Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Stock Plunged After Elon Musk's 'Bizarre' Conference Call (wired.com)

A recent Bloomberg article describes Elon Musk's "bizarre" conference call on Wednesday -- and its aftermath on Wall Street. Elon Musk told investors not to buy Tesla Inc. shares if they can't stomach volatility. They got the message. The comments -- part of a bizarre, heated conference call after the close Wednesday -- sent the electric-car maker's stock plunging. Tesla fell as much as 8.6 percent Thursday after the chief executive officer rejected analysts' questions on another quarter in which the company burned more than $1 billion in cash.
Investors had shorted a total of more than 40 million shares by Thursday -- the most ever in Tesla history -- and despite a rise in Tesla's stock price on Friday, they shorted 500,000 more shares.

Wired argues that Musk "clearly is avoiding some hard questions about Tesla's financial viability. But it's equally true that the call exposed how limited Wall Street can be about visions for the future and what it takes to create new templates for doing old things." This clash was highlighted by Musk's response to "sober questions by respected Wall Street analysts" like Toni Sacconaghi.

Musk brushed him off, sniping that "bonehead, boring questions are not cool." To add insult to that injury, Musk then fielded questions from a YouTube user, who proceeded to dominate a call normally open only to significant Wall Street analysts. That did not sit well with the Street, and Sacconaghi lambasted Musk the next day on CNBC with the rather clever jab, "This is a financial analyst call, this is not a TED talk."

Friday, Musk returned fire, with tweets asserting that the question was boneheaded because the analyst already knew the answer and was asking purely to advocate a negative thesis about the company.

But Barron's replayed the conference call, and argued that Musk was mistaken, reporting that "the analyst wanted to know about capital requirements, not expenditures."

269 comments

  1. Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would prefer to respond to Youtuber comments over having a Wall Street putz on the phone let alone talking to one.

    Just ask your average person what they would do to a Wall Street banker, then realize that few people know enough about the human body to hurt others really severely.

    1. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you would, as some rando of YouTube isn't gojng too ask hard questions. And, asking how much more cash you need, "capital requirements" seems to me to be a rather important question about the viability of a company that has burned through billions of dollars and is competing with state sponsored industries.

    2. Re:Given the choice by Junta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue is that during an earnings call, you field the analyst questions, not indulge feel good fanboyism.

      His rationale was that the ones he snubbed were 'sell-side' and therefore just out to screw him over to help those who have shorted stock, which is problematic as that isn't what 'sell-side' means. It seems he doesn't understand that (bad for one having that responsibility) and that he is sore over how many people are shorting Tesla stock, and unable to handle it.

      Even if he did feel the analysts were spinning a bad story out to get him for the sake of boosting the fortunes of those holding a short position, the right response would be to face it head on and point out how he feels the narrative implied is inaccurate, not to cut it off, which gives an impression that you don't have a rebuttal for such a story and as such the people advocating a 'short' position are right.

      Musk may be unable to provide good business leadership through controversial/rough times.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Until you remember how Wall Street missed Bernie Madoff, Bear Sterns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Enron, Galleon Group, Arthur Anderson, scammed Jefferson and Orange Counties, and are pretty much the gutter monkeys of the world with the nicest suits, but the emptiest brains.

      Then you realize that Emperor Norton might be wearing a fancy suit, but that doesn't make him a King.

    4. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would prefer to respond to Youtuber comments over having a Wall Street putz on the phone let alone talking to one.

      Just ask your average person what they would do to a Wall Street banker, then realize that few people know enough about the human body to hurt others really severely.

      Actually, your reaction is pretty much the same as CNBC's Jim Cramer.

      Now get this, let's go over this. This was the best call I've heard in a long time, and I'll tell you why. Everyone wants to cut off Tony Sacconaghi. He is Mr. Negative. Most of the CEOs that I talk to say, "That guy! That guy! All he does is talk negatively!" So he went negative? Elon Musk had had it. I like that!

      Secondly, how about this gem: 'We have no interest in satisfying the interest of day traders. I couldn't care less. Please sell our stock and don't buy it'. How good is that?? That is the truth!

      And then finally! He says about the individual investors, he says it to Gallileo, not to Copernicus or Einstein, but a guy named Gallileo on the call, 'I think that if people are concerned about volatility they should not buy our stock. I'm not here to convince you to buy our stock. Do not buy it if volatility is scary.' AMEN! Isn't that exactly what we want? If I were Elon Musk, I would have done the Exact Same Thing. I would have done the exact same thing.

      No, I am not kidding. Tony Sacconaghi? I have had enough of him too! I am with Elon. Let's go to YouTube, okay?

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    5. Re:Given the choice by solanum · · Score: 2

      Well, Musk and his pals own the largest part of the shares, so I guess he can be a bit more blasé than many in his position. Assuming Tesla don't need extra money from outside his circle that is.

      I think he is being genuine, he is trying to do something new and change things, he is not interested in maximising the share price day to day and finds that attitude an annoyance. Whether that will bite him in the end and whether he will succeed I don't know, but good luck to him.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    6. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so asking the questions to see if this is a scam is bad?

    7. Re: Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      The YouTuber asked the best questions on the call. The questions Musk didn't answer was A) Tony Sacconaghi's third question (he was only allowed two, and he didn't even ask before launching into a third), asking about something that was in boldface right at the top of the investor letter that everyone was supposed to have read before joining the call. And B) Joseph Spak advocating for a short selling thesis he's been pushing where he argues that there's a low conversion rate on Model 3s - despite the fact that of course there is because people can only get a very limited subset of options right now, so the majority are deferring to get their desired options.

      The YouTuber, by contrast, asked about:

      1) Progress with the Tesla network
      2) Production capacity on the 3 line at Fremont and how they're supposed to fit Y production in there
      3) Daimler's statement about Semi "breaking the laws of physics", and whether they need a new battery technology to achieve it
      4) Whether Tesla plans to go to 350kW supercharging like Porsche is talking about
      5) Whether Tesla is still willing to open up the Supercharger network to competitors
      6) Power rates and supply-side costs for Semi megachargers
      7) Prioritization of home-scale vs. utility scale on energy storage products and the state of the market going forward

      (He got to ask so many because: "We'll keep going if you (46:57) ask questions that are not boring"; he didn't just start butting in with extra questions like Tony)

      And from these questions, we learned that:

      * Musk thinks the software will be ready for full self driving for consumers in a year, but worries about regulatory acceptance
      * A processing power upgrade might be required, they're not sure at this point - but it's a plug-in replacement.
      * Musk thinks journalists are causing people to die by spreading scare stories about self-driving. Compares the scenario where you have a couple deaths with autonomous systems versus over a million per year otherwise (yet the former gets all of the coverage and the latter little) - and that this overemphasis makes people less likely to use systems that he feels significantly improves safety.
      * Plans to release quarterly statistics showing the impact of Autopilot on safety
      * The Reuters report that Model Y was going to be built in Fremont is completely wrong, and he has no clue where it came from. Fremont is packed to the gills already. No chance Y will be built there.
      * Model Y will be released in about 24 months.
      * Model Y capital spend is low right now, but will be dramatically ramping up next year. But decisions made this year will have a major impact on the capital costs for the Y next year.
      * Model 3's current battery tech already supports a Semi with 500 miles range. They think they may be able to do 600 miles by the time it's in production.
      * Tesla doesn't agree that going to 350kW is wise for passenger cars; looks to go to 200-250kW. With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense. And you can up the power density just by adding more cells. He feels you get a way better vehicle and driving experience for your money going with more energy dense than power dense, and compares it to what it would be like if you could buy a phone that could charge twice as fast but you had to charge it multiple times per day.
      * Wants, and has tried, to get other automakers to use their supercharger network. Thinks "moats" are dumb, and if you're relying on a moat to keep competition at bay, you won't last long. All other automakers need to agree to is to use their connector (or an adapter) and for their vehicles to pay for the power. None have taken Tesla up on the offer.
      * Finds the Nikola "windshield" lawsuit laughable - not just on its merits, but the underlying premise: people don't reserve semis for their looks, flee

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    8. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you followed his twitter feed, he's not upset about how many people are shorting Tesla, he's giggling about it. He finds them amusing. Just the other day he issued another one of his "oh by the way..." notices that he did the last two times right before there were short squeezes.

      As for the two questions he didn't answer: Tony just jumped in, tried to take a third question without having been told he could (the normal rule is two), and asked about something that was right at the bloody top of the investor letter that everyone was supposed to have read before joining the call. Yes, that's a "boneheaded" move. The second was from Joseph Spak. I assume you don't know him in relation to Tesla, but he's been pushing this ridiculous pro-short hypothesis - which he was trying to do in the call there - that Tesla is somehow in danger because Model 3 conversion rates (people going from a waiting list to a purchase when their number comes up) are lower than average. Which is ridiculous for two reasons - firstly because of course they're low, because you can only get the car in a very limited number of configs right now, so of course a good chunk of people are going to choose the delay option. And secondly, with nearly half a million people on a (growing) waiting list with no advertising whatsoever, it doesn't matter a whit. There's zero chance whatsoever that they're going to run out of reservations. They're going to be supply-limited for years, not demand.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    9. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their track record is poor.

    10. Re: Given the choice by Barny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks. This was what I was actually looking for. My first suspicion that something was odd was when none of the stories about this had the questions listed. They were pulling rank to defend one of their own. Given how on-point the questions from the "Youtuber" are, I am doubting it was just some Rando McCommentor.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    11. Re: Given the choice by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      Great summary, thanks for this.

      I knew that if Musk calls you a bonehead then you're a bonehead, but it's handy to have the details.

    12. Re: Given the choice by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we can agree that the dialogue between Musk and the "YouTuber" was rich and informative, almost like a well-scripted presentation.

    13. Re:Given the choice by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least for the latter, the correct response would be to highlight *on the call* that you have had a buyer for every model 3 that has come off the line and how badly the conversion rate would have to be for there to be a surplus of car production at some timeframe, not to snub the person because the question irritates you as you don't like their agenda. If this is a known agenda, then he should have a succinct yet useful response off the top of his head at this point. On the face of it, it doesn't seem a hard question to address, regardless on his feelings on the motivations behind it.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. It doesn't really matter as long as the claims he made can be backed up. Musk's track record so far is that they usually are. Why are you so desperate to convince people otherwise?

    15. Re:Given the choice by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If you followed his twitter feed, he's not upset about how many people are shorting Tesla, he's giggling about it.

      Well, he better knock that off, and fast. One very obvious explanation for his behavior on the call is that he's deliberately trying to tank the stock for some reason. If he's "giggling about" people shorting Tesla, then that would add evidence it's intentional.

      If he's doing it intentionally (or if it looks like he is), he's opening himself up to lawsuits and possibly criminal investigations.

      Even if he's found not guilty at the end of it, that's not a path anyone should be following.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re: Given the choice by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The questions that are hard to answer are the important ones. Not the bullet points on the glossy brochure.

    17. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, I almost forgot you could get posts like this on slashdot. Usually it's all anger and vitriol, with some racism thrown in on the side. And hate for Trump.

      Thanks for the insightful post.

    18. Re: Given the choice by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      These parasitic shitbags?? Uh, yeah. If they ask you for the fucking time, you punch them in the face.

    19. Re:Given the choice by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Wall Street putz is technically one of Elon's bosses. He wasn't being asked stupid questions, these were legitimate questions concerning the financial health of the company. If Musk didn't want to field questions from stockholders then he should never have taken the company public.

    20. Re: Given the choice by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.

    21. Re:Given the choice by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Musk is not the owner of Tesla, it's a public company. That means the stockholders are in charge. If he keeps pissing off the stockholders then it's possible the board might want to find a different CEO that's more stable. Probably the board won't, but it would be less boring than usual when lots of stockholders decide to vote rather than send in the generic proxy check boxes.

    22. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 2,5 years ago he estimated that self driving cars was 2 years away: (if latest guess is correct, this was 1,5 years off)
      https://electrek.co/2015/12/21/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-drops-prediction-full-autonomous-driving-from-3-years-to-2/

      About 1,5 years ago he estimated it would be 2 years away: (if latest guess is correct, this was 0,5 years off)
      https://electrek.co/2017/12/08/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-timeline/

      Now he estimates that it is 1 year away:

      While the predictions have failed, he is getting closer to current date with his predictions.

    23. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Identifying a scam company and trying to screw a company to make money off of shorting them are two different things. As a former employee of Level(3) who saw their retirement stock go from $120 to $1 due to short manipulation, I would like to let you know exactly what I would do to those scum.

      Look up "death of a thousand cuts", some of the images from the Boxer Rebellion are jarring...

    24. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems more like he is sand-bagging and waiting to catch the shorts with their pants down.

      He cannot go out and make any insider statements about the company, but he can kick their shins and throw sand in their eyes to get them to come after him.

      The board should be able to see the results of this in the near-term and can use that to make their decisions.

      Based on past performance, it is likely that Musk/Tesla will continue to grow until some real whales get into the market and even then he is a decade ahead of them.

      It makes for an entertaining show, just hope people know there are a lot of hand-puppets and kabuki going on.

    25. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been repeated Ad nauseam: "The questions Musk didn't answer was A) Tony Sacconaghi's third question (he was only allowed two, and he didn't even ask before launching into a third), asking about something that was in boldface right at the top of the investor letter that everyone was supposed to have read before joining the call. And B) Joseph Spak advocating for a short selling thesis he's been pushing where he argues that there's a low conversion rate on Model 3s - despite the fact that of course there is because people can only get a very limited subset of options right now, so the majority are deferring to get their desired options."

      So, no they were asking what was already answered and attempting to lead to a forgone (and unproven) conclusion

    26. Re: Given the choice by sfcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.

      And neither are the analysts who are upset and asked the questions we are discussing. Those are short sellers who have a negative interest in TSLA. The YouTube "retail" investor is a much better representative of the investors in TSLA. Also, the questions the analysts (accountants) ask have little to nothing to do with the current valuation of TSLA. Nobody is betting on TSLA to get the profits from the model 3. They are going long here because they think the company will be the first to mass produce electric cars with an vertically integrated supply chain for the batteries which puts them in a dominate position in transport going forward. Couple that to the fact that the entire economics of the auto industry could likely change over the next 20 years as self-driving cars become common. Also, auto ownership possibly transitions to renting (aka ride sharing). So these are the issues for which most investors are buying TSLA. So the YT questions are actually more useful to the investors than the accounting questions the analysts are asking.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    27. Re:Given the choice by sfcat · · Score: 1

      The Wall Street putz is technically one of Elon's bosses. He wasn't being asked stupid questions, these were legitimate questions concerning the financial health of the company. If Musk didn't want to field questions from stockholders then he should never have taken the company public.

      No he isn't. Cramer has never owned TSLA (according to him). Just for reference, Cramer is also the guy who said Bear Sterns was fine one day before it went bankrupt (with the stock going from $60 to $8 in 24 hours). I trade equities for a living and I bet against Cramer on a regular basis and have never been wrong (about betting against him). I still have no idea how that guy stays on CNBC.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    28. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So he doesn't like moats and would like other companies to use his superchargers.

      Yet he will not let other companies fix "his" cars.

      Seems like he believes in moats whenever it suits him. What a hypocrite.

    29. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks -- +1 informative but you're already at 5!

    30. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of anecdotes is not a track record lol.

      Ironically you're probably the type who thinks communism is great.

    31. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the people who you invited to invest in your company?

      Why would you allow "parasitic shitbags" to invest in your company? And then when they did and ask questions about how it's going, you'd punch them in the face?

      Let me guess, you also think Venezuela and Cuba are wonderful utopias.

    32. Re: Given the choice by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 0

      With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense.

      Nonsense alert - while energy density is a well-defined, meaningful metric, power density is at best a poorly defined one and at worst a meaningless juxtaposition of words, a.k.a. marketing. It certainly does not make sense to talk about both of them together this way. One of them is a physical metric, the other is ... not. Otoh, if he were talking about power, that would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.

      And you can up the power density just by adding more cells.

      Sorry Rei, but this shows your bullshit detector is out of whack. If it's [something] density then the total amount of volume (or in this case, cells) is irrelevant, since density is [something] per unit volume (or per cell). So the statement is wrong as is, would be "right-er" for power, but then it's not just cells that you have to add, is it? more power requires higher amperage wiring, better cooling, and so on - it's not just about stuffing the car to the gills with batteries.

      And lastly, for the record: despite how this Slashdot summary makes it sound, despite the short-selling surge, Tesla's stock has already recovered 2/3rds of the drop after the call. And I can't think of anything dumber than shorting a stock because you thought the CEO was rude during a call (despite the company beating its whisper number, the number that the stock was valued based on, immediately beforehand). I mean, seriously, you're going to drop the stock nearly 10% because you thought the CEO was rude? Get over your personal obsession with the guy.

      :-( this post started so well, factual and stuff. Please, next time, try to refrain from repeating something like this last paragraph. If you really have to, make a separate post. There are so many things wrong in this small ending that it'd take a full post to explain - stuff about how stock market works, about sending messages, especially during conference calls, and lastly about irony and seeing emotions in others while being blind to them in oneself. I am aware of your history of posting pro-Musk things on /. but for the sake of efficiency do try to keep informative posts separated from "opinion" posts. It makes for better reading.

    33. Re:Given the choice by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      What he should do is hire somebody else to deal with that boring stuff. But I suspect he already did that, and that person's conference calls aren't considered newsworthy, only things Musk says get reported.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    34. Re:Given the choice by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Musk may be unable to provide good business leadership through controversial/rough times.

      Implying that Tesla hasn't been in rough times or controversial since its inception?

    35. Re: Given the choice by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If you add more cells power density will remain the same, not increase, surely?

    36. Re: Given the choice by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So the hundreds of thousands of Teslas driving around for the last 10 years don't actually work and it's been mass delusion?

      Please think twice before posting again. Actually, I'd settle for thinking at all.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    37. Re: Given the choice by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      You must work for Standard & Poor's. Yeah, they have a great track record when it comes to assessing the quality of investments. Mortgage Backed Securities, anyone?

      https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    38. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of anecdotes is not a track record lol.

      Actual historical events are not a track record? Well, maybe if you're only familiar with the one racing definition.

      Ironically you're probably the type who thinks communism is great.

      Amusingly, the biggest similarity between "capitalism" and "communism" are the con artists taking advantage of the supposed ideal for their own gain.

    39. Re: Given the choice by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.

      That gives you about as much clout as citizens have over "public servants". The only case where that would matter is when those stockholders happen to own enough shares to actually do anything that the CEO gives a shit about.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    40. Re:Given the choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the correct response would be to highlight *on the call* that you have had a buyer for every model 3 that has come off the line and how badly the conversion rate would have to be for there to be a surplus of car production at some timeframe, not to snub the person because the question irritates you as you don't like their agenda.

      What? Musk doesn't want investment dollars from people who will ask those questions, he wants it from people who understand that he's building something. So he acted to dissuade the kind of people he doesn't want to invest from investing. Explain why this is not precisely the correct response.

      If this is a known agenda, then he should have a succinct yet useful response off the top of his head at this point.

      He did, and he used it. What are you crying about?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Given the choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Musk is not the owner of Tesla, it's a public company. That means the stockholders are in charge. If he keeps pissing off the stockholders then it's possible the board might want to find a different CEO that's more stable.

      Remember how that went for Apple? Let us know how you think it will go for Tesla. Many have pointed out in this thread that Musk's spin-generation abilities are the force behind Tesla's success. You think the board doesn't know that? I think they're probably smarter than you are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re: Given the choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The questions that are hard to answer are the important ones. Not the bullet points on the glossy brochure.

      The question that Musk didn't answer was a bullet point on the glossy brochure that the questioner apparently didn't bother to read before attending the conference call, consequently choosing to waste everyone's time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is Elon's way of giving people who really believe in his company a deal. Buy low, sell high.

    44. Re:Given the choice by Junta · · Score: 1

      If the intent behind the question is to erode investor confidence in the company, then he plays into the hands of the person supporting the short position. Whether he gets an answer reinforcing that "yes, people are abandoning the model 3 as a product" or makes Musk say "boring, next!", the effect is the same: the people would would invest in a non-short position are made to be concerned. Providing an actual answer to the question that would reveal it to be completely irrelevant to the success of the company given actual facts and would build confidence in the investors he wants.

      He did, and he used it. What are you crying about?

      No, he moved on and the next day between him and a lot of Tesla fans they came up with a response. The stock recovered for the most part, but it did take a dive for a bit and general concerns about Musk are reinforced. It does not help him for everyone to white knight for him at the vaguest hint of constructive criticism, he's an adult, he should be able to see this and learn from it, but can be dis served if there's too much of a loud echo chamber telling him that he is always the best all the time.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    45. Re: Given the choice by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Tesla doesn't agree that going to 350kW is wise for passenger cars; looks to go to 200-250kW. With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense. And you can up the power density just by adding more cells. He feels you get a way better vehicle and driving experience for your money going with more energy dense than power dense, and compares it to what it would be like if you could buy a phone that could charge twice as fast but you had to charge it multiple times per day."

      I did not listen to this answer, but assuming the summary is correct this causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Musk because it displays either a stunning lack of understanding of the problem or a stunning lack of respect for the audience. This answer is motivated my a lack of confidence to achieve, not my any insight as to what is "wise".

      A passenger car will have enough battery to provide the desired range and it's pretty well understood the range of capacities that will be required for that. A large problem to overcome is recharge time and it is, without any doubt, true that 350kW will represent a significant improvement in recharge times over 200-250 kW for the range of capacities required. The goal isn't to achieve what we can achieve today, it's to satisfy actual needs going forward.

      Furthermore, you can't "up the power density just by adding more cells" although I'll assume that's a summary error. Adding cells doesn't change density, just overall power, and it increases size, weight, and range at the same time. A passenger car battery needs to provide range, durability AND rapid charging so the fact is there's more work to do and limiting charging to lower powers isn't the right answer.

      As time goes on I become more convinced that Tesla succeeds only because there aren't real players in the market yet. Once mature engineering talent brings products to market from established manufacturers, Tesla will be gone.

    46. Re: Given the choice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your saying your as dumb as an Enron employee?

      It's fucking moronic to keep your retirement in your employer's stock. Risk management.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many shares did the "wall street putz" own? Enough to make him majority shareholder and therefor the only voice that matters? was this a shareholders meeting or an analyst call?

      Elons bosses are the board members, who are accountable to the shareholders.

    48. Re: Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nonsense alert - while energy density is a well-defined, meaningful metric, power density is at best a poorly defined one and at worst a meaningless juxtaposition of words, a.k.a. marketing.

      Simply untrue. Different cells can charge and discharge at dramatically different C rates, relative to cell lifespan. If you want a higher C rate, as a general rule, you have to pay more and get a lower energy density. Tesla for example could go with titanates and do 5-10 minute charges, but they'd have ridiculously expensive packs and terrible range.

      Sorry Rei, but this shows your bullshit detector is out of whack

      No, it shows I made a typo in the middle of writing a very long post. I was very clearly talking about power, I had just been writing the word "density" so many times that it slipped in there.

      but then it's not just cells that you have to add, is it? more power requires higher amperage wiring, better cooling

      Duh.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    49. Re: Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was a typo.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    50. Re: Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, you can't "up the power density

      As was repeatedly pointed out above, that was a typo in my post. It should simply have read "power". If you have a 100kWh pack that you can charge in 30 minutes, a 200kWh pack with the same cells can charge at double the power.

      it is, without any doubt, true that 350kW will represent a significant improvement in recharge times over 200-250 kW for the range of capacities required.

      Which do you think would sell better: a $45k vehicle which goes 310 miles and charges 80% during a half-hour lunch break, or a $90k otherwise-identical-vehicle that does 200 miles range but can charge 80% in 15 minutes? Because that's literally the choice at hand. And I can tell you the answer to that question.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    51. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's worked out nicely for me, at least ;) The shorts are so bloody predictable. Too bad they've run out of rope. And I'm not talking about the fact that Tesla's non-GAAP automotive margins jumped 5% last quarter alone or that their production rates are skyrocketing. I'm talking about the fact that they can no longer keep holding down the stock price by upping their short stakes like they've been doing so far this year. There's almost no stock left to short, and what there is is charging high interest rates. And if they can't hold down the price, they can no longer stop the stock from going up when there's good news like increased production rates. When the stock goes up, heavily leveraged shorts get forced to cover. Which pushes the stock up. Forcing others to cover. Etc. Can you imagine what would happen to the price if contractual obligations forced people -in short order - to purchase literally a third of the stock, at whatever price it happened to be? It's going to be a bloodbath.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    52. Re: Given the choice by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Well now that you've brought up the S&P folks. A minor look at the stock fluctuation shows is that one could have easily made $50 a share by buying when the stock it bottomed. But I really don't think production was altered by the fluctuation.

    53. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      200 miles range but can charge 80% in 15 minutes?

      How about your only choice is 200 miles range (P85), average charging time of 60 minutes for every 4 hours of driving, real world long distance?
      I can also tell you the answer to that question.

    54. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing the range completely borks their supercharge network. Just based on an observation on how the trip planner works. I'm not an expert, but that's my very first thought. Seems like such a drop for the inconvenience.

    55. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the victim much? You know it was (incredibly brilliant) sleazebags like Andy Fastow who did that. All indications, or so it was reported literally everywhere, were very positive. If you want to focus on the victim, then letâ(TM)s on why you scorn them. You think thereâ(TM)s dumb. But if thatâ(TM)s the case, then that just makes it worse, because it exposes the sleazebags as predators. Still think they âoedeserve itâ? Give up, then, because youâ(TM)re a sociopath.

    56. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Invest"

      You mean leach and don't work one fucking bit
      ALL that money they "invest" is eyclusively both from leechin and for the purpose of more leeching.

      My rule is simple: If I had to work x hours to make y money, then either you worked x houry too, or you will not get my money.

      If you get y money im ANY way other than by somebody working x hours for it, you are a thief and a criminal and must leave the country or die.
      I don't fuckin care one bit of that includes the definition of "profit" in your degenerated vulture psychopath society.

    57. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, just to get your facts straight, Level(3) was actually building out a network and Enron was leasing capacity on it and never made an effort to build their own network.

      Level(3) stock did "get ahead of itself" and that is what the employee stock program got skewered on (because it is hard to outperform in the long run after the price has become inflated), and the source of my ire. The Level(3) management has proven to be competent, particularly if they are successful in modernizing CenturyLink.

    58. Re:Given the choice by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It could be true, but most of the value of TSLA then is in financial obligations not the value of the company. So once it spikes, I'd imagine it plummets.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    59. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is a Tesla shill.

    60. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no "hundreds of thousands" of Tesla cars "on the road". Not even a hundred thousand.

    61. Re: Given the choice by Rolgar · · Score: 2

      He needs other companies to use his superchargers. If not, it's really difficult to justify building the recharge network needed. But with more cars on the road that need his charging system, the more money will roll in to build that network. And it's better that the stations be his than some non-compatible system that he's competing against. Also, it could be that his real end game is being in the charging business, and making cars is to move the market from fossils to electric, giving customers a reason to need his stations.

    62. Re: Given the choice by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.

      And neither are the analysts who are upset and asked the questions we are discussing. Those are short sellers who have a negative interest in TSLA.

      Bingo. Why should the CEO of any company (doesn't matter if it's Tesla or Musk) respond to questions fielded by people who are not invested in the company? Or even worse, those who have an interest in seeing the company fail?

      In my world, any "respected stock market analyst" would be required, before uttering a word of "analysis" or "advice", to

      1) Reveal his entire investment portfolio in detail, so we can see whether his money is where his mouth is. You're telling me to buy a stock but didn't buy it yourself? You're telling me to sell but you yourself hold it? STFU.

      2) Show how much of his personal wealth is invested, i.e. how much he is risking by following up on his own advice. Is he just investing a little on the side, or can he actually pretty much bankrupt himself if he is wrong? That'll show you how much he actually believes what he is saying...and whether he is trying to actively decieve people or not.

      "Stock market analysts" that make more money "analyzing" and "advising" than they do actually trading stocks are, simply put, bullshitters. When you have, as in this case, short sellers who actively want to make the company look bad so they can profit masquerading as "analysts", that is even worse. Every CEO should tell them to go whistle.

    63. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. When you short a stock, you effectively create a new share of the stock, which you then sell; those shares effectively disappear when you cover your short. The reason shorting drives the stock down is that you're creating more supply. When you cover, you're reducing the supply. The price rise is fundamental to the reduced supply, not a transient phenomenon.

      Look at past short squeezes to see what happens.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    64. Re:Given the choice by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      The issue is that during an earnings call, you field the analyst questions, not indulge feel good fanboyism.

      That's just doing things the way they are usually done, and Musk's MO is to re-evaluate every practice (why do we do this? no, really, why, not "because that's the way it's done"). Musk is certainly not infallible and has a lot of flaws, but in my book, telling "analysts" to go whistle is not one of them. These "analysts" serve no useful purpose and I don't see why any CEO should indulge them with anything...any investor with half a share deserves more of a seat at the table and more of a voice than some "analyst".

      Musk may be unable to provide good business leadership through controversial/rough times.

      I doubt this to be true, since Musk's companies have already had a lot of rough times (including multiple near-bankruptcies) and have managed to survive. Of course, it's always possible that the next rough ride will kill them, that Musk has run out of luck, become overconfident etc., however experience in leadership in controversial and rough times is one thing he certainly does have.

      Musk hates the fact that Tesla is a public company (he said as much when explaining once why SpaceX has not gone public). Tesla went public out of desperation, to get funding at a time it was running out of cash. If Musk had the money to take it back to being private, he probably would. With its large valuation, he's kind of a victim of his own success in that sense.

    65. Re: Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, is there a question in there somewhere? And why are you discussing an obsolete model which was charged in a stupid way which almost nobody does when driving long distances? You never charge that full unless you have to, as charge rates greatly slow down at the top of the SoC.

      Real-world range depends on what options you choose (pack, wheels, etc) and how you drive. But regardless of whatever the baseline is, if you want to switch to a high power chemistry, you need to slash that baseline range heavily. Because whether you like it or not, there's an energy-power chemistry tradeoff.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    66. Re: Given the choice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      WTF are you on about?

      Enron (and apparently level 3) were full of stupid greedy employees that had no clue about risk management. You don't keep you net worth in any one company, you for fucking sure don't keep your net worth in your employer.

      Enron were clients, I recall a power trading risk management training session that was full of Enron employees, they couldn't be bothered to pay attention. All they spoke of was what their Enron stock was worth (this was about 6 months before it turned interesting).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    67. Re: Given the choice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They are responsible for their own investment stupidity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    68. Re:Given the choice by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      When you short a stock, you effectively create a new share of the stock, which you then sell; those shares effectively disappear when you cover your short.

      Shorting a stock does not create new shares. What you are doing is borrowing shares from an existing shareholder, and then selling those shares. To cover your short you have to buy the same number of shares back so that you can return them to the lender. The total number of shares does not change; the effect on supply and demand is the same as if the original shareholder had chosen to sell their shares and then later buy them back, with one exception: that loan has a time limit, which can force you, the short seller, to buy back the shares at an unfavorable price. This is why—in contrast with normal "long" investments where you may lose your entire investment, but no more, if the price drops to zero—when selling short you can lose far more than your original investment if the price goes up.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    69. Re:Given the choice by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The price spikes because there is a large demand for the shares, not a supply crunch. That is, people have to choose between (A) Buying back the shares or (B) Lawsuits and other things attacking their assets, maybe resulting in prison time. Therefore, there are a lot of very motivated buyers.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    70. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      When you short a stock, you effectively create a new share of the stock, which you then sell

      Shorting a stock does not create new shares

      Notice the difference between these two sentences?

      When stock is shorted, it puts stock - that otherwise would have been held - into the market. This dilutes the stock. When a short is covered, it takes the "added" stock back out of the market and gives it back to the owner who it was borrowed from. It's not the physical creation of shares, but it has the same effective result as the creation of shares (when shorted), and the opposite result (when covered).

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    71. Re:Given the choice by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      You haven't "effectively" created any new shares, either. The stock has not been diluted; each share represents the same fraction of the company as it did before the short. If new shares had "effectively" been created then the ownership and voting rights associated with the existing shares would have decreased proportionally. Or would you say that shares have "effectively" been created when a shareholder with an ordinary long position decides to sell? The effect on the market is exactly the same.

      Putting existing shares up for sale does not "effectively" amount to creating new shares.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    72. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused

      ok...and?

      btw Rei, what model of Tesla do you own?
      I want to tap your obvious in depth real world, hands on experience with EV purchase selection.

    73. Re: Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are over 100k by now: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/3/16846860/tesla-2017-deliveries-model-3-production

      I'd say "thousands" understates it while "hundreds of thousands" is exaggerated. IMO it's a forgivable exaggeration, though.

    74. Re: Given the choice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Invest"

      You mean leach and don't work one fucking bit

      If you don't want their money, then you don't have to ask for it.
      If you DO want their money, then having them invest it means their resources ARE valuable, and yeah, they get to charge a fee as a condition.

    75. Re: Given the choice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      2) Show how much of his personal wealth is invested, i.e. how much he is risking by following up on his own advice. Is he just investing a little on the side, or can he actually pretty much bankrupt himself if he is wrong? That'll show you how much he actually believes what he is saying...and whether he is trying to actively decieve people or not.

      Not every risk is the same for the same person, though. Everything with the stock market involves a certain level of risk, even if some of the flashier personalities tote a "sure thing." But one person's tolerance for risk can be higher than another's. A 30-something person who has the majority of his earnings ahead of him in life can accept higher risk/rewards stocks (or even just a "more stocks, fewer bonds" investment strategy) than someone who is closer to retirement. An investment adviser in his 60s can make recommendations to that guy in his 30s that he himself won't take, because if the risk doesn't work out, then the person in his 60s is in a more precarious position.

      Every adviser I've ever had has talked about how people have a more aggressive strategy when they're young, a strat that trends more conservative as they get older -- lower risk, lower returns, but less of a chance of taking a big hit that will never be paid back.

    76. Re:Given the choice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If he keeps pissing off the stockholders then it's possible the board might want to find a different CEO that's more stable.

      Remember how that went for Apple

      It didn't go well, but I think an argument could be made that they were justified in firing Jobs. Apple had been losing its position and had not found a successor to the incredibly popular Apple II. The Macintosh was not selling well, the Apple III was a flop, and the Lisa had been a money-losing proposition as well. Sculley had been CEO for two years when he was asked by shareholders to curb Jobs's penchant for expensive development flops, Sculley found Jobs was organizing an internal coup. The board of directors agreed with Sculley (-especially- in the early 1980s, Jobs was difficult to work for and get along with) and Steve was out.

      Getting fired by Apple was probably the best thing that'd ever happened to him.

    77. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have. The stock would have been held. Not for sale. Not available for purchase. By shorting, you make it available for purchase when it otherwise wouldn't have been. This increased supply on the market pushes down prices.

      And yes, the stock would otherwise have been held and not available on the open market. Because a short has two parts: a person who is long and thinks the stock is going to rise, and a person who is short and things it is going to fall. If the former did not think the stock was going to rise over the term of the short, they wouldn't be holding it in the first place.

      Every time a short seller shorts a stock, a new share of the stock that otherwise wouldn't have been available for purchase becomes available on the market.It has the same effect on the stock price as the creation of new shares. And the covering of a short has the inverse effect.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    78. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Rei, what Tesla car model do you own again?
      I'm in the market for a new EV.
      I think you're trying to avoid me my friend.

    79. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Teslaless at the moment. Awaiting my Model 3.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    80. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teslaless at the moment.

      ok so you don't have a Tesla.

      Not sure why you feel qualified to be critical of edmunds.com cross america drive, with:

      which was charged in a stupid way which almost nobody does when driving long distances?

      as you yourself have never drove a EV long distance.

      btw, you are confusing liquidity with stock price movement.
      If shorting depress stock price, TSLA would be worth less than $1 now.

      btw, why are you posting at 0218 Iceland time?

    81. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know the meaning of "at the moment". I've had experience with Teslas on and off for years. Starting with an early production Roadster.

      btw, why are you posting at 0218 Iceland time

      Why are you obsessing over my sleep schedule? Are you my mother? I've got news for you, I usually don't go to bed until after 3 AM, unless I'm covering shifts.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    82. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you obsessing over my sleep schedule? Are you my mother? I've got news for you, I usually don't go to bed until after 3 AM, unless I'm covering shifts.

      get up and comment at 0744, you don't sleep much

      no superchargers in Iceland though, so again, you have no experience going long distance

      perhaps you can cite some real world test drives that has better charging times than the 1 hour charge/4 hour drive of edmunds.com?

    83. Re:Given the choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Again, this is getting creepy, you tracking me around. Why are you so obsessed over me?

      I could go into how I haven't always lived here and the details of my life, but you know what? Believe it or not I don't enjoy giving out personal information to stalkers.

      Find a better use of your time.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    84. Re: Given the choice by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Going from 250kW to 350kW only knocks a quarter off charging time. That's not worth a loss of range for most people.

    85. Re:Given the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *posts in public forum
      *calls people who read his posts "creepy"

      Let's get real here Rei.
      Let's see some links to your claims of super fast charging.
      I don't want to masturbate for 15 minutes at a supercharger just so I can run out of charge 61 minutes later.

  2. Financial tennis match. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh I do so love it when the rich and powerful snipe at each other, and we get front row seats.

  3. Two Words by Hognoxious · · Score: 3

    Gerald Ratner.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Two Words by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Well, at least Musk didn't call his cars "total crap."

      Honestly, it doesn't really affect my opinion of Musk that much. With his bizarre rants about living in a simulated universe and the AI boogeyman, I've always thought he was brilliant, but possibly a bit unhinged. This is just one more example.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla stock is already back up to what it was before Musk's earnings call.

    3. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't

    4. Re:Two Words by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Anybody can Google the price of the stock and see that it's not back up, though it has been much lower in the recent past.

    5. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words, go fuck yourself with your obsequious comparisons, idiot.

    6. Re:Two Words by sfcat · · Score: 4, Informative

      No it isn't

      It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    7. Re:Two Words by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Two words, go fuck yourself with your obsequious comparisons, idiot

      That word doesn't mean what you think it does.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Two Words by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Anybody can Google the price of the stock and see that it's not back up...

      Okay, let's do that. At close Friday (4:00 PM), it was 294.09. The previous Friday (April 27), the price at close was 294.08. On Monday (April 30), the price at close was 293.90. So by the time of your post, TSLA had recovered all but the gains from Tuesday and Wednesday, and was actually higher than it was at the beginning of the week.

      As of the time of this post, it's at 302.78, which is higher than all of last week outside of a 1-hour period in the middle of Wednesday.

    9. Re:Two Words by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.

      And at the close of the markets on Monday, it's at $302. I guess it hasn't "tumbled" after all. It has been volatile, as Musk said it would be.

    10. Re:Two Words by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He said it would be volatile ... and it was.

      I say I'm going to stick my finger up my nose ... and I do.

      Why does he get a fuckton of money and I don't?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. It's not rocket science by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Go back to launching and landing rockets. The stock market isn't rocket science.

  5. I get his frustration completely .... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, as soon as you take your company public, this is the B.S. you get caught up in. Today's Wall Street investor doesn't give a crap if you're a super genius with world-changing ideas you're trying to gear up to sell to the world. They only care about profit and loss statements and projections for the next quarter's revenue. They're going to buy and sell your stock right along with hundreds or thousands of others, going by whatever trends they think they can spot to maximize their income on them. They really don't invest in you because they believe in your business and business model anymore.

    I don't work in the financial world, so maybe some others who are will challenge my assertions here? But I do have a friend whose dad owned a big investment firm for something like 40 years. He decided to retire about 8 years ago, saying he always told himself he'd quit, the day he stopped feeling like any of the investing made sense to him anymore. And that day came.....

    So on one hand, I have to kind of laugh and admire Musk here, doing what he did. It's a nice "poke in the eye" to the Financial "gods" who rule American business these days. But on the other, it really is true that he's so heavily financially leveraged with Tesla that he'd have nothing but unrealized ideas if all the big lenders and investors backed out on him.

    And IMO, one thing he has working against him is that he needs to build out a massively expensive network of superchargers (and maintain them all, including the promise of free charging for many customers) - BUT he doesn't get any of the government protections that we've extended others who tried to undertake similarly massive infrastructure roll-outs (such as the cellular companies). I'm not saying he SHOULD have any of that, either! But he's trying to compete against the established gas station infrastructure that benefits almost all the other auto-makers. So he's going to NEED to stay on the good side of people with lots of money to lend him.

    1. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And IMO, one thing he has working against him is that he needs to build out a massively expensive network of superchargers (and maintain them all, including the promise of free charging for many customers)

      That will become a smaller and smaller percentage of customers as time goes by, so if he can hang on for a while, this is a problem which should solve itself.

      But he's trying to compete against the established gas station infrastructure that benefits almost all the other auto-makers. So he's going to NEED to stay on the good side of people with lots of money to lend him.

      No, he isn't. Gas stations don't compete with EV charging stations. They perform totally different functions, even though their purposes are similar.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Sell side isn't what Musk and evidently you think it is:
      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sellside.asp
      "Sell side refers to the part of the financial industry that is involved in the creation, promotion and sale of stocks, bonds, foreign exchange and other financial instruments."

      He just took a dump on a well respected analyst, that was trying to better understand Tesla stock so he could promote it and offer a financial instrument with Tesla stock in it.

      Whoops! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot there.

    3. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They really don't invest in you because they believe in your business and business model anymore.

      Uh, that's exactly why they invest. If they think your business model will work and generate income, then they will invest.

      In any case, IT'S NOT ELON'S MONEY. He's taken 12.7 BILLION dollars of investor money after 27 rounds of financing. Yeah, investors get to ask some questions. If he doesn't like answering those questions HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEIR MONEY.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    4. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Today's Wall Street investor doesn't give a crap if you're a super genius with world-changing ideas you're trying to gear up to sell to the world. They only care about profit and loss statements and projections for the next quarter's revenue.

      And they're right. Whether your ideas generate a profit or a loss is what distinguishes if they're super genius world-changing ideas, or deceptively seductive ideas which sound good in theory but turn out not to work in the real world due to factors its proponents are glossing over or fudging. Merely proclaiming an idea to be super genius world-changing does not automatically entitle it to profit (or in Tesla's case, investment). The idea has to pan out in real life, which is what Tesla's operating statements tell us. Dig through all the past slashdot stories about revolutionary breakthroughs in battery technology which ended up not panning out. That's the difference between how well people think an idea should work, versus how well it actually does (or doesn't) work in real life.

      On the other hand, Tesla's stock price is meaningless to its operations except if Musk wants to sell more shares to raise capital. In that respect, the rantings and ravings of financial analysts are irrelevant. What matters is Tesla's revenues vs expenditures. i.e. How much they're spending to build their products, and how much/how many customer are paying to buy those products. The stock price merely reflects shareholders' confidence in the company to continue to survive and grow while making money.

      Personally, I think Musk knows Tesla stock is overvalued. Its market cap exceeds Ford's while its unit sales are less than 2% of Ford's. So as long as he's got confidence in handling Tesla's debt, he's not afraid to say things which might bring that irrationally exuberant stock valuation back down to earth. That'll rankle investors who bought Tesla stock as a baseball card investment (i.e. they're hoping to sell after its value increases), while not upsetting any true believers who bought Tesla stock because they think it's the future of auto-making.

    5. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Uh, that's exactly why they invest. If they think your business model will work and generate income, then they will invest.

      That's exactly why you SHOULDN'T invest in Tesla if that's your view towards investments.

      Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

      Wall Street investors just want their quarterly earnings, they want it fucking yesterday and those misanthropic money-grubbing bastards don't give a shit if nuclear war breaks out tomorrow.

      I think what Musk is trying to convey to everyone is that if you want to invest in a future where humanity can colonize another planet and give us a contingency plan against a global extinction event, invest in Tesla. If you just want some fast money, fuck off and go somewhere else.

    6. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      They only care about profit and loss statements

      Well to be fair, the last time the ignored profit and loss statements we had Enron. And we all know how that turned out.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not B.S. Companies that can't make money will not survive. Tesla is not making money. Your starry eyed worship of a "genius with world changing ideas" is the B.S.

      Established automakers are working on making an affordable electric car, Tesla makes expensive toys for the wear-the-nails crowd. They are NOT the solution

    8. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, investors get to ask some questions. If he doesn't like answering those questions HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEIR MONEY.

      He seemed fine with their actual questions. It's short-term bullshit "investors" that he wasn't putting up with and to that extent told then to sell his stock and not buy it. So really, he's doing exactly what you are insisting he should.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Joviex · · Score: 1, Funny

      If he doesn't like answering those questions HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEIR MONEY

      You almost got it. If he wont answer those questions, do like he said, take your money, and leave.

      Demanding from him answers, is retarded.

      Dont like it? Why invest. Move on.

    10. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its call sell-side and they are actually the investors you want to attract

      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sellside.asp
      "Sell side refers to the part of the financial industry that is involved in the creation, promotion and sale of stocks, bonds, foreign exchange and other financial instruments."

      Musk just shot himself in the foot.

    11. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Informative

      Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

      I am sorry for being so cynical, but that isn't how it works. If that was really what Musk was doing it would be a con game of the first order and he would need to go to prison. The investors are entitled to answers, and considerable say in how the money they invested in Musk's venture is being managed. This isn't a Bernie Madoff 'trust me' enterprise.

    12. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      true believers who bought Tesla stock because they think it's the future of auto-making.

      I predict that the starry-eyed idealists own a tiny fraction of the Tesla stock. They will eventually be able to frame their collectable Tesla stock certificate and hang it on the wall next to their steel engraved etching of Wardenclyffe and the portrait of Nicolas Tesla himself.

    13. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And IMO, one thing he has working against him is that he needs to build out a massively expensive network of superchargers (and maintain them all, including the promise of free charging for many customers)

      That will become a smaller and smaller percentage of customers as time goes by, so if he can hang on for a while, this is a problem which should solve itself.

      I assume you mean the free part, rather than the need for having superchargers. And you're right, but only to a point. After all, Tesla still gives out free supercharging to Model S and Model X buyers if they have a referral code from someone else who recently bought one. So mostly, it will diminish because because of Model 3 sales cutting into Model S sales (and, to a lesser extent, because not everybody will know to ask around on Tesla forums to try to get a referral code). But as long as they continue to issue those referral codes, there's a lower bound to how small the percentage of customers with unlimited charging can realistically get.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm talking about the whole "ball of wax" really. I understand that as we get more electric cars out there, there will be more charging stations built by many different manufacturers. But Tesla has the ones that supply enough wattage to get one of their cars recharged in a reasonable amount of time so you can grab a bite to eat and continue on a road trip, with it charged back up sufficiently. The GPS systems in their vehicles know about all of these stations they installed too, so it can factor them into your planned route.

      From what I've read, several of the other standards for charging stations only work with a Tesla if you buy the right adapter/cable, and then you very well may be limited to only 50% or so of the charging capacity the car can accept.

      So yeah --- his car sales do partially depend on that whole supercharger network being built out sufficiently. But the free charging is a factor too.

    15. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      I'm not engaging in "starry eyed worship" here. I've often been pretty outspoken about how the whole PV solar market hawks inflated numbers and stats to get people to buy into it. Solar panel tech is pretty cool and actually works, but it doesn't give the cost savings they promise in many cases. It's a long-term investment gamble at best, where you might come out ahead if your inverters don't die, past the warranty period and the panels themselves don't fail or shatter from hail damage, and if electricity costs really do rise over time as estimated. And Solar City is one of Musk's partnerships.

      But Tesla cars are just fine as a solution, once you realize that a decent percentage of car buyers want something in the luxury segment ... not just cheap, boring transportation from A to B.

    16. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      Don't omit the masterful use of loopholes and exploiting every possible government subsidy, extracting lots of working capital from the US Treasury, or effectively subsidizing his activities.

    17. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Then don't take the company public. There are plenty of companies that stay private, because they want to remain the owners (well, the original investors, the CEO is still just an easily replaceable pawn). Going public however means the public gets a voice in how things are done, if they decide to get involved that is. Going public means you've essentially borrowed lots of money from the public and they want to see a return on investment. And the public is much more finicky about results than the original venture capitalists.

      After going public, a CEOs primary job is to coddle and reassure the stockholders.

    18. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, Elon, I didn't know you were on Slashdot!

    19. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But Enron said they were trying to save the world. Enron had geniuses too. Enron also had a practice of intimidating analysts who asked tough questions.

    20. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, some people "invest" money in clean tech and similar to make the world better. Just like some people buy wind electricity even it costs more (and one could argue whether it helps at all or not).

      I also want to remind that Musk has already won. He said that he started the company because big car companies were killing their EV programs and this was the only way to make EV possible. And if you look the situation now, because of Tesla, other companies have been forced to roll out several EV models. So even if Tesla as a company fails, Musk still got what he wanted:
      https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/auto/miscellaneous/heres-why-elon-musk-started-tesla/articleshow/59071716.cms

      You talk about money, but I don't care about money, quite a small amount is enough for my living. If I had billions of dollars I would spend them on medical research that would benefit not only me, but the whole humankind. And I think Musk thinks the same way, but he is more interested in humankind than individual problems (we don't really need healthcare, it is mainly to keep the old people alive for longer, but I'm selfish, so I want to improve healthcare). And even if Musk is really evil and only plays the role of a good person, it doesn't really matter, because actions are still good. Elon has done quite a lot to make the world a better place, just be forcing car companies to change.

    21. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by sfcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not B.S. Companies that can't make money will not survive. Tesla is not making money. Your starry eyed worship of a "genius with world changing ideas" is the B.S.

      Established automakers are working on making an affordable electric car, Tesla makes expensive toys for the wear-the-nails crowd. They are NOT the solution

      Yes, but those other auto makers spend how much on marketing and sales? (billions of $) And Tesla spends what to generate those same amount of sales? (basically $0) There's your first strategic advantage. And where do you think those "established automakers" are going to get all those batteries? Oh, from TSLA because your cell phone battery isn't really the same thing as a car battery. And they will be the only company of scale focusing on those car level batteries. There's strategic advantage #2.

      You keep thinking Ford can just mass produce an electric car anytime they want. Sorry, but that's the magical thinking here. They can mass produce ICE cars but electric cars are different enough that they can't just order some motors from GE and some batteries from Samsung and be in business. Also, the basic business model of all "established automakers" can't survive in an electric world as they make a significant amount of their revenue on parts and maintenance which is going away (both due to electrics and improvements in manufacturing). GM might have a better time of it, due to their better electric cars but they still face the scale problems with batteries like the rest of the automakers.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    22. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless his prospectus was worded in such a way that clearly states that your money will be used that way (ie 'save humanity' vs 'return on investment') then he is a liar and a con man.

      You don't sell shares in a public company to 'save humanity'. And I doubt that anything in the prospectus would lead anyone to believe that the money they INVEST with him is not for the development of a product for sale for profit.

      Eco-warrior retards are hilarious.

    23. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      If he doesn't like answering those questions HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEIR MONEY.

      And that's precisely what played out here. Investing isn't something the CEO chooses. People chose to invest in Tesla, that doesn't entitle them to anything other than profits and depending on their share a vote on measures when they get raised (controlling stakes not withstanding). He and you are 100% in agreement. He doesn't want to answer the questions and he invited to those who demanded answers to take their money elsewhere.

    24. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not B.S. Companies that can't make money will not survive.

      You seem to not understand the difference between a bluechip company and a growth company.

      Established automakers are working on making an affordable electric car,

      In America established automakers have been "working on it" for years and have nothing to show. In Europe people don't like the Tesla for the large American tank that it is, and Telsa is rightfully behind the automakers who make a more European style car. If those established automakers were resting on their laurels for 14 years and are having their lunch eaten.

      Tesla makes expensive toys for the wear-the-nails crowd.

      The Model 3 costs $358 less than the average new car price.
      The Model S is the most popular electric car in America.

      They clearly are the solution and have been the solution for a while.

    25. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hope he goes to prison for taking a bunch of money from people who have far too much of it in the first place and spending it on lengthening the life span of our entire species?

      Okay, then. Didn't know money meant that much to you. More than the world itself, it seems.

    26. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

      I am sorry for being so cynical, but that isn't how it works. If that was really what Musk was doing it would be a con game of the first order and he would need to go to prison. The investors are entitled to answers, and considerable say in how the money they invested in Musk's venture is being managed. This isn't a Bernie Madoff 'trust me' enterprise.

      You're sorry all right, because that is precisely how it works. Tesla's public mission statement states in no uncertain terms that it is to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible." The company bylaws do not require maximization of profit, nor does the certificate of incorporation. The investors are entitled to answers, and they got them. Musk let them know that he is continuing to follow Tesla Motors' mission, and if they don't like it, they should not buy Tesla stock. They are only entitled to answers which support Tesla's publicly-avowed mission. If they don't want stock in a company whose purpose is to promote EV adoption, then they should not buy stock in that company.

      TL;DR: They are entitled to answers, but they are not entitled to the answers they want.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla is immensely 'profitable'. They just take all of that profit and reinvest it in the company and expansion, and it turns into 'costs'. However, you can still see all of that reinvested money right there in the market cap. Teslas market cap has gone up by about $35B over the last 5 years. Comparatively, a $700M quarterly loss is not much. Even if they had been posting such "record" losses those whole five years they'd *still* be $20B in the black! Once all of the "upfront" costs of ramping up a multinational car company are done, they're gonna be pumping out cash hand over fist....... either that or spending it on space roller coasters.....

    28. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      lso, the basic business model of all "established automakers" can't survive in an electric world as they make a significant amount of their revenue on parts and maintenance which is going away (both due to electrics and improvements in manufacturing).

      Automakers make basically dick on maintenance. Those profits are seen almost exclusively by the dealer, who a) typically overcharges for labor and b) typically overcharges grossly for parts. Here, try this: compare Audi parts prices from Sunset Imports or Jim Ellis Audi with literally any other Audi dealers in the country. The parts prices at other dealers are going to be vastly higher everywhere else, because those are literally the only two Audi dealers who don't do this. (As a result, they have a virtual lockdown on internet sales.)

      Now, auto dealers are going to have problems with EVs unless they rebuild as charging facilities, and that's only going to be an option for those in prime locations. If they do that, then they'll be able to make money on EVs, too. Then the businesses finally left holding the bag will be filling stations; they mostly don't have room to turn into EV charging facilities.

      The real problem that automakers face going forwards is vehicle sharing. Estimates of future production needs range from 100% of current capacity (if enhanced mobility means there is more use) to a mere 10%. Fleet operators will expect lifespans from cars similar to Class 8 trucks — they will want them to operate for a million miles or so. Sadly, relatively little has to change in the average automobile to make it capable of operating for that many miles; better corrosion protection, heavier subframes, lazier engines with more robust cooling systems or just switching to EVs with replaceable battery packs. Automakers just aren't interested in producing a vehicle like that, because people want to buy new cars. But when fleet operators demand it, then someone will certainly build them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      They compete for the same real estate. Lawsuits have been started over this already. But time will tell. Most carmakers are switching to EV and Hybrid options, while Toyota still thinks hydrogen is going to be the next big thing, for some reason.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    30. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      You're confusing a kickstarter with listed shares. If Elon wants to use shares to raise capital, in a capitalist society, he's playing by the rules of capital. If he doesn't like that he can damn well crowdfund it. But if he goes for shares, he basically promises investors real money later in return for theirs now. If he reneges on that promise after receiving their money, well, there's more than one prison full of people like that.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    31. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Yep. The model 3 alternative for me is the Prius 4. That's not an unaffordable car by any means. And one of the most reliable cars as well - my Prius 2 is extremely cheap in maintenance, with the main expenses being new tires.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    32. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most carmakers are switching to EV and Hybrid options,

      Literally every volume automaker, in fact, and many of the smaller ones.

      while Toyota still thinks hydrogen is going to be the next big thing, for some reason.

      Toyota, Honda, and GM are all banking on the USA MIC's adoption of hydrogen (for "clean" war machines, which are also quiet and which produce clean drinking water which is of immense value in desert warfare, hint hint) to make hydrogen viable for passenger vehicles — at least in certain specific markets which include the United States and Japan. However, as you probably know, it remains barely viable even in the primary test market, and I don't actually accept the premise (but it's what I took away from some web show, probably Autoline, where they spoke with someone from GM about the Colorado ZH2.)

      Why not believe that military use of H2 will leak down (up?) to the consumer, so to speak? Because it will be made on-demand. It's not like gasoline and diesel fuel, which require massive refineries to do efficiently and relatively safely — and there are refinery failures of varying severity on a frequent basis. It can be done on basically any scale, but what it can't be is efficient when done by electrolysis. Many have claimed to have discovered ways to get water to separate more cheaply, and none of those ways have panned out. The military doesn't tend to care how much of our money they spend, and they also feel free to use nuclear reactors, so they can produce basically as much H2 as they want. The rest of us are not so lucky.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      Are you saying you'd feel better if no one ever asked these types of questions, nor had the opportunity to do so?

    34. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Why not believe that military use of H2 will leak down (up?) to the consumer, so to speak? Because it will be made on-demand. It's not like gasoline and diesel fuel, which require massive refineries to do efficiently and relatively safely — and there are refinery failures of varying severity on a frequent basis. It can be done on basically any scale, but what it can't be is efficient when done by electrolysis. Many have claimed to have discovered ways to get water to separate more cheaply, and none of those ways have panned out. The military doesn't tend to care how much of our money they spend, and they also feel free to use nuclear reactors, so they can produce basically as much H2 as they want. The rest of us are not so lucky.

      Because, H2 is at least 30% more expensive to the consumer as electricity (by definition since you crack water with electricity to make H2) and likely 2x as much due to the extra insurance necessary for keeping such an explosive substance in a populated area (it won't be cracked on demand). Oh, and don't forget the extra insurance for each driver over the electric cars due to the fuel being so explosive (another advantage of EVs). And while the cost of the military vehicles is high, the actual number of them is very low (compared to the consumer car market) so its unlikely that will make much difference in the face of competing with Oil (incumbent) and electricity (existing grid and cheaper price).

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    35. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Yep. The model 3 alternative for me is the Prius 4. That's not an unaffordable car by any means. And one of the most reliable cars as well - my Prius 2 is extremely cheap in maintenance, with the main expenses being new tires.

      The Prius 4 also nothing like a model 3. If you think they are at all the same, then you know nothing about cars. Hell, the Prius 4 isn't even as good as the Volt classic which GM has since improved significantly. The first Prius was innovative, since then Toyota has been on of the worst automakers for innovation especially for EVs. They have outright worked against EVs in California for quite some time.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    36. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yeah. "How many people are opting out of their reservations over the 3 year wait for their car" is just a bullshit question.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    37. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Enron's profit and loss looked fine. It wasn't irrational exuberance, it was cooking the books. (In disputably legal ways that resulted in a lot of lawsuits.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    38. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The Prius 4 also nothing like a model 3. If you think they are at all the same, then you know nothing about cars.

      If you think they are different then you know nothing about people. You jumped to a conclusion without ever asking the GP's criteria.

      Hell, the Prius 4 isn't even as good as the Volt classic

      Oh in what way? "Good" is something that is based on criteria, and if it surprises you that people have different criteria then maybe you should stop trying to define "good" for others.

    39. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      TSLA is slated to become profitable in Q3, and is well on track to do so.

      You know what other stock followed this same path - not making any money for over a decade? Amazon. Maybe you wish you had shorted that stock early on as well? Or not...

    40. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Good points :)

      My criteria are:
      - must be eligible for tax incentives or reduced standard taxes
      - price after tax incentives needs to be around 35000 euro max. otherwise the additional taxes become too expensive.
      - needs to cost less than 50000 euro for EV otherwise no tax incentives
      - reliable
      - does not use much gas so low operating costs
      - usable for holidays. Most of my destinations are about 800 km. away and I split up the travel in blocks of 400-500 km already with my current car. Splitting to blocks of 200-300 km is not a showstopper. And happens "organically" anyway :)
      - comfortable transport for 4 people
      - usable for every day commutes (so: cruise control (preferably adaptive), automatic transmission, decent safety)
      - the lower the road tax, the better

      So for me, the Prius is an alternative. I'm open to other suggestions but very few cars come close to Toyota's reliability on the Prius.

      Don't start about Mercedes or other German car makers. I worked for one of them for a decade. There have been some real lemons built by them. I could name a few.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    41. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mission statement is nothing but words on paper.

    42. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You almost got it. If he wont answer those questions, do like he said, take your money, and leave. Demanding from him answers, is retarded. Dont like it? Why invest. Move on.

      They demanded answers, when he didn't answer, they sold the stocks and the price plunged. I don't get why you called anyone retarded.

    43. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      The way I understand, it was no secret that Enron's accounting practices were bullshit. They were successful because when investors asked questions about how much money they were actually making they got derided and insulted until they shut up.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    44. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

      I am sorry for being so cynical, but that isn't how it works. If that was really what Musk was doing it would be a con game of the first order and he would need to go to prison. The investors are entitled to answers, and considerable say in how the money they invested in Musk's venture is being managed. This isn't a Bernie Madoff 'trust me' enterprise.

      It is how it works. He doesn't have to give any information to anybody that isn't already in the company prospectus, 10Q, 10K, or 8K. Other than that, people are free to ask him for any info they want, and he is free to not tell them anything he wants. There is nothing criminal about it. If you don't like the info in those reports, you are free not to invest.

    45. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the accounting bullshit was put in footnotes, and thus "disclosed". But all the investment banks were making so much cash of Enron their analysts were told (or hinted at) not to rock the boat.

      Either way, it was pretty iffy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    46. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla is making a lot of money, though ($11 billion last year). They could probably turn that into a consistent quarterly profit by being less aggressive in their infrastructure investments.

      They may well fail in another 5 years if every buys Nissan Leafs instead of Tesla 3s, but I'm not ready to dance on Tesla's grave just yet.

    47. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I will not argue there. The Germans are building up a new form of reputation now, especially among the tow truck drivers. I had my misgivings going for a French car. But by all accounts it was a good one ... despite their past reputation.

    48. Re: I get his frustration completely .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your mission statement is nothing but words on paper.

      Every statement is nothing but words, it's what you actually do that matters. And everything that Musk has done with Tesla has in fact supported that mission statement. Automakers are developing EVs in droves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the accounting bullshit was put in footnotes, and thus "disclosed". But all the investment banks were making so much cash of Enron their analysts were told (or hinted at) not to rock the boat.

      Arthur Anderson was one of the big five accounting firms, and colluded with Enron to cook the books and shredded documents when Enron came under audit. They were one of the largest multinationals when the Enron scandal broke, and they surrendered their CPA licenses a year later. Their conviction was reversed, but the company had already shed workers and sold off parts of itself to other companies.

    50. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      Also true. Again, the fine print didn't stop the government from (successfully) claiming it was a giant fraud.

      Frankly, AA deserved to sink for the shit they enabled at Enron and beyond in that era.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    51. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I understand very well. a growth company that never turns a profit won't survive

    52. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      not relevant, Amazon is making a profit

      Tesla will get slaughtered by the mainstream manufacturers who can do ten plus times their volume

    53. Re:I get his frustration completely .... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Amazon didn't make profits for a LONG TIME. They made no money whatsoever for longer than Tesla has existed as a company. Tesla is going to be profitable next quarter.

      And the big car companies can't figure out how to execute on EVs. Sales of the Leaf, Volt, and Bolt have been abysmal compared to Tesla. Chevy sold 23,000 Bolts in 2017. Nissan sold 11,230 Leafs. Tesla sold 103,000 vehicles - and the Model 3 didn't even exist.

      Wake me up when the mainstream manufacturers can actually execute.

  6. Elon, do it some more! by steveha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's fun to watch, and if the stock dips down again I'll buy some more.

    Tesla is a "buy and hold" stock in my opinion. Tesla has been doing everything possible to build for the future. I frankly don't care if Wall Street gets personally annoyed with Elon Musk's antics and the stock price dips. Nothing fundamental changed and the stock price went right back up again.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the challenge is that long term, there are signs that there will be plenty of competition in what would be the bread and butter of Tesla's business.

      They have been doing a lot and it has been costly, but I wouldn't be so confident that investment will become durable first mover advantage for Tesla, or if it is more the tide that raises all ships.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Elon, do it some more! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      It won’t be easy for any competitors to harm Tesla without the same capital investments Tesla has already made; the fact that Tesla has the batteries in-house gives them a huge advantage.

      Their real challenge will be to continue executing to (if not ahead of) plan. They need to be very smart with their money as well as changing standards and technology... like they have been.

      The Solar City acquisition will be an interesting one to review in a few years though.

    3. Re:Elon, do it some more! by mamba-mamba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will try to explain this in simple, non emotional terms. Tesla is not profitable. This means that they spend more money than they take in. This means that in order to continue operating, they need to get more money. The typical two ways companies raise money are to issue new stock (which will dilute the value of existing stock, similar to inflation from money printing) , or issue bonds. They could also sell assets, if they have some that someone is willing to buy.

      What will happen if they don't get more money? They will run out of money and be unable to pay employee salaries. Also, suppliers will get wind of it and demand payment upfront. Based on present cash reserves and the rate at which the are being depleted, Tesla is likely to require a cash infusion of billions of dollars in 2018. That is how serious it is. Once you stop paying suppliers and salaries, it will probably become necessary to declare bankruptcy to avoid chaos. Companies can survive bankruptcy and emerge and continue to operate, but I think it is fair to say that the company will never be the same afterwards.

      In order to issue new stock or sell new bonds, realistically, Tesla will be forced to deal with Wall Street, and to maintain a positive image for those who may be interested in making the investment. So, even though you may remain bullish on TSLA, it is the job of the CEO to make sure that Wall Street analysts also remain bullish. Sniping or blowing off the questions of analysts during an earnings call is not a way to inspire confidence. What it shows is an inability to deal with unpleasant realities.

      The constant turnover in high-level positions is also something that detracts from confidence in the company. In short, Tesla has problems, and the actions of the CEO on this earnings call made the problems worse.

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
    4. Re: Elon, do it some more! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tesla does NOT have the battery operation im-house. He simply has a 'deal' going with Panasonic. If his money goes dry Panasonic will make deals with whomever has the actual cash in hand..

      This is very different from the way Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. Amazon was building retail sales network in a totally new market. Tesla is just selling cars to the small number of millineals in the 1%.

    5. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Not profitable means their costs equal their revenues. It does not mean they are losing money and need to get investor cash to keep operating. I don't know where you learned your definition of the word "profitable".

      Tesla has had a lot of capital expenditures that have eaten up their profit. That isn't automatically negative because those expenditures will help control their marginal costs in the future which will definitely help their profitability down the line.

      Tesla has had to build parts of their supply chain that simply did not exist before they started operations, at least not at the scale they need to meet their demand. It costs money to do this and by all reports they've been building up their supply chain as fast as possible.

      Tesla does not need to make a profit today. They need to build up infrastructure and a supply chain that can let them make a profit tomorrow. As long as they're not losing money in the long term they'll be fine focusing on growth.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    6. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Informative

      I will try to explain this in simple, patronizing terms.

      Tesla isn't burning billions in cash to bleach Musk's asshole. They're expanding their infrastructure, manufacturing capacity, and spending money on R&D. Ford would be doing the same thing if they were a new auto company instead of one that's been around for a hundred years. At any point, Tesla could stop expanding the Supercharger network etc and coast on their existing product to be profitable. They're obviously trying to pull an Amazon, who also did nothing but lose money for a decade before eventually turning a profit.

      Worse case scenario, Tesla agrees to a "partnership" (i.e. buyout) with an established bigwig like Honda or Volkswagon.

    7. Re:Elon, do it some more! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      They have been doing a lot and it has been costly, but I wouldn't be so confident that investment will become durable first mover advantage for Tesla, or if it is more the tide that raises all ships.

      I think folks underestimate how valuable their supercharger network is. Having DC fast charging with prices that are always close to the commercial electricity rate for the area, rather than at whatever arbitrary price per kWh or per hour that the host business decides to charge, is a major advantage.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re: Elon, do it some more! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Tesla is spending tons of money on infrastructure and engineering. That is very different from R&D investment. Their 'edge' is their 'balls out' determination to get EVs on the market in a big way. At this point it's engineering and infrastructure roll-out, not invention.

      Admittedly, there is a lot of engineering to 'flesh out' in the Model 3, because a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term. But that is not really IP that gives Tesla an edge, just the lack of, and need for a real instrument cluster. The 'auto pilot' stuff is possibly the Potemkin Village being used to distract from the paucity of innovation at Tesla. It's all a solved problem and when the market exists the existing carmakers will fulfill it.

    9. Re: Elon, do it some more! by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      He simply has a 'deal' going with Panasonic.

      Well yeah, however since the batteries will be supply-constrained for at least a couple of years, that's very important. VW only recently announced such deals, and I don't think they got a better deal than Tesla. Since the battery pack is a big part of the cost of the car, it's extremely important thay you make such deals before the rest does.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    10. Re: Elon, do it some more! by steveha · · Score: 2

      Tesla does NOT have the battery operation im-house. He simply has a 'deal' going with Panasonic.

      Tell me: who owns this building, and what is manufactured inside this building?

      https://www.tesla.com/blog/battery-cell-production-begins-gigafactory

      Also, is this a drop in the bucket or can the factory produce a significant number of cells?

      https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/tesla-gigafactory-battery-cell-production-elon-musk/

      https://electrek.co/2018/01/03/tesla-gigafactory-hiring-effort-battery-production/

      I believe it is fair to say that Tesla really does have battery production in-house. It's a significant reason why Tesla can make $10,000 on a Model 3 while GM loses $9,000 on a Chevy Bolt. (Note: making $10K per car will require Tesla to get production rates up, as the major expense is depreciation on the factory, and currently the depreciation expense is spread over 2000 cars per week instead of 5000 cars per week.)

      https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

      This is very different from the way Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. Amazon was building retail sales network in a totally new market. Tesla is just selling cars to the small number of millineals in the 1%.

      Tesla is just selling a small number of cars!

      Well, and inventing a better battery pack technology than anyone else has.

      And building out the best car charging network, period.

      And building their own battery factories to get their costs down.

      And building out their factories. (A company like GM has spent decades building out its factories, but Tesla is a new company and is building from nothing.)

      And investing in R&D to invent profitable new things like the Tesla semi-truck.

      Hmm, maybe Tesla is doing more than just selling a small number of cars.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    11. Re:Elon, do it some more! by steveha · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so confident that investment will become durable first mover advantage for Tesla

      Well, I am confident.

      Right now, almost all electric cars are great "second cars" suitable for short trips and terrible for long trips. Tesla cars, combined with the Tesla network of Supercharger stations, are okay for long trips. A car that can drive for three to four hours, then recharges in the time it takes you to eat a meal... that's not significantly worse than a gasoline car for long trips.

      A Tesla really can be your only car. A Nissan Leaf can be your only car... if you don't mind renting some other car when you want to make a long trip.

      So you have all the other electric cars, and Tesla. There really is no substitute, yet. If Tesla can make enough Model 3s, they could have a few million on the road before the Big 3 car makers can really come up with serious competition.

      I don't know if Tesla can dominate electric cars forever. However, I am convinced that their worst-case scenario is to become the Apple of car makers, having carved out their own niche and with fanatically loyal customers. Apple can't sell more phones than the Android competitors combined sell, but they still sell plenty of phones and make a solid profit doing it. And Apple sure made a lot of money off their first-mover advantage. (Even though smartphones existed before the iPhone, Apple made the first smartphone that didn't suck, and I claim that Apple got first-mover advantage. Then they did it again with the first tablet that didn't suck, the iPad. The iOS ecosystem remains tremendously profitable even though Android devices now are able to compete.)

      So I'm prepared to imagine the Big 3 actually competing with Tesla... but they haven't even started yet. For anyone to really compete with Tesla they are going to have to spend big. GM loses $9000 per Chevy Bolt... maybe if they built their own battery factory, like Tesla did, they could sell Bolts at a profit? But they don't have their own battery factory, which may explain why Elon Musk is really not worried about competition from GM or the others.

      And the Tesla network has over 1200 Supercharger stations worldwide, with more being opened. The Big 3 can't just snap their fingers and have an equivalent network overnight. But in the long run, I expect they will build out something comparable to what Tesla already has, and be more able to compete with Tesla. Again, they haven't even started.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    12. Re:Elon, do it some more! by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Go read their actual Q1 report.

      Tesla is losing money even before accounting for capital expenditures. Gross profit is $456 million, but operating and interest costs are more than twice that, leaving them with a $784 million net loss. Capital expenditures are another $655 million on top of that.

    13. Re:Elon, do it some more! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I will try to explain this in simple, non emotional terms. Tesla is not profitable. This means that they spend more money than they take in.

      Every company undergoing phenomenal growth is not profitable, that's the whole point of getting investments in the first place.

    14. Re:Elon, do it some more! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Tesla is a "buy and hold" stock in my opinion

      I don't share that opinion. Tesla was a buy and hold stock, but currently given their relative size in their field I believe they are way over valued. Don't get me wrong I think Tesla is in it for the long haul, but I think by the time they finally ramp up production to be a major auto company their competitors will also have offerings on the market providing direct competition and the emotional attachment to fancy new tech will be done.

      Tesla, once it start shipping some serious volumes of cars and makes profits of them around about half of their competition I believe would be valued equally to their competition, and then only if their competition doesn't also get into the home / grid power business.

      Tesla's stock is high risk right now.

    15. Re:Elon, do it some more! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think folks underestimate how valuable their supercharger network is.

      While I agree with you, I think folks overestimate how long it takes to build something like that. It's taken Tesla a long time because they are the groundbreakers. The other players are sitting back and letting Tesla hash out the legal issues before they step in, and they will have a much easier time of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Junta · · Score: 0

      I think it's a neat endeavor, but success with their current approach is impossible.

      Today I can hop in my gas car and take a long trip and not even think about gas for the most part. I can wait until I'm at 30 miles of range to even begin thinking about where to stop, and a gas station will be within eyeshot. within 10 miles generally. That is *insane* amount of coverage, and is only possible through having a diverse set of suppliers owing to utterly standardized fuel. It's also only possible because they turned the fact you are going to stop and be out of your vehicle to a secondary business opportunity to do some shopping.

      Now as an experiment, I plugged the only route I routinely would make into navigation and searched along route for a supercharger station. There was one, so I have to plan my charging capacity according to be able to make it the first 200 miles before I start. It will require me to go about 10 minutes out of my way, so I have to have it baked into my route. There are *no* restaurants within a 2 mile radius of the supercharger station. To their credit, I actually could search this sort of thing, I cannot yet search for how to make the trip with competing electric cars (or at least I couldn't figure out how) So their massive investment has made something that would have been implausible a hassle, which is good, but I don't think it will be an enduring advantage.

      People keep imagining the model to be exactly gas station like. Unlike gas stations, any grocery store or eatery can relatively cheaply add decent charging capacity. The added time taken compared to gasoline is a problem, but it's also not something that requires managing the logistics of tanker trucks, complex fuel storage tanks, and you can just leave your car plugged in unattended with electricity. As electric cars gain popularity, the usual solution for long trips will be stop at a place to eat that spent a few thousand dollars to add charging capability to their lot, at first to draw in the people with electric cars, eventually because everywhere else will offer that.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    17. Re: Elon, do it some more! by swillden · · Score: 1

      a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term

      Why not?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Junta · · Score: 1

      Having the range is not so much something others can't do, it's something they don't think they need to do. From deciding to add range, it wouldn't take them more than 2-3 years to release a product.

      On the supercharger stations, various restaurants and shopping malls in my area have charging spots with J1772 spots. In terms of places to do charging, there are already more places to charge per square mile that works with anything than there are Tesla specific stations, at least in my area. I will say that I can't figure out how to identify such restaurants on a map yet, compared to being able to find Tesla stations, but in time I imagine it will be as easy as finding a gas station. This will be the model of electric car charging for long haul trips: charging capability as a feature of a restaurant, not "just like a gas station". It's just so much easier and safer to do electric charging than refueling, so it can be a cheap add-on to a restaurant. On the flip side, even a 15 minute charging time is too long for a 'gas station' like experience, and so we have to move beyond that for electric (in my mind, good riddance).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    19. Re:Elon, do it some more! by steveha · · Score: 1

      From deciding to add range, it wouldn't take them more than 2-3 years to release a product.

      The only car with range at all comparable to a Tesla is the Chevy Bolt, which GM sells at a $9000 loss.

      Tesla will be looking at real competition, someday, but I'm not seeing any signs that it could be as soon as 2-3 years from now.

      various restaurants and shopping malls in my area have charging spots with J1772 spots

      J1772 will provide 16 to 20 miles of range per hour spent charging.

      Let's imagine I wanted to drive from Seattle to Spokane in a Nissan Leaf. Google Maps says that's about 279 miles, and the Leaf has a rated range of 100 miles. I want safety margin so I want to charge every 80 miles, and let's assume I have no problem finding a J1772 exactly when I want one. And let's assume that every J1772 I find gives me the full 20 miles of range per hour spent charging.

      Drive for 80 minutes. Spend four hours charging. Do it again; that's 160 miles done. A third time, that's 240 miles done (but I guess I could charge as little as 3 hours instead of 4). Then, finally, I would arrive in Spokane. It's under 5 hours of driving, yet would require about 11 to 12 hours of charging time.

      With a Tesla: the car can make it with one charging stop, and that stop can be under an hour. I can eat lunch while the car charges. Spokane has a Supercharger so I could top off the car on arrival and have plenty of charge for my actual visit to Spokane.

      This is why I say that a Tesla can be used for long trips, while other electric cars really can't.

      Note that a Chevy Bolt could do the trip to Spokane with only one charging stop of 2 to 3 hours. Note also that there are other fast charging standards like CHAdeMO but they aren't built out into a full network like Tesla Superchargers (I don't know if you can find CHAdeMO between Seattle and Spokane; there are two Supercharger stops, and Tesla cars only need one).

      This will be the model of electric car charging for long haul trips: charging capability as a feature of a restaurant, not "just like a gas station".

      Tesla already has a program for "Destination Chargers". A restaurant can get a Destination Charger for free from Tesla, as long as they let Tesla owners use it for free. This is the same charger hardware as one can install at home, and on an 80 Amp circuit such a charger can provide 50 miles of range per hour spent charging. Even the Destination Chargers are better than J1772, let alone a Supercharger.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    20. Re: Elon, do it some more! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Because there is no tactile feedback when all you have to control your car's functions is a piece of glass to mash your hands up against. That interface SUCKS on tablets, and on phones.

      It sucks, and how badly it sucks will be coming out over time. Right now it would be way too uncool to be the Tesla 3 driver making noise about it, but Tesla has to sell these things to actual non-zealots eventually if they hope to stay in business.

    21. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today I can hop in my gas car and take a long trip and not even think about gas for the most part.

      And in 1908, you could hop onto your horse and ride anywhere you wanted, without worrying about gas. This was possible because grass and oats were utterly standardized. :-)

      Now as an experiment, I plugged the only route I routinely would make into navigation and searched along route for a supercharger station. There was one

      It is possible that your route really represents a hole in the Supercharger network. If so, I recommend you stick with a gasoline car for now. Hope this helps!

      So their massive investment has made something that would have been implausible a hassle, which is good, but I don't think it will be an enduring advantage.

      Are you claiming that your situation is typical? All the long routes that I would want to drive in a car are well-served by Supercharger stations that are conveniently sited by restaurants and such. There's one spot in the coverage that isn't adequate for my needs, but (a) there is a Destination Charger I could use that would help, and (b) Tesla already announced, months ago, plans to build another Supercharger that exactly covers that spot.

      So unlike you, I feel that Tesla has made something that was implausible into something that is only slightly less convenient than gasoline, and the other advantages of a Tesla mean I would rather drive a Tesla than a gas car even for the long drives. YMMV.

      As electric cars gain popularity, the usual solution for long trips will be stop at a place to eat that spent a few thousand dollars to add charging capability to their lot, at first to draw in the people with electric cars, eventually because everywhere else will offer that.

      Tesla has a program to get restaurants and hotels and other businesses to install Destination Chargers. Tesla will provide them for free, so the business doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars, it just needs to be willing to provide electricity.

      Also Tesla is planning to build some Superchargers that are like little malls: a convenience store, a coffee shop, a restaurant or several, etc.

      I recently visited a hotel that had two charging spaces: one for J1772 (most electric cars) and one for Teslas. J1772 tops out at 20 miles of range added per hour spent charging, while the Tesla charger adds 50 miles of range per hour (very roughly 1/5 to 1/4 the speed of a Supercharger). But even the J1772 would fully charge a car if left hooked up all night.

      I wonder what will shake out as far as charging standards. Right now there are several to choose from but only a couple that aren't horribly slow. Tesla's standard is the fastest standard in general use, and Tesla built a connected network of stations, so Tesla really does have the advantage until everyone else catches up. They can't catch up until they start actually getting serious about it.

    22. Re:Elon, do it some more! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      To be fair, even in recent history two of the largest auto makers in the US went through bankruptcy in GM and Chrysler. They are doing just fine. Ford would have as well if they hadn't gotten lucky (or prescient) and took out a massive multi-billion dollar loan shortly before the whole crisis.

      https://www.investopedia.com/a...

      I think Tesla has a lot going for it really. As others have mentioned, given the facts about how the market reacted (blip), this story more looks like a bunch of investors shorting the stock, and trying to influence public opinion so that they make money (or not lose so much when successful). So yeah I can kinda appreciate where Musk might be a little pissed when he is forced into having a phone conversation with a bunch of people who are obviously betting on your failure and using the opportunity to try to influence that to happen. I'd probably publicly snub them also.

    23. Re: Elon, do it some more! by swillden · · Score: 1

      Because there is no tactile feedback when all you have to control your car's functions is a piece of glass to mash your hands up against. That interface SUCKS on tablets, and on phones.

      It sucks, and how badly it sucks will be coming out over time. Right now it would be way too uncool to be the Tesla 3 driver making noise about it, but Tesla has to sell these things to actual non-zealots eventually if they hope to stay in business.

      I don't have a lot of experience with it yet, since I've only had a Tesla for three weeks (I recently bought a 2014 Model S), but so far I don't find the lack of tactile feedback to be a problem at all. Or, rather, what problem it might be is more than offset by the fact that the on-screen controls are much larger and require less looking than traditional controls.

      Have you actually tried it yourself or are you just guessing?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Elon, do it some more! by steveha · · Score: 1

      One correction: the Tesla Supercharger in Spokane is not open yet; it's scheduled to open before the end of 2018. So if I were driving to Spokane I would hit both Supercharger stations. The first one might be as little as 15 minutes, but the second one is 60 miles from Spokane so I would let the car spend a full hour charging while I would eat a meal. That would leave me with plenty of charge for driving around Spokane.

      I just checked on PlugShare.com and there are plenty of chargers in Spokane, including some Tesla Destination Chargers. A Tesla driver could stay at a hotel and charge the car overnight.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    25. Re:Elon, do it some more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other players are sitting back and letting Tesla hash out the legal issues before they step in, and they will have a much easier time of it.

      What legal issues? It's purely a matter of spending money: finding locations, signing agreements with whoever owns the locations (near me, the Superchargers are in parking lots of large grocery stores in strip malls with restaurants and such nearby), installing the chargers.

      The Big 3 car makers can solve their problem by licensing the Tesla charging system; Tesla claims they will let other companies use it but there are no takers. So then they can solve their problem by agreeing to standardize on some fast-charging system that is about as good as Tesla's, and then spending big money to build out a network. Or I guess they could choose three different charging solutions and build three different networks, if they are insane and/or stupid.

      It's inevitable: they will do one of the above. They have to. But they haven't actually really done anything serious yet.

      It has taken Telsa years to build its charging networks, and the Big 3 can't just wave their hands and have a competitive solution overnight. By the time they get their act together, Model 3 will be a common sight on the roads.

      If they act decisively and boldly now, then maybe in 3 years they could have a competitive network... I'm betting against it though.

    26. Re: Elon, do it some more! by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term

      Why not?

      Because tablet interfaces/feels SUCK when you can't keep your eyes on the tablet.

    27. Re: Elon, do it some more! by swillden · · Score: 1

      a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term

      Why not?

      Because tablet interfaces/feels SUCK when you can't keep your eyes on the tablet.

      What kind of controls in your car do you need to use for a long period of time? I've only had my Model S for three weeks, so I can't say I have a lot of experience with it, but so far I haven't found the touchscreen to be bad at all. Actually, it's pretty nice because the controls are much larger so if anything I have to look at it less.

      Have you actually tried a Tesla's touchscreen?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    28. Re: Elon, do it some more! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I am one of the non-zealots who is not a Tesla M3 owner at this point.

      Let's wait awhile for regular people to use it to find out if it's accepted.

      I only commute 2.7 miles to my new job. An electric bicycle is starting to seem attractive. A Tesla is out of the question.

    29. Re: Elon, do it some more! by swillden · · Score: 1

      I am one of the non-zealots who is not a Tesla M3 owner at this point.

      So... just guessing.

      Let's wait awhile for regular people to use it to find out if it's accepted.

      How long do you think we need to wait? The Model S has been on sale for six years now and has sold over 250,000 units.

      I only commute 2.7 miles to my new job. An electric bicycle is starting to seem attractive. A Tesla is out of the question.

      I commute 0 feet to my job (my office is attached to my bedroom). But I don't stay home all the time.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  7. Respected analysts can be wankers too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I haven't listened to the call, so I don't know what kinds of questions he was asking, but the crybaby analyst probably asked some kind of question he obviously wasn't going to get an answer to. Musk isn't there to fellate wall street, he's got enough investors that he doesn't have to... yet.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: You don't know anything about investing or finance, or legal requirements of publicly traded companies, or why an officer of said company should act responsibly instead of like an internet troll.

      But you can make obnoxious comments on a blog. That is some serious skills.

    2. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wall Street is 80% survival and 20% scum.

      If you're a native in those waters, it doesn't make you a god, it just makes you a catfish.

    3. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by ugen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.

      The question, more likely, annoyed Musk because it pokes at a somewhat sensitive topic. But Musk is the one being a crybaby here. If he did not need Wall Street's money - sure, he could say and do whatever he wants. Yet he does, and so he needs to please those who pay to keep Tesla running - and it's not, (yet?), it's customers.

    4. Re: Respected analysts can be wankers too by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It also means you are a native in those waters, of course.

      For better or for worse, they have the $$ and don't care if slashbots blow raspberries at them. They don't even know or care that we are here having this discussion.

    5. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      He said clearly, "I dont want to raise more equity". He also said, "You don't like what I say, sell. Dont buy my company shares". So some left and other are holding.

      Mercedes bought chrysler for 36 billion and sold it for 6 billion. What kind of names did they call the Daimler Benz CEO? You lnow what, these analysts should buy more companies like Benz.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by sfcat · · Score: 1

      He said clearly, "I dont want to raise more equity". He also said, "You don't like what I say, sell. Dont buy my company shares". So some left and other are holding.

      Mercedes bought chrysler for 36 billion and sold it for 6 billion. What kind of names did they call the Daimler Benz CEO? You lnow what, these analysts should buy more companies like Benz.

      "Their analysts wouldn't know preferred stock from live stock." Gordon Gecko of "Wall Street"

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    7. Re: Respected analysts can be wankers too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't care about other people in any direct way, that should be news to no one.

      Nevertheless, historically speaking, at some point over hundreds of years everyone gets wiped out in totally unexpected violent ways and it all starts over again.

      I'm not sue what tangent you're going for, so I fronted my own.

    8. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But you can make obnoxious comments on a blog. That is some serious skills.

      Yeah, I can log in, too, because I'm not a pathetic coward like you are. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, kid. Now run along and play with the other children in the shelter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Respected analysts can be wankers too by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.

      I guess people other than Wall Street surely did like it, because the current price is almost the highest it's been in a month.

  8. On purpose? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Tank it, then buy the stocks back quickly at a cheaper price.

    1. Re: On purpose? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That isn't going to get Musk the billions he needs to piss away today that he will pay us for on Tuesday.

  9. It bounced right back again. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0

    When it dropped 8%, I brought some. Sold it the next day. Some events are simply predictable.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Re:Plunged and since recovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like the kind of bullshit that he's trying to spread himself. World's full of bullshit, clickbait and emotive language.

  11. Surprised that Jim Cramer defended Musk by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and despite the disbelief of his colleagues he swears he was being serious.
    Seems that analyst has few fans.
    That said I'm becoming ever more pessimistic that Tesla can survive. They may linger for years but unless they really pull it out of the fire by the end of this year, I can't see a turnaround without a restructuring.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:Surprised that Jim Cramer defended Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jim Cramer is a showman. He gets money for hype.

    2. Re:Surprised that Jim Cramer defended Musk by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      Jim Cramer is usually on the wrong side of reality, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's in favor of Musk's ill-advised antics.

      He's a bit of a clown. I don't even mean that to be insulting, it's just the on-air persona type that he's tried to craft.

  12. cry me a river by Jodka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " respected Wall Street analysts...."

    That is exactly how the Wall Street racket works, by selling fake expertise on the basis of reputation.

    Musk's disrespect for Wall-Street is certainly warranted. Analysts claim to possess expert knowledge which will yield higher returns, when really their returns are worse than a dumb strategy such as ETFs. Retrospective comparisons of analysts picks to passive investment show analysts perform worse.

    Investment firms are a scam. Do not be a sucker and a victim. Read about investment from someone who is not trying to extract money from you.

    That Musk moved the price of Tesla shares by blowing off analysts just shows how many idiot investors there are. When idiots sell their Tesla stock because Musk hurt the feelings of the con artists, the smart move is to buy Tesla.
       

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:cry me a river by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more sophisticated than that. There's some good evidence that good professional investors can beat the market (and most amateurs) relatively consistently. Unfortunately there's also very good evidence that they typically take all of that outperformance (and often more) back in the fees they charge, so that if *you* invest with them then you (on average) won't be better off than if you'd just bought the lowest-cost index fund tracking whatever they measure themselves against you can find (which may or may not be an ETF).

      Sell-side analysts (ie those not working internally in an investment firm to support investment decisions) are a very different thing to investors of course... they face conflicting incentives which often don't align with "best returns" (as a simple example being controversial can often be much more rewarding for them than being right).

      And that's ignoring whether the benchmark index is even the right measure (for you) to start with of course.

    2. Re:cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read [amazon.com] about investment from someone who is not trying to extract money from you.

      He said, as he provided a link to a not-free book on the marketplace.

    3. Re:cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but that requires you to find the really good professional investor to manage your funds. Did you pick the next Peter Lynch or the next Bernie Madoff? Good luck...

  13. Now that's a Plunge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    301 to 274 and back to 295. 911! 911!

  14. The issue with Tesla ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The main issue with Tesla is that Musk is constantly promising and NEVER delivering. People are interested in the Tesla brand and the product, but Tesla continues to under-perform and has yet to deliver in time and the delay is of an unacceptable level.

    Waiting 2 years for a new vehicle is unacceptable to most with the exception of a few.

    1. Re: The issue with Tesla ... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I own what may be one of the best long term Tesla investments: the first year of issue Tesla Roadster Hot Wheels car. It will hold it's value over real Tesla iron because all I need to do is keep it clean and dry. Sadly, it's not intact in the blister pack so not an ideal collectors item. But we shall see.

  15. Analyst asked a perfectly valid question it seems by mirthful1 · · Score: 1
    Analyst asked a perfectly valid question it looks like from here. Problem was the Elon misunderstood the question and based on that snubbed/dissed the analyst. I get what Elon's beef was. I think he just whiffed in this case. So boo hoo... they should make up and move on. Elon has teflon for skin so no harm there. The analyst (who have skin in the game -- their reputations) should accept the 'misunderstood' and move on and not continue pushing his short/danger thesis.

    One small observation folks can disagree on but I think is valid: Musk is like Trump in that they both don't mind honest pointed criticism that is not grandstanding, dishonest or repetitive. And they both bite back hard at IYI's that are mostly out to signal for their peers or out to make themselves look good...

    FWIW, I listen to a few calls a year -- they are almost always boring, fairly technical but understandable if I do some homework and very procedural -- nobody wants to fart on a call like this. Tesla's last one had a small breath of fresh air in a sense -- taking questions from the hoi polli. But that can turn into 10 minutes of positive confirmation bias real easily.

  16. Definitely frustrated by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to inject facts into a good discussion, but the reality is that Tesla stock dropped about 2% after the call, and it's already rebounded. (If you include the part of the drop that occurred right before the call, it would be about 5%. Figure $301 to $284 and back.)

    Look at the 1-month variation in this link and note that the variation after the call is about the same as four other similar variations in the past 30 days.

    Big, fat hairy deal.

    Also, the questions that Musk avoided weren't "sober questions by respected Wall Street analysts", they were leading questions intended to elicit a response that could be taken in a negative light. In one case, the question was answered completely by the filed papers, and illustrated that the asker didn't do his homework.

    Tesla is the most shorted stock in history right now (not most shorted in todays market, by some measures it's the most shorted stock of all time), and a lot of people would like to see it fall so they can make some money.

    You won't get an honest opinion about Tesla for awhile, not until the short sellers realize that they can't bring the stock down using hype.

    1. Re:Definitely frustrated by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The hilarity of this statement. Tesla is pretty much nothing buy hype right now.

      Hype, the two most desirable car designs on the planet, and the most capable car battery factory on the planet. But yeah, aside from that, pretty much nothing, right?

      Tesla is literally people hoping that they can build a car making company based on electric engines (that aren't special),

      You literally could not be more wrong, Tesla's new motor is special.

      batteries (that are becoming unspecial),

      You literally could not be more wrong, the battery packs are becoming more special, and if you actually take the time to learn about the internals of the Model 3, you'll learn how wrong you are.

      and chargers that will end up being regulated and shared (aka not special).

      They're still special, and nobody has even announced plans to make better chargers yet, so I'm going to call FUD on this one.

      And how many other new car companies have succeeded in recent history?

      3 or 4, all making super-high-end vehicles to be fair, but it's still true.

      And what about a smart software engineer with some great/lucky timing do you think is going to make this any easier?

      What? That's how the world works. Great ideas at the right time succeed. Welcome to the world!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Definitely frustrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the extensive shorting of Tesla's stock is part of why so many people are trying to bad-mouth the company. They're hoping to make money out of crashing it.

  17. TLDR; Buy the stock now by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    The stock was over valued. Either buy now or bash on it with you friends and hope for more of a sell off and then buy it.

    It's a good feeling stock. To be frank, Musk doesn't want to run the company anymore and would gladly hand over the reigns to anyone competent but the market doesn't want anyone but him. No one has created a car company in years. He rushed the model X to market following the standard big 3 car model of recalls... which was a disaster. He is being badgered from all sides from workers that want to unionize and the big 3 funding them to the lack of quality lithium-ion batteries at a low enough price. Lots of behind the curtain politics. The problem is it's a bet and the stock is over valued. When everything does come together he will be sitting on a solid foundation. He can't just wave a magic wand.

    1. Re: TLDR; Buy the stock now by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Does Tucker have any descendants who Musk could hand the reins to? Edsel Ford is dead.

    2. Re:TLDR; Buy the stock now by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a good feeling stock. To be frank, Musk doesn't want to run the company anymore and would gladly hand over the reigns

      This particular grammatical error is a sign of fuzzy thinking. Reign means lead, right? So the reigns means the leadership? But it's the reins of a horse that he's riding or leading, depending on how you see the metaphor. He's openly avowed that he's leading it not to profit, but into the future. Anyone buying stock is doing it with that knowledge.

      He is being badgered from all sides from workers that want to unionize and the big 3 funding them to the lack of quality lithium-ion batteries at a low enough price.

      Musk is the only one who does have quality li-ion batteries at a low enough price to make a profit selling an EV. The Leaf may or may not actually be making a profit — Ghosn publicly said it was "getting" to be profitable, but that's all we really know except that in order to sell Nissans, they have to slap incentives all over them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these assholes are too used to their money buying them whatever the fuck they want. in this case, dickhead rhetorical questions. in general i feel like musk is full of shit (really only for the fact that he is), but he's completely correct in the handling of this. these analysts may have the money, but he has the power and they both know it. they just weren't sure if he was aware and were doing nothing more than testing him. they can be as butthurt as they want about being called on it, but it isn't going to change shit. who the fuck actually thinks that they're sitting there waiting their turn to ask a question, and then based on the answer: "ok, this investment is a bad idea -- i'm pulling all my money" (or the opposite). things like tesla are not an investment, and i think most of these guys know it. it's a gamble. it's got enough new territory/tech and variables involved that you'd have to be more arrogant than kanye or trump to think you can ask a few questions and make a noticeably better decision based on the answers.

  19. Re:Investors need to shut the fuck up. by mamba-mamba · · Score: 2

    The problem is that Tesla is going to need to raise several billion dollars in 2018 or early 2019. If it is unable to do that, it will have to find ways to cut expenditures dramatically (mass layoffs, spinoff any division that is profitable, if there even is one, sell assets). Who is going to give Tesla billions of dollars? Institutional investors. Who cares what analysts think? Institutional investors. Profitable companies can adopt the "fuck you" attitude you are describing. But unprofitable companies can't afford to do that.

    The dreams of visionaries become reality not only because of passion, but also because people with money are willing to spend it going after the dream. Tesla's dream is too big and too expensive to be achieved on enthusiasm alone. So Musk needs to court people who are able to transfer large sums of money.

    --
    By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  20. Bizzaro Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ......."bonehead, boring questions are not cool."

    I so gotta use that on my Organic Chemistry final exam.
          - with attribution, of course

  21. May have been deliberate and calculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tesla is the most shorted stock on the market, with short positions covering more than 30% of the total stock available for trading. Tesla stock has been kited to a high price by its previous short squeezes. When the commitments on short positions came due, the holders had to buy Tesla stock at the prevailing price to fulfil their obligations. They had no choice. There werenâ(TM)t lots of Tesla shares available to cover the short positions, and thus the price of the stock was driven up.

    What if Elon Musk was out to further kite the value of Tesla on a short squeeze, at the expense of all of the Tesla-doubters? He might act exactly as he has been: heâ(TM)d divert attention from good news, and act like a flake. Heâ(TM)d be confident in doing this, nobody could prove it was deliberate manipulation of the stock without reading his mind. Eventually, those short positions would come due, and there would be no stock to cover them, and Tesla shares would go astronomical.

    Short positions like this are called âoewidow makersâ. They can wipe out investors and sometimes drive them to suicide. Elon Musk made his fortune, and continues to, by taking risky actions that other people wouldnâ(TM)t dare. He obviously has an ego, and pauperizing the shorts would fit that.

    1. Re:May have been deliberate and calculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a version formatted for Slashdot's obsolete character set:

      Tesla is the most shorted stock on the market, with short positions covering more than 30% of the total stock available for trading. Tesla stock has been kited to a high price by its previous short squeezes. When the commitments on short positions came due, the holders had to buy Tesla stock at the prevailing price to fulfil their obligations. They had no choice. There weren't lots of Tesla shares available to cover the short positions, and thus the price of the stock was driven up.

      What if Elon Musk was out to further kite the value of Tesla on a short squeeze, at the expense of all of the Tesla-doubters? He might act exactly as he has been: he'd divert attention from good news, and act like a flake. He'd be confident in doing this, nobody could prove it was deliberate manipulation of the stock without reading his mind. Eventually, those short positions would come due, and there would be no stock to cover them, and Tesla shares would go astronomical.

      Short positions like this are called "widow makers". They can wipe out investors and sometimes drive them to suicide. Elon Musk made his fortune, and continues to, by taking risky actions that other people wouldn't dare. He obviously has an ego, and pauperizing the shorts would fit that.

    2. Re: May have been deliberate and calculated by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You'r running a closed-source Apple gadget. How disappointing.

    3. Re: May have been deliberate and calculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      No, just scraped UTF-8 from my Wordpress.

    4. Re: May have been deliberate and calculated by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how you even enter Unicode characters on slashdot, but apparently a lot of people manage to do it.

    5. Re: May have been deliberate and calculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copy and paste from the front page of perens.com seemed to be sufficient :-)

  22. I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I beg to differ. Day traders are not "his investors". Day traders are just shameless gamblers and manipulators, not investors.

  23. They're NOT quite right, though.... and here's why by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plenty of incredibly good business ideas are ones that need patience and time to bring to fruition. There's a need to do due diligence and make sure the company isn't just a false front, or a bunch of clueless idiots wasting every dollar they're loaned. But a company like Tesla has already proven it can deliver a working product that people find desirable. In fact, they did it several times over -- ever since the first Tesla Roadster came out.

    Wall Street is destroying a lot of great ideas because they hyper-focus on short term results. If you're a big, established firm, that's probably fine. They generally sell in saturated markets where their profits are relatively stable. But for anything else, you used to have a lot of investors who bought and HELD stocks because they truly liked what the company was doing. They weren't living "quarter to quarter" to look for the first sign they needed to do a sell-off.

    All the computerization of Wall Street is probably what led to a lot of this. Computer automation and ability to execute micro-trades super rapidly over high speed networks turns it into a pure game of numeric trends, vs. wishing to put your money into a business you believed in.

  24. Short position in TSLA by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Some 12 billion dollars of short interest is outstanding. It is the entire 33% of the float, and almost 100% of the stocks in the "stock lending" portfolios. Stock fell some 8 % and stabilized to around 5% loss. Only 0.7 billion was "in the money" after the drop. There is still 11 billion interest outstanding and there are not enough shares to go around, not available for sale.

    A classic short squeeze is developing, it is possible the shorts might lose their shirts, once again in TSLA, this time TSLA that is losing money and with bond rating in tatters. It takes a particularly monumental stupidity to lose in shorting a struggling company.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  25. A few == 450,000? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.

    1. Re: A few == 450,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and at todayâ(TM) production speed #450k will need to wait 4+ years for the delivery. By then every car manufacturer will have vehicles that are comprable or with better technology at similar price range.

    2. Re:A few == 450,000? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.

      That's assuming people still want it after years of waiting. I think most people who ordered have old cars that they want to replace. Not immediately, but within a few years. If Tesla delays too long, then those people would be forced to buy other cars, just so they can have something to drive.

    3. Re: A few == 450,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What evidence do you have that suggests their production will stay the same rate for 4 years?

    4. Re:A few == 450,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.

      That's assuming people still want it after years of waiting. I think most people who ordered have old cars that they want to replace. Not immediately, but within a few years. If Tesla delays too long, then those people would be forced to buy other cars, just so they can have something to drive.

      Perhaps, but there will also be people (like me) at a different stage in the car cycle who will gladly buy a Model 3 when it becomes more readily available.

  26. "Anal"ysts by MikeMixer · · Score: 0

    Every time I hear a market analyst get butthurt I just remember that bald asshole Jim Cramer screaming "Buy Lehman Bros." at the top of his lungs right up until they cratered. If I was Elon Musk I would make sure nobody but youtubers got to ask questions.

  27. Re:Plunged and since recovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seemed to me that he was baiting the shorts to get clipped

  28. so... by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    That new sofabed is as uncomfortable as it looks?

  29. Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply dropped by grungeman · · Score: 1

    Not sure why we dont't read this anywhere, but a sales drop of over 60% YoY in Europe is quite a shocker.

    https://seekingalpha.com/artic...

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
  30. Re:Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply droppe by grungeman · · Score: 1

    Sorry, it's only 40% YoY, the 60% is compared with Q4 2017, which probably is due to an incentive running out in Norway.

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
  31. anyone know the youtuber? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    They might have vid up about it.

  32. Re:Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply droppe by St.Creed · · Score: 2

    Two things:
    1) The only relevant numbers are Year-on-Year because all carmakers sell a lot more in december than in january.
    2) Holland had no change in incentives and no change in sales. I don't know about the other countries but Norway did change the incentives. At this point in time, electric cars still need the incentive - they still need the fact that the other cars don't have to pay for their pollution translated into cash to remain competitive. For now, because things are changing quite fast.
    3) People are waiting with purchasing S and X now that the model 3 seems to finally become a reality. Same thing happens whenever Mercedes announced a new model A or C or whatever: the old stock became an immediate problem.

    So: no worries yet, but model 3 production speed and conversion will be make or break for Tesla.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  33. Economics by ledow · · Score: 0

    Shocking.

    These people don't understand, or care, about the technicalities of how your product works. They care about money. You went to them to ask for money. They promised you some. That you then don't answer even the most ridiculous of questions from them will make them walk away.

    If anyone thought that a financial analyst on a finance call would somehow be interested in what battery chemistry you're using, they really must be an idiot.

    It's like sitting in the office of your bank manager, who asks you questions about where his loan money has gone to and when you expect to pay it back. Do you really think he cares about the minutiae of how you operate? Or do you think he wants to see a balance sheet of assets, payments and forecasts?

    Despite comments on here, NOBODY invests in any significant business because they "believe" in it (that might be the kind of thing you do for a friend in trouble, but that's not business and doesn't translate to large companies). If they did, they wouldn't invest. They'd donate. They'd be involved. They'd champion it. They wouldn't give you a terms-attached loan backed by huge legal agreements and assurances and things like legally-required earnings calls.

    By that standard, you could say that maybe Musk believes in it. But his portion of the funds are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

    Tesla has, by his own admission, skirted bankruptcy. As has SpaceX. He had to go to those people to get money to get out of that, and I bet the pitch wasn't about how "cool" the technology was but how they could see a return on their investment. That people of that ilk are then more interested in how they are going to get their investment back shouldn't be surprising. They honestly couldn't care if you sold spoons, or cancer cures, fast food or spaceships. They are interested in how much money they can get back. The reason you go to them is because they have money, not because they believe in your cause. A billionaire believing in the cause make the company skirt bankruptcy and require investment, that's how good it was for them.

    Of course, a lot of the game is not anything to do with the business whatsoever anyway. Literally that company - and its sister companies - are operating at huge losses at the moment. No different to quite a lot of other big-name businesses, current and historic.

    The game there is still the same, though. To make money. To buy the stock before it's famous, make it famous and expensive, and then SELL OFF before it downturns below the point you paid for it (plus a healthy profit). It has almost zero correlation to profit, performance, sales or anything else. It's about hype and bullshit. They are there to sell the hot potato to someone else before it burns them. To convince someone else that it's a magic bean before they notice it's worthless.

    These people generate that bullshit, not listen to it. That's how they make their money. And cutting such people off means that they know exactly why you're not discussing certain things, and tells them what their next action is going to be.

    Such people honestly don't care about what Musk might promise or not. They want to see the numbers, and for those numbers to continue to rise until they decide to sell. Past that point, they don't care a jot about the performance of the company, billionaires or bankrupts, they don't care about causes or advancement or anything it - it makes no difference if they've already made what they see as a profit.

    As such, pissing them off is not wise. Because they'll see the comments, cause the downturn in price, sell off, and by doing so leave with a healthy profit even if the company never sees another penny of investment or advice. The next guy who thinks "Oh, wow, look I could own a bit of Tesla now than some have become available" is the one who'll take the fall, not these guys.

    Musk wouldn't have got the investment with such attitude. He won't keep it with such attitude. And the investo

  34. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply dropp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holland is not a country.

  35. Its about killing Tesla to stall the momentum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla stock is being shorted on an epic scale, which means that people are offering Tesla stock for sale hoping it will drop in price.

    They don't own the stock, they have just enough money to cover the margin risk of a rising price of the stock.

    For this reason there's billions in $$ that want the media to report badly on Tesla, but if Tesla needed cash, it could emit
    new shares today and pull in billions.

    The real story is : Companies don't need to care about stocks unliess they are up for loan renewals, and banks will always try to load more loans
    on companies, so they can dicated that they do.This is usually changes to use more fossil fuels and make room for existing competitors, somtimes
    what banks want is the company to just die. This is the case with Tesla. Because Tesla undermines the entire banking sector by reducing demand for
    fossil credit.

  36. Comments Work! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Elon makes wild comments -> Telsa stock dropps
    Elon buys up lots of Telsa stock.
    Telsa does well -> Telsa stock rises.
    Elon sells a little stock to fund his other projects.
    Rinse & Repeat.

    1. Re:Comments Work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon makes wild comments -> Telsa stock dropps
      Elon buys up lots of Telsa stock.
      Telsa does well -> Telsa stock rises.
      Elon sells a little stock to fund his other projects.
      Elon imprisioned for illegal stock manipulation.

    2. Re:Comments Work! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      But apparently it is worth it since it worked for Martha.

  37. Next conference call: by jocarren · · Score: 1

    I am Iron Man.

  38. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply dropp by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Just refer to them as 'swamp Germans', to remove ambiguity.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  39. Fast way to lose a lot of money by Doc+Right · · Score: 0

    Have we not learned yet? Don't ever short Tesla. That's a fast way to lose a lot of money, as has been demonstrated time and time again since its IPO.

  40. Do yourself a favour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen to the recording to see how much better it is than a normal call. Real questions for retail investors. Also it furced me to listen to my first financial call. There is a much better way and musk is doing it already via this call. Free advertising and real value added to everyone. Ultimate life hack.

    https://youtu.be/Vd01mgF7Qm4

  41. Re:Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply droppe by Rei · · Score: 1

    Tesla has waiting lists on all of its models. What determines sales numbers in each markets is how Tesla focuses on production overall, and delivery to specific markets. Not the state of demand.

    Model S and X are a particularly notable case because Tesla has no plans to increase annual production. Building more than 100k per year S+X would require further capital investments in 18650 cell production, and Tesla is moving away from 18650 cells. So yes, expect some month to month fluctuation, but at the end of every year, expect total global annual S+X sales to be approximately 100k.

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
  42. Re: Plunged and since recovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stock plunging!! Panic!!

    It's doubled value in a year, and up 4% since this article.

    Why is Slashdot featuring clickbait...

  43. Dude, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you're arguing with a person who posted this:

    Not profitable means their costs equal their revenues. It does not mean they are losing money and need to get investor cash to keep operating. I don't know where you learned your definition of the word "profitable".

    There are those of us here who actually know Tesla's deal and who actually known how to read and understand financial statements - so, WE know you're right.

    There's an old Wall Street saying, "Those that know, don't speak; those that don't know, speak." meaning, the folks who actually know something keep their mouths shut and those that know nothing are the loudest.

    I remember that when I see such stupid shit as the GP or when I get bashed by Tesla fanboys for stating the facts.

    Enjoy the show - and if you're ballsy enough to play the TSLA game, man!, you're more MAN than I am!

  44. "Growth cmopany"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to not understand the difference between a bluechip company and a growth company.

    No, I don't think you do. But, one should put their life savings into Tesla because it CAN'T lose!!! Musk is changing the World and he knows how to get things done!!

    Please, oh please, keep believing in Musk and Tesla. Plah-ease!!! You should!!

    He was in Ironman! He IS Ironman!!

  45. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply dropp by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    Thanks... I'll have to remember that one :)

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  46. Pyramid scheme by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    I see Tesla as a pyramid scheme. They're losing about $28,000 on each car they sell so I guess "they'll make it up in volume". :-)

    There is no P/E ratio on the stock because there are no earnings.

    People keep buying the stock and the cars but there seems to be no hope for profitability.

    When this one crashes, it'll be entertaining as Tesla also has a monopoly on parts and service.

  47. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply dropp by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    Although various provincials who do not live in the two most important provinces in the country dispute the fact that Holland suffices as designation for The Netherlands, people of distinction (who of course live in either South or North Holland) know that this is a false idea that needs to be disputed at every opportunity.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  48. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are actually *crazy* good at turning swamps and outright parts of the sea into proper land.
    Look at a map from e.g. the 1500s, and then one from today. There are doxumentaries about the huge massive dams they built.

    If they are swamp Germans, they sure are the masters of the swamps.

  49. New Howard Hughes by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Seems like Musk is a modern day Howard Hughes

    Maybe he'll build a new building in Las Vegas like the Landmark that used to be there.. and live there.

  50. The Press trying to re-assert its dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Press has for a while now become *actor* instead of observer in ongoing events. From the 2016 election to the ongoing #ReeesistDemocracy movement to all sorts of political and economic decisions, the press wants to be part of the decisions, or even dictate what decisions others should make, "or else".

    That is a critical loophole of the constitution and something no one ever imagined would happen. Freedom of the press can only be maintained if the press refuses to play the field and sticks to observing the play.

  51. Re: Nonbody asked why sales in Europ sharply drop by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of years of drowning will do that.

    Proper land? Ehhh...reclaimed land isn't the greatest idea is seismically active zones. Works there, not everywhere.

    Also: Oh Noes, the wetlands! They couldn't do it today, malarial swamps are 'precious' to greenies.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  52. Re:Investors need to shut the fuck up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Precisely....And at this time Musk is acting like the Angelo Mozillo or Dixk Fuld of this decade.

  53. How to find car charging stations by steveha · · Score: 1

    I can't figure out how to identify [places with public J1772 chargers] on a map yet, compared to being able to find Tesla stations

    FYI, there is an extremely useful web site for this:

    https://www.plugshare.com/

    You can find where they are, how much they cost, how much parking costs (some places have free charging but you must pay for parking, and some places you have to pay for both), how many chargers, what hours the chargers are available, and a rating from 1 to 10 for how good the charger is (10 if it's always in working order and usually available, 1 if it's always broken or always blocked or whatever).

    Also, I have their app on my phone; I use it to find chargers sometimes, and I also have used it a few times to pay for charging at some J1772 chargers.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely