Tesla stock

A medical emergency happened in the crowd, which delayed the start of the presentation.

x.com

x.com

 

It appears to be an independent Super PAC that - like so many of the incoming ads on both sides that are continually bombarding us w/ emails phone calls & textings.
Nothing (out of the unexpected) to see here .

 

I was never a Musk fan - thought he got rich off government subsidies and other peoples' ideas. But, I gave him credit for execution - something I'm very weak at. And, the bottom line is always about execution.

He's grown on me however - mostly because I see him standing up for himself in the face of hyperpartisan attacks from the socialist media. The minute he quit supporting Dems a couple of years ago, the media flipped. Whereas he could do not wrong for years, they now look for anything to exaggerate and blame him for.

What's the truth? We'll never know. We can't know, because truth can no longer be known. Every potential source of truth has been obviously and irrefutably corrupted. Politicians, the media, academia, the intelligence communities, the legal system - all have been caught lying so many times that an objective scientific study would surely conclude that we shouldn't believe supposed objective scientific studies. There is simply not a rational, logical, and persuasive case for believing any source for anything significant.

I've been saying that for years all over social media and, every year, the pile of undeniable evidence supporting my skepticism has grown larger and larger. Now, only in the last 6 months, have I seen such warnings in popular media. We you don't have truth, you got nothing.

It's that threat to truth that made me come around to Musk. His purchase of Twitter and making it open to all opinions could save society. It is definitely a zoo on the app, but it's a necessary zoo. There is so much that you can only learn on X, and that's sad. That he doesn't care about losing money on the purchase, that it's all about freedom of speech, makes him a hero for me.

And snagging that rocket yesterday was pretty awesome.

As for his CEO skills - I doubt all those quirks he allows us to see are any worse than the quirks the typical billionaire CEOs hide behind their fake public personas. I like real people, not plastic ones. I'd rather bet on the risk I know than the one I don't. Again, an objective scientific study of the history of corruption among CEOs and the observable Machiavellian tendencies of that personality type would undoubtedly conclude that we shouldn't trust any of them. That anyone chooses to trust one and not the other, like anyone who thinks their political party is awesome and the other one is evil, is just an effect of confirmation bias from whatever information sources you've chosen.

 

I guess, but really, all I did was mention an ideology, used it as an adjective - I didn't advocate for or against it. It's just objectively true that many of the negative stories about Musk have originated from news sources with a socialist bias.

And leaving that out makes any Tesla stock conversation meaningless. Tesla IS Musk. Musk is the brand; he is the product that investors are buying. There was never a way to justify it's stock price on the fundamentals; there isn't now. It could only be justified if one believed in Musk; you had to believe, against all odds, that Musk could execute.

Today, that brand value is under attack - for political reasons. To try to ignore that in an intelligent conversation about the company's value seems pretty silly to me and a waste of time. Too many people are not buying Tesla cars (not the stock) because of all of the negative PR the attack media has created. It'd be like talking about Trump Media stock without mentioning his legal issues.

I actually expect that there are statements regarding Musk's actions in the Tesla earnings reports - if there's any real reason to suggest it will impact the stock price. So again, kinda hard not to discuss what's in the ERs. But yeah, if the mods need me to refer to that segment of the media as "cosialists" or some other silliness, I can do that.

Otherwise, I have to disclaim any real knowledge of the share price, P/E, etc. If you say that investment calculation can be separated from the Musk brand and still justify the stock price (if not now, then when you bought), I won't/can't argue with you, but it doesn't seem to make sense.

 

You just perfectly identified your problem. You think Tesla is a car company.

 

Certainly, for some companies, and those like Tesla, R&D investment is meaningful data. Again, I'm not a market investor and only have a layman's knowledge - seemingly an old, outdated layman. Maybe it was a different time, but P/E always seemed like the most important data - what are you paying for a dollar of profit? IIRC, for many years multiples above 6 were generally considered over-priced - a dollar investment bought $0.16 of profit - a fair return for the risk vs. safer investments.

Now, Tesla is trading at a multiple over 61; people are investing a dollar to buy about $0.012 of profit. You can get a better return in a money market account. Based on the fundamentals, cost of money, interest rates, etc., it's silly to buy Tesla. Any investment at a 61 P/E is speculative at best. At some point in time, the P/E has to align with reality, so investing now is like jumping into a Chinese fire drill and hoping you'll jump off before it stops.

And yet, Bob, you seem to be trying to make sense out of it based on sub-fundamental data - R&D investment - as if the share price has a logical, mathematical basis for its price rooted in its operations and execution, and you're just drilling deeper into those solid numbers to unlock the hidden predictor. I mean, I get that - I've seen you in this forum for many years - you're a smart analytical guy, and I have no doubt that you would approach this from that perspective.

I just don't see it that way. I see numbers that make no sense and know that investors are buying for some other reasons, almost surely not reasons one can find in the earnings report. And it's not hard to figure out what that reason is - Musk. So, far me, the Tesla play is a bet on Musk, and it's a longish-term bet, but it could pay off big. The key - politics.

If Trump wins, Musk looks awesome. He'll have his pick of roles in the administration - and the one that's been hinted at - overseeing a reform of the bureaucracy to be more efficient - is exactly his core strength. Trump will role back Biden's regs that hurt Tesla. The Musk brand will be bigger than ever.

If Trump loses, not so much.

But, I always wonder why some of the guys here don't invest in Prii. I bought that Gen1 at an auction last month for ~$1200, put $900 in it, and sold it for $3500 a couple of weeks later. Even if it took a year to sell, I don't know many investments with that ROI and so little risk.

Right now, there is a historic opportunity to profit from used cars - the FL hurricanes have dumped hundreds of thousands of cars in the auctions. While you might pick up some cars cheap that weren't actually flooded, the easy play is to pick up low-mileage wrecked cars now, then buy flooded parts cars for nothing to fix them with. The hurricane cars aren't wrecked - if you go with a popular model (doesn't have to be Prii, but the high-value cats make them a no-brainer), you can probably fix 2-4 wrecked cars with one parts car.

I'd be all over the G2s right now, looking for low-mileage cherries. The flood cars have just started showing up in the regional auctions - they will be coming strong for another 4-6 months. Forget Tesla stock for now - make your decision on it Nov 6.

 

This has nothing to do with Musk’s politics.

Musk was Tesla.
He helped the company when it desperately needed it.
He brought in great people to help bring the vision to fruition.
He drove forward the Mission statement when many (including the Media) laughed at him.
Under his leadership Tesla produced the world’s best selling car.

This is all groundbreaking and should be applauded.

Now, Tesla is lagging behind inferior products by the competition in the USA market.
Elon is railing against regulations on X/Twitter and seems to be following through with actions that affect Tesla.
Elon seems to believe we are headed for a deep recession and slowed down/paused the building of a factory in Mexico.
Eliminated the PR department, making Tesla less transparent.
Promoting a car with no steering wheel or pedals, due out “before 2027”. In 2027 that car wouldn’t be able to be sold in the majority of the USA.
Is endorsing and helping a candidate who thinks climate change is a Hoax and has stated he will cancel EV incentives and add incentives for ICE vehicles. This is the antithesis of Tesla’s original Mission Statement.

Tesla 3rd quarter had gains in China and Europe. They had a loss of sales in the USA. I believe the cause is just how visible his X/Twitter antics have been.

 

ICE incentives? Link?
thanks
NO one thinks climate change is a hoax. Multiple ice ages & past climates hot enough to support tons of large lizards proves that. What's discussed as a hoax is whether or not &/or how much the effect of mankind on the climate significantly changes that dynamic. When our leadership says it's the greatest (& of course existential) threat we face? Not from 10 million illegals / or marxism / or homelessness or lawfare or mental care or trillions indebtedness or drug abuse or child sex slave trade or wars etc.
That's the kind of statement from
our leadership that causes lots of push back re climate.

 

???WTH? That's one confused mess, you posted, Z. Just read your first sentence and then skip to the last sentence - if it's not schizophrenia, I don't know how else to explain it. I'll try to respond, but it's hard.

Let's start with something easy - your first word. What is the "this" you refer to? The entirety seems to be supporting "this," but you never say what "this" is, and I don't see others referring to a "this."

Of course, the rest of that sentence is confusing as well, since the arguments you seem to be trying to make all skew towards subjective politics (syk, exactly the type of arguments one hears from people experiencing confirmation bias). After reading the first sentence, readers expected you to state objective facts that support your prediction of where the stock price is headed - something like Bob offered with his R&D analysis, only better. You don't.

As someone who actually wrote earnings reports for a Fortune 500 company, I can tell that, for example, "lagging behind inferior products" means nothing that a smart investor would rely on. They would demand more substantive data and not vague subjective opinion. Whether Musk was "railing" or accurately describing the effect of regs is subjective. And what does the next clause mean - "seems to be following through with actions that affect Tesla." Of course, the answer is "nothing," literally. Logically, it suggests that Musk is acting against regs he believes are detrimental to Tesla - which, rationally, would be a good thing. But you seem to think it's a negative. But, IDK, it's not clear what you're saying.

The rest are the same - meaningless. Why do you imply that it's bad that he suspects a recession? Why is stopping a Mexican factory not good - what does any of that mean? And no, eliminating a PR department doesn't make the company less transparent. As a public company, Tesla complies with all transparency requirements. It is as transparent as every other public company. In most companies, PR departments report up the Marketing & Communications chain of command, not the Legal or Compliance channels. They only produce marcomm content, not financial content that offers additional understanding beyond the required transparency.

Ditto "promoting" concept cars. What does that have to do with anything? Every auto mfg ever, or close, has exhibited concept cars and made bold predictions about future tech. But Musk does the same thing, and you think that's bad? You then go full-throat confirmation bias with that political opinion/distortion about climate change. It's not true.

My point is: what is your point? What is the "this" in all this? You seem to absolutely believe Musk's politics are impacting the company a lot - just as I've said - yet you claim that's not the case, while offering no other case. I assume you're responding to my posts, but you don't address the main points I make, which were very simple. To wit:

"Blah, blah...groundbreaking and should be applauded." Agreed. And it was recognized as groundbreaking, and it was applauded - to the tune of a 61 P/E multiple. Investors rose up and have said, "Musk, we'll give you $61 if you'll make us $1."

THAT is the "this" I'm talking about. That's where we are today. The question is, where does the share price go from here? You don't really say, but I expect it's part of that "this" you refer to, and your implication is that the price is going down, without saying why, except for Musk's politics.

I'm saying, IDK, but that I believe it will be driven by the market's reaction to Musk's politics, just as the share price has always been driven by the market's reaction to Musk. The difference is that socialists have interjected politics into his brand. They are attacking him now, rather than applauding him as before, for no reason except they disagree with his politics. It's making people not buy Tesla cars. Socialists do what they're told.

Thus, IMHO, Tesla's stock price will go whichever direction public opinion of Musk goes. That's the only reason it's at a 61 P/E now and that valuation is too far removed from any rational, fundamentals-based valuation that any operational issues/results are almost irrelevant. No one stays invested in Tesla at a 61 P/E because they think the company earnings will beat the US corporate average. They invest because they believe the hype - that EVs will dominate the market and Tesla will dominate EVs and obliterate the corporate average.

IMHO, EVs will be a niche market for some time. Hybrids won the battle for now. Tesla will be a profitable company within that niche, but not one that deserves a 61 P/E. The share price has either got to come down a whole lot or profits have to go up a whole lot.

The best hope for the stock price is Trump being elected and Musk getting a high-profile role in the administration at which he clearly succeeds. Otherwise, win or lose, the socialist media will continue to attack and defame both Trump and Musk, and try to derail a Trump administration just like they did to his first admin with the phony Russian collusion hoax. Musk and Tesla will be collateral damage because socialists don't care about the collateral damage from a Tesla collapse. It's just the way things are. TBC, I don't think Trump gets elected. The media has managed to keep the race within the margin of fraud, so the bureaucrats will decide, and they ain't likely to elect Trump.

 

Yep, that's what I allude to in my last post about Z's distortion not being true. In fact, climate change is a prediction, it's not truth. Any number of factors could make that prediction not come true. There are actually scientists who predict that Earth will experience a super volcano within the next 100 years - much sooner that the climate change alarmists predict massive catastrophy - but where is all the demands for trillions of dollars to stop that?

And, of course, there's the other HUGE ELEPHANT in this room, as a described in my earlier post - the truth is that an objective scientific study would conclude that we shouldn't believe scientific studies. The very people who argue that we must "believe the science" don't want to believe that science. The rest of us "deniers" don't deny that the President of Stanford, MIT, Harvard were ousted for committing academic fraud. More than 100,000 "scientific" studies have been withdrawn for fraud. One of the most prestigious academic journals shut down over all the fraudulent studies they published. And yet, the climate criers demand we believe science.

The sane people in this crowd, as usual, are those who, first, identify the money trail and potential power at stake, and then overlay the alarmist claims to find the intersection. There's always an intersection. When a lie or fraud can determine who gets the money and who gets the power, sane people expect to hear a lie and know there's a fraud. Human history has proven countless times that those expectations are valid.

Insanity is watching the same humans, with the same character, morals, and motivations, behaving the same way, and expecting different results.

 

Climate alarmists are no different that the COVID alarmists. Money and power drove those outcomes too. If that weren't true, if the government really just wanted to save lives and help people by locking us down and taking from us, they'd be taking away beer and pizza, and cigs and alcohol. Those things kill more people than COVID every year. Millions of dead Americans from the effects of those things; yet, they do nothing.

 

Big pharma & big food are large government funding supporters and are slowly killing everyone.

 

Tesla's stock faces the same uphill battle that many company's stock face. People with no job or lives become social justice Warriors and try to garner as much hatred towards one company or the other. Consider how Dylan Mulvaney collapsed beer stock prices - turning around after they ditched the ads with the dude wearing the dress.

 

Say what?

Mulvaney was promoting a beer, not trying to garner hatred towards it. It was people who hate her type that displayed hatred towards the brand and collapsed the stock price.

Was there really an ad campaign featuring "the dude wearing the dress."? Or was there just a self-made video posted on her Instagram and TikTok accounts? I heard only about that later, and only because so many people hated her for doing it.

 

The minute you use the term socialist to describe opinions and facts you disagree with, you lose your objectivity to me. I prefer post with facts that disprove what you are objecting to in contrast to name calling. What Bob is saying, and rightly so, that we here have agreed that political opinions are for the House of Politics and are debated there freely. But discussing Tesla in terms of ideology of critics is not appropriate for this subforum.

Bob and I have disagreed for months about the value of Tesla stock. And if you had said that Musk's politics may impact a number of potential buyers of either the stock or the products that would be something for discussion here.

 

Wow, Mike, that's lame. Lame besides the obvious - that I've never "used the term socialist to describe opinions and facts I disagree with" in this forum. It's mostly lame because I only used the term a few times at all, mixed in thousands of words of substantive arguments. If the forum enforced a no-racism policy, it seems you would object to me saying "those black people." Let me do your work and document what I said, rather than letting you get away with that nonsense.

In my first post here, I used the term "socialist media" once. And, as I explained to Bob when he made a similar objection, it was used objectively, as an adjective not a noun, and without judgment of the ideology. There is, in fact, a large segment of the MSM that has a socialist bias. It is not inaccurate to refer to that group by that adjective, and especially as I did - to simply differentiate that segment of the media from other segments for the purpose of supporting my point. Literally, socialism had nothing to do with anything I said, except to identify the other party, and I certainly didn't use the term as you accuse.

My next post mentions "socialism" twice - first to explain the above, and again to mock the idea of avoiding the usage as being too political. Again, nothing like what you've accused.

Next post, no usage of that word. Lots of substance though, which you now ignore.

Ok, finally, in the next post I use the term a few times. First, I describe the people attacking Musk as socialists. The context is that I'm discussing how politics will be the decisive factor for share price. I say they're interjecting politics into his brand. Finally, I said that "socialists do what they're told." The first two uses are, again, objective and stated without judgment, and with no judgment suggested or implied. Would you object if I used the term "Democrats" to describe the party that opposes Republicans? What's the difference?

But, finally, I did make a statement that one could argue is subjective - I said socialists do what they're told. We can argue that if you'd like - IMHO socialism does discourage individual rights over those of the collective, but that's off-topic. The fact is, again, I don't express a judgment. I don't state that I disagree with that, if it were true. The usage says nothing about those I disagree with, or about disagreeing at all, nor do I express my opinion on the topic.

And then, at the end of that long post, I use the term "socialist media" again, as before, and make another subjective claim - that socialists don't care about the collateral damage that would ensue from Tesla's collapse. And, again, both don't qualify as the accusation you've made.

That's it. Two more posts with no usage of the term.

The rest of your post is silly too. Why do you think saying a socialist is a socialist is "name-calling"? Essentially, all I've said about socialists is that 1) they exist, 2) they produce media content, 3) some of that content attacks Musk, 4) they are obedient to authority, and 5) that socialists don't care about the collapse of capitalist corporations.

And, why do you think discussing the impact of politics as a social and economic factor on Tesla share price is a taboo topic here? Again, no one is talking about the pros and cons of the political ideology. We're only talking about how macro politics affect share price, and simply describing the players involved in those macropolitics with terms that are understood by all.

SYK, I made a real good living for several decades arguing for my clients. Still, in retirement, I argue a lot. Thousands of words a day, rarely missing a day. Needless to say, I've had people try this kind of lameness before. In almost every case, after lots more lameness, it's revealed that my opponent just doesn't have a rebuttal, but hates being wrong, so they cherrypick some few words, while ignoring thousands, and claim those few words justify their non-response. You're not surprising me.

I do agree that this is not the forum to have those kind of lame, disingenuous debates, with fake, false accusations and no integrity. Let's just stay on the topic of Tesla share price, despite the fact that it will reflect political influence, and not imagine a lot of other nonsense because we've consumed too much confirmation bias opinions.