceX will put a person on Mars by 2025 as well. Oh, wait... he already promised that for 2024.
UBS are the same morons that tore down the Chevy Bolt over a year ago and said Tesla Model 3 would cost $41,000 to build based on the Chevy Bolt tear down. This was when not a single Model 3 was available because Tesla hadn't even begun production of the Model 3. So the UBS morons come back now and tear down an actual Model 3 and said it would cost $41,000 to build Model 3 SR. Imagine that! Talk about confirmation bias and being butt-hurt over being laughed at for their initial tear down report. UBS morons tore down Model 3 Long Range and think it's going to cost the same to produce as the Short Range. It's funny how they can predict the cost of the Model 3 SR when they can't even properly compute the cost of the Model 3 LR. Do you really trust the suspect figures by the UBS affiliated tear down team with their given bias when the German engineering firm and Munro research have both tore down the Model 3 LR and said Tesla can definitely make 20-30% profit on the Model 3? I don't completely trust the German firm or Munro but I would 100% trust them over hacks at UBS. The German firm and Munro do tear downs for a living and Sandy Munro is highly respected in the automotive industry vs the laughable hacks at UBS.Even at $35,000 they are expected to lose $6,000 on each one made, according to one analyst at UBS:
So is TSLA sub $200 possible?
I have no financial position either way, but feel like Im missing out on something.
So now Tesla is producing 5000-6000 Model 3 a week, the goal post have moved to now it can't be sustained and they had to add a tent! Even the Bloomberg Model 3 VIN tracker says you're wrong and the 5000-6000 pace is being sustained. And when other automakers do 7 days straight 3 shifts it's ok but when Tesla does it, it's horrible! Elon is working 120 hours a week and Tesla is cranking out 5000-6000 Model 3 like they said they would and people are still not satisfied! I remember couple months ago when Tesla was at around 2000-2500 cars a week and everyone was screaming Tesla can't ramp up and they're in huge trouble and they were never going to hit 5000 a week. I said at the time the temporary production problems can be solved and those kind of things are just noise in the big picture. Tesla solved the problems and people are still refusing the believe the 5000-6000 a week figures. Go figure.Keyword might be “a”. He will produce a single car at $25,000. Kinda like how in order to reach 5,000 cars a week he had to add tented building centers and run 7days straight at large cost. Elon needs to do less talking and more doing.
Do you really want to know the real reason why there's lack of real competition? It's not because Ford, GM, Volkswagon, and BMW don't really want to build $40,000 electric sports sedan to compete with Model 3. The real reason is because they can't right now. Not without losing tons of money. It's physically and economically impossible for other automakers to hit that price point without losing tons of money. These automakers can't get batteries cheap enough and in enough supply to hit that price point. It can't be done right now. Nada. That's the real reason. The supply of batteries are highly constrained for everyone right now except for Tesla. But even Tesla is going to run into battery supply issues if they can't build that Gigafactory in China soon.Personally, I think that the only thing that’s keeping Tesla’s stock price up is a lack of real competition. If Ford, GM, Volkswagon, or BMW really Wanted to build a $40,000 electric sports sedan to compete with the Model 3, that car would actually exist and Tesla would be in serious trouble. Right now, it just seems that the other car makers are doing the bare minimum to keep the EPA regulators happy... and we soon won’t even have that now that Trump’s minions are in charge of the EPA.
So I guess Saudis want to buy more cheap Tesla shares in the open market.Chase joins the chorus of TSLA sub $200. Musk should step down since he is stressed. Then he can focus on getting that funding full time.
The lower the stock goes the harder it will be to secure $420 a share.
It's funny how the Saudis went through Chase to buy their 5% Tesla stake in the open market. So I guess Chase should tell the Saudis they're high as a kite since they paid more than $200. Maybe the Saudis went back to Chase and said they need more cheap shares so could you change the price target back down to below $200 so we can buy more? Or maybe Chase is butt hurt Musk chose to work with Goldman instead of them for the private deal? Or maybe the analyst got some under the table money from hedge fund shorts to re drop the price target. Who knows. Anyways, I leave ya to continue your circle jerk of bashing Tesla with your ignorance.I think that number he picked is telling... since his Investors would need to be high as a kite to think that Tesla is currently worth that valuation
Two major firms that specialize in corporate governance issues advised Tesla shareholders to shake up the company's board earlier this year, citing troubling conflicts of interest and decisions that raised questions about the directors' links with Musk.
Shareholders wound up rejecting the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis & Co. at Tesla's annual meeting in June and re-elected all three directors — Gracias, Murdoch and Kimbal Musk — whose terms were expiring.
Glass Lewis recommended voting against the three; ISS opposed the re-elections of Gracias and Murdoch, but concluded there was no reason to oust Kimbal Musk because he doesn't serve on any board committees requiring independence from his brother.
Tesla wouldn't comment about its directors, and members reached Monday did not return messages. But the company pointed to its proxy statement that said seven of nine members are considered independent based on standards set by the NASDAQ stock market, on which Tesla stock trades. The company said Ehrenpreis and Gracias do not own stakes in Telsa.
Kimbal Musk, Elon's brother, is among the five directors with ties to Musk. Lead director Antonio Gracias founded a private equity firm and also is a director of SpaceX, Musk's privately held rocket company. Director Steve Jurvetson is also a SpaceX director. He's been on leave from his venture capital firm since allegations of sexual misconduct appeared last year.
Another director, venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis, is also a SpaceX investor, while director Brad Buss is a former chief financial officer of SolarCity, a solar panel maker that Tesla acquired in 2016.
I was going to stay out of this thread due to all the ignorant lemming comments but I guess I'm like Musk in that I'm glutton for punishment. If you watch the interview, he said they could possibly make $25,000 car in 3 to 4 years if they work really hard and everything works out. But he mentioned they had lot on their plate right now and limited resources. It's a fact that the batteries are getting cheaper and better. And if you know anything about Musk and Tesla, you would know Musk mentioned he would like to build small cheap city car. Small city car size of something like Honda Fit or smaller possibly could be made for $25k in 3-4 years. That's if everything goes well. Tesla still needs to work on getting out the cheaper Model 3 SR, Model Y, Semi, and the Roadster first and getting that Gigafactory in China built along with the Gigafactory in Europe. That's pretty heavy workload.
As for the $35,000 Model 3, that's coming in Q1 2019. So when the $35k Model 3 is released, will you shut up or will you find something else to complain about?
UBS are the same morons that tore down the Chevy Bolt over a year ago and said Tesla Model 3 would cost $41,000 to build based on the Chevy Bolt tear down. This was when not a single Model 3 was available because Tesla hadn't even begun production of the Model 3. So the UBS morons come back now and tear down an actual Model 3 and said it would cost $41,000 to build Model 3 SR. Imagine that! Talk about confirmation bias and being butt-hurt over being laughed at for their initial tear down report. UBS morons tore down Model 3 Long Range and think it's going to cost the same to produce as the Short Range. It's funny how they can predict the cost of the Model 3 SR when they can't even properly compute the cost of the Model 3 LR. Do you really trust the suspect figures by the UBS affiliated tear down team with their given bias when the German engineering firm and Munro research have both tore down the Model 3 LR and said Tesla can definitely make 20-30% profit on the Model 3? I don't completely trust the German firm or Munro but I would 100% trust them over hacks at UBS. The German firm and Munro do tear downs for a living and Sandy Munro is highly respected in the automotive industry vs the laughable hacks at UBS.
So now Tesla is producing 5000-6000 Model 3 a week, the goal post have moved to now it can't be sustained and they had to add a tent! Even the Bloomberg Model 3 VIN tracker says you're wrong and the 5000-6000 pace is being sustained. And when other automakers do 7 days straight 3 shifts it's ok but when Tesla does it, it's horrible! Elon is working 120 hours a week and Tesla is cranking out 5000-6000 Model 3 like they said they would and people are still not satisfied! I remember couple months ago when Tesla was at around 2000-2500 cars a week and everyone was screaming Tesla can't ramp up and they're in huge trouble and they were never going to hit 5000 a week. I said at the time the temporary production problems can be solved and those kind of things are just noise in the big picture. Tesla solved the problems and people are still refusing the believe the 5000-6000 a week figures. Go figure.
Do you really want to know the real reason why there's lack of real competition? It's not because Ford, GM, Volkswagon, and BMW don't really want to build $40,000 electric sports sedan to compete with Model 3. The real reason is because they can't right now. Not without losing tons of money. It's physically and economically impossible for other automakers to hit that price point without losing tons of money. These automakers can't get batteries cheap enough and in enough supply to hit that price point. It can't be done right now. Nada. That's the real reason. The supply of batteries are highly constrained for everyone right now except for Tesla. But even Tesla is going to run into battery supply issues if they can't build that Gigafactory in China soon.
As for the $35,000 Model 3, that's coming in Q1 2019. So when the $35k Model 3 is released, will you shut up or will you find something else to complain about?