• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you spot the difference between…

a) “And also because there was no way to mechanically open the doors from the inside without ripping off panels.”

…and…

b) A gentleman feeling trapped because he didn’t understand a basic mechanical backup to the electric door opening button.

Tesla’s come with both a paper owner’s handbook, and one readily available on the main screen. In addition, there are a series of videos you can watch in the car and on the Tesla app to guide a new owner through basic features of the vehicle. Here’s a screenshot of the video describing the mechanical backup for opening the door:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53588728105_c691798055_z.jpg[/qimg]


I think what Zircon may be referring to is this: "but the passenger manual release is harder to find. A passenger must remove the mat from the rear door pocket and press a red tab to get out in an emergency. Tesla's manual also notes "Not all Model Y vehicles are equipped with a manual release for the rear doors."
 
I think what Zircon may be referring to is this: "but the passenger manual release is harder to find. A passenger must remove the mat from the rear door pocket and press a red tab to get out in an emergency. Tesla's manual also notes "Not all Model Y vehicles are equipped with a manual release for the rear doors."

Fair point. To clarify, the front passenger has the same mechanical release as the driver. I’ll admit it would be nice if the rear passengers did as well. It certainly is possible to envision nightmare scenarios of being trapped in the rear seats, unable to escape. But with millions of Teslas on the road, I wonder if this has ever actually happened.
 
The Tesla stock was not realistically priced so the law of gravity had to aptly eventually. It's also an expensive item to engineer and always will be. It's not like it can do the tech trick of shrinking to a fraction of its' original size and speeding up by orders of magnitude. It can't suddenly fit 100 people in it.
 
The Tesla stock was not realistically priced so the law of gravity had to aptly eventually.

I’ve always been a fan of the “Efficient Market Hypothesis”. In short, a stock price is always where it “should be”. Whether it was “overpriced” or “undervalued” only makes sense retroactively. Not perfect, given folks trading on inside information, or other market manipulation. But a good first order assumption nonetheless.

TSLA @ 163.57 is exactly where the market thinks it should be - “invisible hand” and all that. If it drops to 50, we’ll look back and say it was still overpriced even @ 163.57. If it soars over the next year to 500, folks will be sorry for having missed a buying opportunity.

Only time will tell…
 
Last edited:
The "efficient" market is an article of faith.

Maybe.

But it seems like roughly half of investors think TSLA should be higher than it is, and roughly half that think it should be lower than it is. Acting on those opinions is what makes a market, and how it settled on 163.67 Friday.

It may not be perfectly efficient, but I think it works as an assumption.
 
I’ve always been a fan of the “Efficient Market Hypothesis”. In short, a stock price is always where it “should be”. Whether it was “overpriced” or “undervalued” only makes sense retroactively.
This is bordering on being a tautology. If the market is operating properly (no fraud or manipulation etc.) then the price by definition is where it 'should' be according to stock market rules. However it may still be over or undervalued relative to the real worth of the company, ie. its fundamentals.

TSLA @ 163.57 is exactly where the market thinks it should be
Correct. But we have to remember that this is all it means - what investors who are buying and selling it think it's worth. IOW, the price is simply a reflection of investor sentiment.

But that sentiment doesn't necessarily align with the real worth of the company. How many investors carefully examine the fundamentals and make an informed decision, and how many just go with their gut? There's an awful lot of FUD going around right now about EVs, and a lot of hatred towards Musk. This makes investors nervous and causes them to sell for irrational reasons. Smart investors then do the same, because they can sell now and buy again when the price hits bottom (assuming they time it right). The result is positive feedback that pushes the price away from its 'correct' value.

- “invisible hand” and all that. If it drops to 50, we’ll look back and say it was still overpriced even @ 163.57.
I won't. Last year the Tesla model Y was the most popular car (of any type) on the planet, validating Musk's 'outrageous' prediction and totally repudiating the so-called 'experts' who confidently predicted Tesla's downfall. If Tesla continues to solidify its position in the auto and energy industries (which is very likely) the share price should go up, not down. If it continues to be depressed due to fear and hate it will not represent the true value of the company.

Between 2009 and 2013 Tesla's assets grew from $130 million to $170 billion, ~1,300 times. They have so much stuff in play now that barring incredibly bad management or extreme corruption there's very little chance of losing it. People who think otherwise are either seriously misinformed, irrational, or have bogus motives.

Tesla Total Assets 2010-2023
picture.php


Tesla is the market leader in battery-powered electric car sales in the United States, with roughly 70% market share. The company's flagship Model 3 is the best-selling EV model in the United States. Tesla, which has managed to garner the reputation of a gold standard over the years, is now a far bigger entity that what it started off since its IPO in 2010, with its market cap crossing $1 trillion for the first time in October 2021. The EV king's market capitalization is more than the combined value of legacy automakers including Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler, General Motors and Ford. Over the years, Tesla has shifted from developing niche products for affluent buyers to making more affordable EVs for the masses. The firm's three-pronged business model approach of direct sales, servicing, and charging its EVs sets it apart from other carmakers. Tesla, which is touted as the clean energy revolutionary automaker, is much more than just a car manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
What a silly article.

The EV maker is fighting an uphill battle as EV demand in the US wanes...


Tesla Sales, Production & Revenue Statistics for 2024 (made in February 2024)
picture.php

Does this look like demand is waning?

Meanwhile...
picture.php


That's right, Tesla's market share increased by nearly 2% compared to the same time last year, more than any other manufacturer of note. The fact that Tesla is even on this graph at all is amazing, considering that unlike the others it only makes EVs.

So who should we be wringing our hands over? Perhaps Mary Barra, the grossly overpaid CEO of GM whose market share dropped by over 1%.
GM is one of America’s biggest corporate moochers. The company would have failed in 2008 had the Obama Administration not bailed out the company and it has since received tens of billions more in taxpayer grants, subsidies, and other sweetheart goodies. GM’s failed electrification attempts have been heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and they take a $7,500 hit on almost every EV Barra manages to sell, including the vehicles she manufactures in Mexico...

Given that EVs are the future and Barra has failed so miserably trying to manufacture and sell them, GM’s stock understandably fared poorly. Compounding Barra’s dismal EV performance is the Cruise driverless taxi business debacle she’s also responsible for. Under Barra, GM doesn’t appear to have much of a future beyond selling high margin, gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. If GM’s stock remained in the gutter, it would be increasingly difficult for the media to promote its narrative that Barra is one of America’s best CEOs, as Fortune editor Alyson Shontell and others maintain.

GM’s stock until last week was down 14% for the year, while the S&P 500 was up 19%. To goose the stock price and mitigate the damage of her failed leadership, Barra gleefully announced her $10 billion stock buyback.

Stock buybacks boost share prices, at least in the short term, because they reduce the number of shares outstanding. Barra’s ruse worked as planned: GM’s stock immediately rose about 10%. At this writing, GM was trading at about $33, roughly the price of the company’s initial public offering price in 2014, but still down 17% from what GM was trading at when Barra took over two years later...

With rivals doubling down on their EV investments, one should reasonably expect that Barra would be hoarding her shekels and trying to remain competitive. Instead, she’s cut back on GM’s planned EV expenditures and earmarked $10 billion to bribe investors not to clamor for her removal. Barra also said she hopes to build even more profitable gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. Hard as I’ve tried, I have yet to find even one environmentalist voicing outrage...

Defenders of Barra’s obscene $58 million in compensation these past two years and the more than $200 million she’s received in her nine years on the job are always quick to point out that much of her largesse is stock options. Barra will be among the biggest beneficiaries of her $10 billion stock buyback...
 
Good points, all, Roger. I own Tesla stock and I’m still “up” on my investment, though certainly not as much as I once was. I think the company still has a promising outlook, with room for growth far beyond just cars and trucks, which is why I remain invested in the company. I just recognize I have no idea what the stock is going to do over any given time frame. But I’m still hoping for the best.
 
Please describe in your own words what the efficient market hypothesis is.

I do not accept the assignment, since others explain it better:

From Investopedia:

“The efficient market hypothesis (EMH), alternatively known as the efficient market theory, is a hypothesis that states that share prices reflect all available information and consistent alpha generation is impossible.

According to the EMH, stocks always trade at their fair value on exchanges, making it impossible for investors to purchase undervalued stocks or sell stocks for inflated prices. Therefore, it should be impossible to outperform the overall market through expert stock selection or market timing, and the only way an investor can obtain higher returns is by purchasing riskier investments
.”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp

I think intuition about a company’s future prospects can still rationally inform an investor on which stocks are most promising. But, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb warns, it’s easy to be “Fooled By Randomness”.
 
Last edited:
Tesla’s come with both a paper owner’s handbook, and one readily available on the main screen. In addition, there are a series of videos you can watch in the car and on the Tesla app to guide a new owner through basic features of the vehicle.

I foresee a potential obstacle when the car has fallen into a lake and is rapidly filling with water.
 
I foresee a potential obstacle when the car has fallen into a lake and is rapidly filling with water.
Why the passive voice? The car didn't fall into a lake. Someone drove it into a lake. To be fair, though, you wouldn't expect the kind of person who drives into lakes to be the kind of person who takes the time to read the manual and familiarize themselves with their car ahead of time.
 
It's the invisible hand but definitely not the South Sea Bubble.

I think folks tend to conflate "efficient" with "rational".

From tulips to the South Sea Bubble to daily machinations of stock prices, all can fall victim to the "madness of crowds", "Fear Of Missing Out", and a wide spectrum of psychological compunctions. Decidedly NOT rational, but in the end, efficient. And, importantly, unpredictable.
 
Why the passive voice? The car didn't fall into a lake. Someone drove it into a lake. To be fair, though, you wouldn't expect the kind of person who drives into lakes to be the kind of person who takes the time to read the manual and familiarize themselves with their car ahead of time.
Slightly off topic,

Adventures with Purpose
Adventures with Purpose is a group of professional, non-profit scuba divers who use underwater sonar imaging equipment and bathymetry mapping technology to locate missing persons and their vehicles in waterbodies...

The team usually deals with cold cases, however they have also volunteered for searches in recent cases; an example would be searching on August 22, 2022, for Kiely Rodni, who went missing on August 6, 2022. Certain recent cases may be incidental while searching the waterbody for a cold case. As of June 2023, the group has solved 26 missing person cases. [29 as of January 5, 2024]

Accidentally driving your car into a lake and not getting out has been a thing for a while now. The latest one had been there since 1985. I don't think we can pin this one on Tesla, though I'm sure some will try!
 
Slightly off topic,

Adventures with Purpose

Accidentally driving your car into a lake and not getting out has been a thing for a while now. The latest one had been there since 1985. I don't think we can pin this one on Tesla, though I'm sure some will try!

Well, it is unusual for window controls to fail so fast.

I wonder if she spent a lot of time trying to drive the car out, rather than opening the window and exiting?

I'm surprised by everything in this article, for some reason I'd believed that all Americans keep a little window breaker/seatbelt cutter* in the car at all times, as an emergency response device (for themselves or others).

The whole story makes me wonder if alcohol was involved, and if so, how much?






* Just checked on Amazon and those things are surprisingly cheap.

https://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Escape-Breaker-Reflective-Survival/dp/B07QDQ7MJD/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom