The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[PsYcNeT]

Are the competitors also ran by manchildren who can tank their stock price in seconds based entirely on their whims and inability to accept that other people dislike them?

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Not sure why he cares more about upsetting the libs than running the company properly and not scaring off advertisers and traffic-drawing users.

Yeah man me neither, it's so bizarre. I guess he feels that ruffling feathers of people with a political/societal viewpoint he doesn't like is worth $44B.

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1604956203401912321

Damn, I didn't have "different shaped bird boxes" on my list. Well done, Twitter. Can we expect triangles, diamonds, and rhombuses next? Maybe some dodecahedrons?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have met cocaine addicts. They are calm, rational and sane compared to Musk.

That guy's brain is like a bag of cats on cocaine.

fixed

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Elon Musk lives in the movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam. I’m convinced of it. Actually, everything about him is right out of a Terry Gilliam. He’s also got Brad Pitt vibes from 12 Monkeys. But crazier.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

Because they have the natural sales channel of making the hardware. I assume self driving works better in electric vehicles and as long as they stay the leader in EV’s self driving will come from them at least for teslas. Similar to John Deeres integrated auto steer.

The big advantage though is the Semi Truck/commercial freight industry. I think Tesla gets there first and yes there are lots of obstacles but they could own that industry overnight.

Is it a risky stock buy? Sure but ultimately I like a stock where your competitors are getting legislated out of business.

It's debatable that Mercedes and Audi are already ahead of them. Regardless, it is now safe to say that it is no longer a foregone conclusion that Tesla will win the race, as most people would have conceded 5 or 10 years ago.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well if his poll about a new CEO for Twitter was designed to stop the bleeding for Tesla, not working so far. Down another 5% so far today. I know Elon's got the board set up to not be a real board, but we can't be too far away from some activist shareholders trying to make a move against him.

[photon]

Twitter Blue for Business seems like an OK idea that would be useful for some.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's debatable that Mercedes and Audi are already ahead of them. Regardless, it is now safe to say that it is no longer a foregone conclusion that Tesla will win the race, as most people would have conceded 5 or 10 years ago.

All I know is that Elons recent events and activities have guaranteed that I will never buy a Tesla. Considering I will likely be moving from my hybrid to an EV in the next 3 years well that’s one sale lost. Relatively minor ofc but I have heard this sentiment from some friends too.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You're talking like companies raise their own stock price unilaterally, but it's investors (who base their valuation on things like debt) who determine the price. In an efficient market, the market cap will tend to be total company value minus debt and preferred shareholder value. So a $500B market cap company with no debt is being valued similarly by the market to a $200B market cap company which has $300B in debt. But the first company will have a P/E that's 2.5x that of the second company at a given net income level, which is why P/E on its own isn't a particularly useful metric.

No, I am not suggesting that a company can raise their own stock price. I am saying that your argument is circular: if you use market cap when comparing debt levels, then a higher market cap improves the debt ratio which, in your argument, would make the company more attractive, justifying a higher price, and thus a still-higher market cap. Circular.

Market cap and P/E are both direct functions of price. If price goes up (all else held constant), market cap and P/E both go up. Claiming the market cap justifies the P/E is simply saying that the price justifies the price, and a higher price justifies an even higher price.

You said 'at a given net income level', I assume you mean a given net income level per share (otherwise we have apples and oranges). With the same income per share, the companies should be worth the same, assuming the same growth expectations. The fact that one has more debt only means that they have to have higher revenues in order to cover the debt service and thus have the same net income. The only reason to value one higher than the other, based on the debt level, is that you think the debt level will impact earnings in some way (good or bad). You can't simply say that the first company's equity should equal the second company's equity plus their debt ($500b = $200B + $300B). Their equity should be equal, plus or minus the expected impact of the debt on company B.

Essentially you are using the market cap to determine the value ($500B vs $200B). But value is not a function of market cap, market cap is a function of value. Let's run another quick example:

Two companies start with nothing, and each raise $200B in an IPO, issuing 20B shares at $10. They each now have $200B in equity (and a market cap of $200B). Both generate net income of $1/share, and both have similar growth expectations, and at $10 per share, they each have a P/E of 10X. Now company B raises $300B in debt. Should company A suddenly be worth $500B, simply because company B now has the $300B in debt? No. They are still equal companies.

Company valuation is about earnings. And growth of those earnings. The amount of debt that a company has, is a contributing factor in determining the value of the company - of course. However, it is not a direct, 1 to 1 factor, and less debt is not an automatic positive for the company (as PeteMoss outlined a few posts ago). Tesla's P/E is a function of investors' optimism about earnings growth. And based on the fact that Tesla's head start, and market advantage, are now largely gone, or at least rapidly deteriorating, I think the P/E is too high.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Kasi

All I know is that Elons recent events and activities have guaranteed that I will never buy a Tesla. Considering I will likely be moving from my hybrid to an EV in the next 3 years well that’s one sale lost. Relatively minor ofc but I have heard this sentiment from some friends too.

I'm the same way and also while I may have considered buying Tesla stock in the past, I never will now mostly because I don't want to root for the guy.

[Ozy_Flame]

I am also thinking the build quality is getting better on many other brands, Tesla just has name value more than anything because they were generally first to the punch. I saw a chart the other day of battery loss in various EV's in cold weather, and Tesla's didn't look good. There are other cars with better range an battery durability than Musk Chariots.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kasi

All I know is that Elons recent events and activities have guaranteed that I will never buy a Tesla. Considering I will likely be moving from my hybrid to an EV in the next 3 years well that’s one sale lost. Relatively minor ofc but I have heard this sentiment from some friends too.

You are not alone, and this is going to have an impact on the value of Tesla. Hard to say what that impact is, but as I have said, his consumer support was based in California and largely - or at least, partially - composed of those with a particular view on EVs and green technology.

Not all of those people lean left politically, but I think it is fair to say that there is a fairly strong correlation there. If so, one would have to conclude that his current antics will have a negative impact on on that support group. The only question is how much? Enough to have a significant impact on Tesla sales? We shall see.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I am also thinking the build quality is getting better on many other brands, Tesla just has name value more than anything because they were generally first to the punch. I saw a chart the other day of battery loss in various EV's in cold weather, and Tesla's didn't look good. There are other cars with better range an battery durability than Musk Chariots.

And not just cold weather loss.

Teslas allow recharging right up to 100%, which causes battery degradation. Porsche and Audi, for 1 (2?), control the level to which you can recharge, whereby a 100% charge is actually only about 98%, which, they argue, reduces, and possibly even eliminates, battery degradation.

Tesla's advantages are being eroded and/or eliminated on pretty much every front. And their build quality is definitely a vulnerability.

[Wormius]

I’d think the biggest worry about owning a Tesla is having Musk keep changing things on a whim. It would be insanely frustrating to have features come and go.

[Kasi]

I’m a Japanese car fan always have been. I love my Rav4 hybrid and I’ll likely move on to some other Japanese EV in a few years. But a couple years ago before all this stuff I did consider looking at a Tesla. The main reason I didn’t is that I have two kids and getting a Tesla big enough for that is really pricey. It’s not like I can get a sedan.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I am also thinking the build quality is getting better on many other brands, Tesla just has name value more than anything because they were generally first to the punch. I saw a chart the other day of battery loss in various EV's in cold weather, and Tesla's didn't look good. There are other cars with better range an battery durability than Musk Chariots.

If you mean this one:

https://insideevs.com/news/626577/wi...ge-loss-study/

I'm not sure I really buy it. First, they consider range loss at "freezing" so about zero, which, looking out the window today, is not really cold at all. Zero would be shorts weather. But then looking at the range loss, some as high as 30% doesn't seem right either, as most of what I had read is that's what you see at -20 range. So it seems the range losses are bigger than I've seen elsewhere.

https://www.carscoops.com/2021/01/ho...in-the-winter/

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And not just cold weather loss.

Teslas allow recharging right up to 100%, which causes battery degradation. Porsche and Audi, for 1 (2?), control the level to which you can recharge, whereby a 100% charge is actually only about 98%, which, they argue, reduces, and possibly even eliminates, battery degradation.

Tesla's advantages are being eroded and/or eliminated on pretty much every front. And their build quality is definitely a vulnerability.

Love to see a link on this because they have different battery types

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you mean this one:

https://insideevs.com/news/626577/wi...ge-loss-study/

I'm not sure I really buy it. First, they consider range loss at "freezing" so about zero, which, looking out the window today, is not really cold at all. Zero would be shorts weather. But then looking at the range loss, some as high as 30% doesn't seem right either, as most of what I had read is that's what you see at -20 range. So it seems the range losses are bigger than I've seen elsewhere.

https://www.carscoops.com/2021/01/ho...in-the-winter/

Picked up the LFP battery RWD Tesla Model 3 when it was still +10 in October. Power consumption on a 10 km drive was 133 Wh/km.

During polar vortex this week I've been hitting 276 Wh/km over that same 10 km drive so I'd say my range loss is at least 50%

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And not just cold weather loss.

Teslas allow recharging right up to 100%, which causes battery degradation. Porsche and Audi, for 1 (2?), control the level to which you can recharge, whereby a 100% charge is actually only about 98%, which, they argue, reduces, and possibly even eliminates, battery degradation.

Tesla's advantages are being eroded and/or eliminated on pretty much every front. And their build quality is definitely a vulnerability.

That's your choice. You can choose how far you want to set your charge limit. On LFP batteries, they do recommend charging to 100% once per week as there much less impact on this battery chemistry.