Thoughts on TESLA

[NW-Bound]

The free market, particularly in stock trading, is a wonderful thing. People can bet their money on whatever they believe in.

I would not try to change anyone's mind. It's their money, not mine. In fact, if I can find a way to make their money mine, well, as I said, it's a free market and I would have absolutely no qualms.

 

[oneill225]

"exponentially"? So the 2% in 2018 will be 4% next year, and 8% in 2020, and over 50% in 2023, and the full 100% before 2024.
If you want to be taken serious, use serious numbers. And if you really believe that, it won't take long to find out. And this was a US survey.

I am referring to the percentage of car buyers stating that their next car will be an EV. I say it will go up every year (by some percentage) until buying an ICE or hybrid is no longer an option. That would be an exponential increase. Not very controversial or non-serious.

Please stop telling me what I think and respond to what I write, and the numbers and facts that I present (if you can?).
Attacking me and my 'thoughts' is a personal attack, as is your earlier comments that I'm playing "personal gotcha games" (post #2109), when I clearly put facts and figures out there. So accusing me of playing games is also a personal attack.
The mods have already put out a warning to this thread (post #2155)[/B], please pay attention and stick to responding to the post rather than attacking the posters' supposed motivations.
I did agree that 88% was an impressive number (quote: "Now, 88% is an impressive number.") . But I do not agree that the % of happy buyers will continue to rise. It might. But as I said, the next buyers may not be so forgiving, and may not be happy with the service delays that the Norwegians are complaining about. We will see.
And it will be very hard for any company to maintain quality while they experience "exponential" growth.

Easy, Tiger. I am not attacking you, only pointing out that you may be biased in your thinking. It is more likely that quality control will be the biggest challenge in the early years of a new company. This makes the 88% satisfaction number even more impressive because it comes during Tesla's toughest period of expansion. It is fair to say that future buyers may not be as willing to overlook flaws, but it is important to point out that there will likely be fewer flaws to overlook. A wash that will leave satisfaction numbers high if Tesla keeps putting out cars that people want.

Could you be any more vague? A bounce up above what, the days lows?
How about a bounce up over the 1/17/19 close? Do you see that anytime soon?-ERD50

I am not clairvoyant. Up is enough for now.

 

[bobandsherry]

Ahh, you are correct. As you say, you need to think in terms of the entire population of people responding, so it is representative @15%~20%.

Thanks for straightening me out. So that does mean that either that survey is super-flawed, or what people say they will do does not match reality. 361,000 actual versus 2,500,000 per that survey is a huge gap.

I suppose you could temper that a bit. Maybe some people who expect to buy an EV as their 'next car', will wait a year or two longer to get one of the promised lower priced models? I pretty much did that waiting for some of the driver assistance features to drop to more mid-priced models. But that's still a biiiiiig gap.

-ERD50

If the group was representative of the cross population then it should still come close to their stated response of "next car". Otherwise it should just say a "future car". That survey group then would have reflected people who had newer and older cars. Again, didn't even come close so it's somehow flawed. One thing is once you have facts it's hard to dispute them.

 

[oneill225]

It took 100 years for the U.S. to get to 17+ MM sales of vehicles. And that included sales from several non-US manufacturers. It's a function of population growth, the ability to buy a vehicle, marketing, and not how fast you can produce cars.
Based on your ongoing comments, it's apparent, you have no background in business or manufacturing. Correct?

Are you disputing my definition of "exponential"? I am not talking about how fast, just that it will be ever-increasing.

 

[ERD50]

"Exponential" as in becoming more and more rapid.

Do you see the pace of EV preference fading or increasing year to year going forward?

Where is the "exponential growth" in this chart? And if you want to express exponential as something other than a doubling (power of 2, an exponent of 2.0), then you better spell out that exponent, or it is meaningless. Did you mean X^1.001?

Back to the chart (from https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-electric-vehicle-sales-increase-by-81-in-2018) - I see roughly linear to flattening growth from 2011-2014, a dip in 2015, back to linear growth 2015-2017.

The growth in 2017 was less than the growth in 2016. There is no 'exponential' there. If you are predicting, give us an exponent to make it meaningful.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

Are you disputing my definition of "exponential"? I am not talking about how fast, just that it will be ever-increasing.

Reread post #2205.

 

[oneill225]

Where is the "exponential growth" in this chart? And if you want to express exponential as something other than a doubling (power of 2, an exponent of 2.0), then you better spell out that exponent, or it is meaningless. Did you mean X^1.001?
The growth in 2017 was less than the growth in 2016. There is no 'exponential' there. If you are predicting, give us an exponent to make it meaningful.
-ERD50

I am talking 2017 forward.

ex·po·nen·tial
[ˌekspəˈnen(t)SH(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE
(of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
"the social security budget was rising at an exponential rate"
mathematics
of or expressed by a mathematical exponent.
"an exponential curve"

 

[bobandsherry]

I am not clairvoyant. Up is enough for now.

Come on, make an educated guess then. Come on, put some of that highly regarded knowledge you have on TSLA and take a position. If this doesn't get to $360 before conversion date it's doomed to head close to $200 as Tesla will need to go out and borrow money. The new funds won't be at the .25% rate like the $920 million bonds they just floated. Those suckers, um, investors were duped into Tesla being $450-500 stock and they'd make a killing on the conversion. Unless something sets this stock on fire and increase 20%+ from today's close those "investors" will net .25% return. LOL.

Or looked at another way. The $920 million at .25% cost Telsa $2,300,000/yr. If Telsa was to float new bond, and based on what I'm seeing in the market, it's probably now 6% (unless some other suckers, um investors are willing to sign-up for low rate "convertible" feature). That's then $55,200,000 a year that Tesla will have to start paying, more than $50 million more per year. That's going to hurt the bottom line.

But back to the original point, post a range (% or $) that you expect this to go up and by when. Here's your chance to share with the rest of the class just how much you understand about Tesla's stock price.

 

[bobandsherry]

Vague words of the day:
1. Exponential
2. Higher

 

[oneill225]

Come on, make an educated guess then. Come on, put some of that highly regarded knowledge you have on TSLA and take a position. If this doesn't get to $360 before conversion date it's doomed to head close to $200 as Tesla will need to go out and borrow money. The new funds won't be at the .25% rate like the $920 million bonds they just floated. Those suckers, um, investors were duped into Tesla being $450-500 stock and they'd make a killing on the conversion. Unless something sets this stock on fire and increase 20%+ from today's close those "investors" will net .25% return. LOL.
Or looked at another way. The $920 million at .25% cost Telsa $2,300,000/yr. If Telsa was to float new bond, and based on what I'm seeing in the market, it's probably now 6% (unless some other suckers, um investors are willing to sign-up for low rate "convertible" feature). That's then $55,200,000 a year that Tesla will have to start paying, more than $50 million more per year. That's going to hurt the bottom line.
But back to the original point, post a range (% or $) that you expect this to go up and by when. Here's your chance to share with the rest of the class just how much you understand about Tesla's stock price.

I will continue to be satisfied with "up". Now, if you would like to give a specific % or $, go ahead. If you have a specific % or $ to share, let's have it.

 

[ERD50]

I am referring to the percentage of car buyers stating that their next car will be an EV. I say it will go up every year (by some percentage) until buying an ICE or hybrid is no longer an option. That would be an exponential increase. Not very controversial or non-serious. ...

Not controversial - it is wrong.

Are you disputing my definition of "exponential"? I am not talking about how fast, just that it will be ever-increasing.

I'm not disputing it - but the world of mathematicians do.

[SIZE=-1]Geometric growth refers to the situation where successive changes in a population differ by a constant ratio (as distinct from a constant amount for arithmetic change). [/SIZE]

Exponential growth refers to the situation where growth compounds continuously at every instant of time.

https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6686
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6685

examples:

x 1.5 ( 50% [SIZE=-1]Geometric growth)[/SIZE]

100
150
180
216
259
311
373
448
537
645
774


^ 1.088 ( 8.8% Exponential growth)

100
150
233
377
635
1,120
2,077
4,068
8,453
18,732
44,521

Big, big difference.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

Not controversial - it is wrong.
I'm not disputing it - but the world of mathematicians do.
-ERD50

More than one accepted definition exists; see above.

I will bow out of this fascinating discussion for now.

 

[ERD50]

I am talking 2017 forward.

ex·po·nen·tial
[ˌekspəˈnen(t)SH(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE
(of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
"the social security budget was rising at an exponential rate"
mathematics
of or expressed by a mathematical exponent.
"an exponential curve"

Not controversial - it is wrong.



I'm not disputing it - but the world of mathematicians do.

[SIZE=-1]Geometric growth refers to the situation where successive changes in a population differ by a constant ratio (as distinct from a constant amount for arithmetic change). [/SIZE]

Exponential growth refers to the situation where growth compounds continuously at every instant of time.

https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6686
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6685

.....

-ERD50

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Not controversial - it is wrong.
I'm not disputing it - but the world of mathematicians do.
-ERD50

More than one accepted definition exists; see above.

I will bow out of this fascinating discussion for now.

Those definitions are not different! They say the same thing!

"more and more rapid" is exponential. Rapid growth would be the geometric growth. It's the "more and more" that makes it exponential.

OK, so 'bow out'. Would it really be so hard to just admit you were wrong? You can see I've done it just recently. It's a strength, not a weakness.

-ERD50

 

[bobandsherry]

The whole stroll down EV sales is nice, but EV is more than Tesla. People buying EV's doesn't mean it's good news for Tesla, competition is both a good and bad thing, depends where you are sitting. But specific to Tesla, and to what I posted earlier.....

Tesla Has Just 4 Weeks to Rally 21% or Pay $920 Million on Bonds

That’s the amount of debt coming due March 1 from convertible bonds issued back in 2014. Tesla can dodge the payout by exchanging the note for a mix of cash and stock -- but only if the shares jump about 21 percent from their current level, based on a 20-day averaging period that starts today.

So with 1st day under $300, and with each day it remains under $360, that just puts further pressure on the stock price to increase or Tesla to unload a lot of cash. The day of reckoning is coming.... let's see what the 4th Qtr earnings show tomorrow, could be disastrous for the stock -or- could be the propulsion that TSLA needs.

 

[bobandsherry]

I will continue to be satisfied with "up". Now, if you would like to give a specific % or $, go ahead. If you have a specific % or $ to share, let's have it.

If it's not $360, it will soon be down.

Thanks for continuing to avoid taking a position.

 

[bobandsherry]

I guess one thing that's come from this thread, a lot more people know more about TSLA than probably the stocks they actually own

This article is interesting read:
Tesla May Not Make It Past Q1 Without Vendor Concessions Or A Capital Raise

Demand Has Evaporated
As Mr. Musk himself acknowledged, the US demand is low. However, the situation appears much more dire than indicated. Anecdotal evidence gathered by Tesla watchers suggests Q1 demand is running at less than 10% of the Q4 level. Even the largest volume Tesla sales center in Southern California is seeing zero sales on many days. Other sites are also showing very low demand.

Bolding is mine

Safe to assume that oneill225 is still buying on the dip? He could find himself either richly rewarded. Or if this is a drop and falling knife then caught on wrong side of a trade. While I'm no stranger to risk/reward bets, I'm staying clear of this one.

 

[Cessna152]

Where is the "exponential growth" in this chart?

-ERD50

The chart, with the exception of 2015, depicts an exponential growth in number of plug-in cars on the road.

But its approximately linear you say, not exponential! True - but the chart is of plug-in SALES. That is, the rate of plug-ins being added to the roads isn’t some constant like 30,000 per year. The number being added appears to proportional to the number already on the road. The definition of exponential is a value x whose rate of change with respect to y (dx/dy) is proportional to its value at each y ( x ).

Graph the total number of cars on the road from the sales values in that graph and see if it doesn’t look roughly exponential.

I would expect production capacity as measured in cars/day to only increase linearly initially while the number of cars increases exponentially - again, initially. Real curves like this look like S shaped curves as limits are reached.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

Watching the negative energy expended by a "handful of posters" as Eroscot named them, is fascinating to observe. Watching the jollification at every negative headline they can uncover. Their gleeful celebration of any detail that slings mud Tesla'a way.

The time and energy spent on this is puzzling. I can't be the only one noticing it.

 

[Nick12]

Never did care for a vehicle that is so silent you cannot hear it driving through a parking lot. Give me a V8 with a Borla exhaust and love that rumble down the road!

 

[bobandsherry]

Watching the negative energy expended by a "handful of posters" as Eroscot named them, is fascinating to observe. Watching the jollification at every negative headline they can uncover. Their gleeful celebration of any detail that slings mud Tesla'a way.

The time and energy spent on this is puzzling. I can't be the only one noticing it.

Excuse me, but I thought this was a thread on asking on Thoughts on Tesla. So do you only expect this to have fanboy and cheerleader posting only? SMH

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

The above is an example of shaming language.

 

[bobandsherry]

And the above is example of what someone posts when someone disagrees with them.

 

[Aerides]

Mod Hat on:
****************
The mod team has been unusually lenient with this thread, given the high interest and engagement from so many members. While many of the points raised clearly bring out some contentious discussions, for the most part, members have avoided taking things personally, or engaging in off topic sniping.

However, the above few posts are failing to avoid that behavior. Please take that stuff offline, elsewhere, to allow this thread to continue for those that are enjoying the actual discussion topic.

/mod had off
***********

 

[ERD50]

The chart, with the exception of 2015, depicts an exponential growth in number of plug-in cars on the road.

But its approximately linear you say, not exponential! True - but the chart is of plug-in SALES. That is, the rate of plug-ins being added to the roads isn’t some constant like 30,000 per year. The number being added appears to proportional to the number already on the road. The definition of exponential is a value x whose rate of change with respect to y (dx/dy) is proportional to its value at each y ( x ).

Graph the total number of cars on the road from the sales values in that graph and see if it doesn’t look roughly exponential.

I would expect production capacity as measured in cars/day to only increase linearly initially while the number of cars increases exponentially - again, initially. Real curves like this look like S shaped curves as limits are reached.

I thought you were right that a geometric increase in EV sales would result in an exponential increase in cumulative EV fleet, but I put this in a spreadsheet, and it seems the opposite.

Is there something wrong in this? 1st column is 10% growth in sales each year, 2nd column is cumulative fleet, 3rd column is year-year fleet growth, which decreases.

x 1.1

100 100.000
110 210.000 2.100
121 331.000 1.576
133 464.100 1.402
146 610.510 1.315
161 771.561 1.264
177 948.717 1.230
195 1143.589 1.205
214 1357.948 1.187
236 1593.742 1.174
259 1853.117 1.163

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that the context of the conversation was about sales being 'exponential', not the fleet.

-ERD50

 

[Cessna152]

I thought you were right that a geometric increase in EV sales would result in an exponential increase in cumulative EV fleet, but I put this in a spreadsheet, and it seems the opposite.

Is there something wrong in this? 1st column is 10% growth in sales each year, 2nd column is cumulative fleet, 3rd column is year-year fleet growth, which decreases.

x 1.1

100 100.000
110 210.000 2.100
121 331.000 1.576
133 464.100 1.402
146 610.510 1.315
161 771.561 1.264
177 948.717 1.230
195 1143.589 1.205
214 1357.948 1.187
236 1593.742 1.174
259 1853.117 1.163

-ERD50

My statement “The number being added appears to [be] proportional to the number already on the road,” is wrong. The integral (or derivative) of an exponential is another exponential, while a linear increase in factory production P such as P(t) = k*t yields a quadratic increase over time when integrated with respect to time t.

So the graph would suggest quadratic growth in total cars, not exponential.

Oddly, your spreadsheet has an exponentially increasing factory rate which yields an exponentially increasing number of cars on the road:

teslas(t) = integral(100*(1.1^t), dt)
teslas(t) = 100*(1.1^t)/ln(1.1) + C

Too lazy to work out the definite integral to get C. Wouldn’t jibe with your spreadsheet numbers anyway, which is discrete rather than continuous summation.