I speak about REAL Mercedes, not these tiny boxes on wheels. But even if you add them: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-model-s-cars-to-retrofit-power-steering-part 123,000 Tesla S recall. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/11/tesla-recalls-2700-model-x-cars.html 2,700 Model X recall. http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/20/autos/tesla-model-s-recall-seat-belt/index.html recall 90,000 Model S for seatbelt problem. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-t...-june-28-china-quality-watchdog-idUKKBN1HG10V Tesla to recall 8,898 vehicles in China. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-model-x-suvs-due-to-seat-issue-idUSKBN1CH32R recall 11,000 Model X due to seat issues. These Teslas cost almost 10 times more than these Smarts... These Smarts CAN catch fire, but the Tesla's DO cath fire.
Tesla (TSLA) analyst cut off in Q1 earnings call reaches out to Elon Musk Tesla stock (NASDAQ:TSLA) continues to recover since nosediving last week, gaining back more than $2 billion of its market cap since Monday. Amidst what appears to be a continuous rise in the electric car maker’s stocks, Joseph Spak, the analyst from RBC Capital Markets who Musk cut off during Tesla’s Q1 2018 earnings call, has reached out to the CEO through an open letter. During the first-quarter earnings call, Spak asked Musk if he could give an idea about the percentage of Model 3 reservation holders who are configuring their vehicles upon receiving their invites. Responding to the question, Musk stated that the questions in the Q&A were “so dry, they’re killing me.” In a series of tweets last Friday, however, Musk admitted that he should have answered the analysts’ questions, even describing his actions as “foolish.” In an open letter to Elon Musk, RBC analyst Joseph Spak explained the rationale behind his inquiry during the earnings call. Spak also stated that Tesla remains a company that has a “compelling long-term opportunity.” Here are excerpts from Spak’s open letter to Elon Musk, as noted by The Street. Sponsored Content “Tesla remains an amazing company with a compelling long-term opportunity and an incredible list of accomplishments already under its belt. But I continue to hold Tesla (and every company I cover) accountable for implementing a strategic vision that aligns with an ability to execute at scale. “As an analyst, my responsibility is to be well informed when I discuss Tesla’s stock with current and potential investors. A financial results call is an opportunity for Wall Street to recalibrate our expectations based on the information you provide, so we can thoughtfully reflect on the financial outlook for your company. “Our questions collectively represent the concerns and interests of your current and potential shareholders. Some of these questions can seem dry, boring or short-term focused, but hopefully, you can appreciate that anyone looking to invest in Tesla’s future must first be comfortable with its present.” The RBC analyst went on to invite Musk to a webcast or a phone call in order to discuss the company’s current state and ensure that there is no miscommunication between Tesla, its investors, and Wall Street. Spak further stated that all Musk needs to do is “name a time and place,” and he will be there with one of Tesla’s major shareholders. RBC Capital Markets rates Tesla as sector Perform, with a price target of $280, roughly 7% lower than the stock’s current levels. Spak explained the rationale behind RBC’s stance on TSLA in his note. “Our sector perform rating is based on our view that while Tesla is a very innovative and disruptive company with strong growth ahead via disrupting large addressable markets, it is also a classic story stock that is difficult to value given that the investment decision is often qualitative rather than quantitative,” Spak wrote. Elon Musk has been doubling down on his efforts to push Tesla towards profitability by the third or fourth quarter. Apart from predicting the “short burn of the century,” Musk also recently took the fight to Tesla bears, buying nearly $10 million worth of stocks, increasing his stake at the company. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-analyst-q1-earnings-call-elon-musk/
I've always thought that SCTY had a lot of analogs to Enron with all the special purpose entities they've set up. This just adds to the similarities; Jeffrey Skilling famously called Richard Grubman "asshole" then laughed at him on the last earning conference call before their downfall when Grubman had the gall to ask why Enron was the only company that couldn't come up with balance sheet or cash flow statement after earnings. Interestingly Grubman both had the last laugh on that one given Highland's big short position in Enron, and it turns out he is an asshole when he later threw keys in a valet's face when told he couldn't park in a valet spot in a Ritz Carlton parking lot.
The Tesla Plunge Prevention Team is so out to lunch (and out to breakfast) today. The bond market seemed to be getting propped up pretty hard this morning. Perhaps that's got something to do with the early surge in DIA and SPY, though as a newbie, I'm not sure exactly how things work. BTW, some entities are buying bonds again after a brief pause.
yesterday's PA was a bit strange. I thought the price would recover in the afternoon, instead of that it just melted down where it started. I think it hit a giant sell wall. Some people think that $310 and above is a good price too get out.
Compared to where TSLA should be or deserves to be trading based on fundamentals and realistic outlook, any price above $200 is a dream come true IMHO. The bet on the long side seems to be a gamble on the way the stock price is being propped up. On its own, TSLA is a ticking time bomb. Nothing against Tesla, but I'll never buy its EV or any EV by other makers with a similar battery capacity and configuration, because once the battery pack catches fire (from crash, overcharging, overheating, defective insulation, manufacturing flaws ... etc), the probability of survival or getting out with minor injury / burn) is unacceptably low. The intensity of heat and the speed at which the explosive fire can engulf the car makes ANY battery fire an instant disaster. I'm beginning to doubt EV makers ability to satisfy the letter and spirit of Federal transportation safety codes and regulations, and hence their ability to continue their EV production, when people realize that once the car battery pack is on fire, the driver and passengers either get burned to death, or suffer serious, permanent disfigurement.
Once again, the amount of energy in the gasoline required to go 200 miles is the same as the amount of energy in the batteries required to go 200 miles. There were 174,000 vehicle fires, causing 445 deaths in car crashes in the U.S. last year (https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Resea...tatistics/Vehicle-fires/Highway-vehicle-fires). That's not a typo, 174,000! And I think 173,998 of them weren't electric cars. Heck, by probability alone you're probably much safer in terms of fire in an electric car than an internal combustion engine one. Human brains are ill equipped to intuitively understand statistics for improbable events, even otherwise smart brains like yours and mine. It's why everyone freaks out about a single person killed in an airline mishap, the first death in several years, while every year over 35,000 people die in car accidents in the U.S. and no-one gives it a second thought. The hyper scrutiny over EV's, as epitomized by your comments, is no different. It's completely irrational to consider a literally explosive liquid that is impossible to contain once it's container is breached to be "safe" while a battery which can be contained in a discreet section of the car, can't douse the occupants and then ignite, and actually becomes safer if dispersed to be incapable of ever being "safe". Note that the description of an internal combustion engine car has the freaking word combustion in it! Once again, 37,000 people suffer death, probably hundreds of thousands "permanent disfigurement" as a result of riding in cars each year. It's clearly an inherently unsafe activity if your criteria is zero mishaps, insanely unsafe really. But people seem to be fine with taking that risk, and there's no evidence at all that your overall chance of dying is higher in an EV than in an internal combustion engine car.
There is a big difference in the intensity of heat and the speed at which a battery fire spreads. The number of EV car accidents is still small due to the recent adoption of EVs. I believe the pattern will be clearer once the statistical samples increase.