Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TheFreak55, Apr 29, 2015.
He made 9 million and you know more than him
Sure but it's crazy how only you know how to make them profitable
So every executive that makes a lot is beyond making bad decisions? Weird. Why do so many get fired?
And his $9m is down to $6m. Still not a bad year.
I dont have all the answers but a good start would be to stop selling a car loaded with goodies turned off that they dont make money on. It's a waste of time and resources all to satisfy Elon's ego.
Clearly you do tho. You know exactly what's happening and what's wrong
Sure they do but you literally don't know anything and are making broad accusations and conclusions. It's amazing.
Anyone giving you any but of opposition is either a "Stan" or a "homer"
enough is enough
WED and dbl need to be thread-banned
I couldn’t help myself this morning
Bought 20 $125 puts that expire in December for $8.20
Explain how this works again?
How long is your timeframe for this play?
Where Eagles Dare see he doesn't know everything
I know enough to act like I do.
At least you went less risk than absolute bankrupt this time
He bought 20 options, which were $8.20 each. These are usually lots of 100 shares.
He has the right to buy those shares at $125 and the contracts expires in December.
So let's say the price never hits $125 he's basically out the 8.25 per lot or stock (can't remember which)
Let's say in the months the stock dives to 170, his contracts will be a lot more than 8.25 bc its more likely to hit. He could then sell that contract and make money
The other way works too that let's say Tesla hits 14,000 as expected, they will be worthless and his 8.25 per share will go to $0.01.
So he's betting it'll go down and playing a single side
Theres a whole element of time decay within this, as WED touched on a little bit, you want it to go down fast and soon to maximize your money. If it goes down to 190 and stays at 190 for a week or two you will actually lose money because the odds it goes to 125 have become less likely.
I don't really want to dig up the last discussion too much because that was a shit show but lots of companies sell loss leaders at volume to gain market share and to leverage economies of scale. That's not unusual at all.
Selling one with the goodies turned on at a loss would be a loss leader. Selling one with them in it and just turned off is just a waste.
Not if your customer can pay for the upgrade at a later date with no additional cost to you as a company.
It's like if HD tv manufacturers were also cable providers when HD was new. You had to pay extra for HD service pretty much everywhere so even though you had the capability, it didn't mean you were watching HD. Then your customer gets the thing with the capacity but no upgrade and they want it at a later date.
So at a later date you MAY get your money back?
Yeah, exactly. Both as an over the air upgrade and as an ability to gain market share and adoption of your new technology. The price is specifically for market penetration. Sure, at some point they'll need to make money on these things but this is an immature market with high production costs. You may disagree with the strategy but it's not crazy. You sell at break even or at a loss so you can get widespread adoption of your niche technology and lower your production costs. It's decidedly a long term play.
I think, especially in a market like this, where there aren't really any other major competitors, it makes sense. You get people suckling that Tesla teet and as long as they have a good experience they'll think of Tesla for electric cars just like people think of the Prius when they think of Hybrids.
Think of cell phones since 2000. Service providers literally gave away phones for free so they could sell cell service. Now everybody has one. If those phones weren't sold at a loss for somebody they wouldn't have the sort of ubiquitous presence they have now.
Heated seats isn't new technology.,
Right bc they were making their money back on the cell service. Where is Tesla making the money back on putting heated seats in cars that didn't pay for them?
They're not selling heated seats. That's such a small way to look at this. They're selling over the air upgrades to their cars. That's the service.
And switching costs on production lines very very very likely outweigh any marginal cost for putting a heated seat vs. a non heated seat into a car. It's the difference between an assembly line running at full capacity and a person putting together a car by hand. Sure, the parts may be more expensive in aggregate but the time you lost in production makes up for it many times over.
This is pointless. Some of you guys look at this and try to come up with a reason on why it makes sense. I look at it and see a possible example as to why the company burns cash quarterly. We'll never agree on it so it's pointless.
Don’t you own a Tesla?
I do not. Fam can't fit in them. But I have ridden in one and they're sweet cars. Even if Musk is really dumb on twitter.
Wait for the Model Y it will be able to fit 7 comfortably
Bo Pelinis you are going to get no where my friend.
He is wrong on that they should have made a different model instead of limiting the SR+ (and used a terrible 700hp Cherokee analogy with it)
He is not wrong on that getting rid of the SR and recapturing some GM wouldn't be bad. It's a small part to the Tesla cash equation but its apart of it.
Because that's why people are buying Tesla's
I remember reading earlier this week or last week that ~65% of trade ins for Tesla’s were non luxury cars
I admittedly haven’t driven a POS car in like a decade, but I had a corolla back in the day and when I traded that in for an Infiniti my mind was blown
Apologies for continuing this argument, but this is how it is done in the IT business all the time. Especially in computers. It costs less to limit your production line to a single version (same upgrades and features) and sell them at various prices with certain features locked and unlocked, than it would to create an entire second product line where you assemble a different vehicle with the different options. You take advantage of economies of scale and ease of only maintaining a single vehicle (kind of like how Southwest manages only the 737 fleet instead of all types of aircraft).
This approach is used in a large number of areas. As a bonus, you allow the owner to try the upgraded features and then when you lock them out, you have a small percentage who will pay to unlock who may not have paid originally as they did not think the features would be beneficial.
I think their target market is the 20-30 year old who is upgrading to possibly their first new car, and is trading in an older car as they transition in to a better paying job. Most boomers are tech adverse and would be a small percentage of owners.
I don't think buyers are trading out Lexus' and BMWs for Teslas, but i think there are a small number of those doing that. In most cases its people upgrading. At least that is my opinion.
It is why I always laugh at “this is the best car I’ve ever driven”
Well no shit it’s tighter than you 2002 civic
ksim14 as someone who despite working in Oil & Gas, believes strongly in clean energy, do you have a breakdown of the carbons released utilizing electricity at my home versus driving a typical gas powered car? I'm just curious what the net carbon difference is being that electricity on a grid in texas isn't exactly clean energy
LOL, I don't think the ones making that comment are limited to people upgrading. I know a friend who traded in their Porsche to get an S and she loves it. In fact you would think she became a Vegan Crossfitter after how much she talks about it.
The one I was in was driven by rich So Cal greenies who have enough dough to buy whatever. They still thought it was super sweet.
This has all been attempted to be explained
The amount of energy need to run an EV should at least be cleaner since it is probably coming from a natural gas plant vs a gas car emitting gas burned CO2... Right?
That's my thought process with zero facts or energy thought process.
I always thought the critic for EVs was in the manufacturing process vs the actual driving of the cars
This info is via 2016 and I have posted it before, but if you drive a EV and use Texas electricity as an average you are getting 60 MPG. Obviously over time the trend is the grid will get cleaner (this is up 12 mpg from 2009 for Texas specifically). In some states its still very coal heavy so tbh you would probably doing a better service driving a used hybrid.
This is also kinda cool live view of electricity production/consumption world wide, but is missing some data.
Most of the time yes, but if its coal centric power like in Illinois its not great.
The manufacturing process is the worst part for an EV but it recoups its "cost" fairly quickly.
Yea its not JUST cause people are going from Civics to a nicer car.
EV's have a quicker powertrain and thats why its fun driving them which is an inherent advantage to Tesla, till other people step in, but that so far has been a dumpster fire.
This thread never disappoints, Teslas are only cool because the guys who are now driving them had civics before?? lol
That 500Gwh number is wrong, its actually 50Gwh but still a large investment.
Not driving >>>>>>>>>>>> Driving so I will only be purchasing cars that allow for the most autonomous driving that the law allows at the time. Its simple for me.
Elon Musk says he deleted his Twitter account, which isn't actually deleted
big uproar over the weekend about him posting art on his twitter and refusing to credit the artist