Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bornontheblue

RIP TESLA

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

I am not rooting for misfortune, just calling it like I see it.  The rich get installation and purchase rebates for vehicles they can already afford, the middle class and poor get the shaft via higher taxes and increased electricity rates (because the big users got subsidized electricity). 

Good to know, though I'd be very interested to hear more about the subsidized electricity you reference... :hmmm:

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

The dude started an aerospace company for Christsakes. And a car company. And all after spring boarding from his own wealth he created by helping build a finance company.

We use to put people like Musk up on a pedestal. That is the exact kind of entrepreneurial spirit that made this country the greatest source of innovation and wealth generation on the planet.

Some of you are nothing but pathetic f*cikng haters. What a f*cking joke.

 

 

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Tesla’s financials look terrible. I’m not judging the guy personally. 

I agree, no one is hating on Elon.  Just calling it as I see it.  Heck, Bob Lutz said years ago his business model is unsustainable.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WilliamHicks said:

I have a ton of great product ideas that I could run with if the Taxpayers were floating the bill. I bet many on this board have even better designed concepts. 

I respect the innovation, but he has a failed business plan and I don't believe in throwing money at failed business plans. That is the problem that I have with this Govt subsidy program and Elon Musk.  He needs to bankrupt, we need to cut off the subsidies and force him to close unprofitable and unsustainable divisions of his organization. 

If he can float his own boat, then I will become his biggest fan.   But throwing billions at a concept that does not generate profit is just foolish. 

I can respect that, even if I am of the philosophy that there are times when the situational use of subsidies is an entirely acceptable approach to prevent or abate issues that would have a far greater cost to correct.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Good to know, though I'd be very interested to hear more about the subsidized electricity you reference... :hmmm:

Rebates for installation of rooftop solar. You have to be upper income to be able to afford a solar system. As you should be aware, California has tiered utility rates. So just like our income tax system, electricity and natural gas rates are progressive in nature. The more you use, the more you step up into higher rates for the incremental above-average usage. By purging the wealthy from the utility company revenue stream, the utility has to make up the lost revenue from the remaining customers who as you would expect probably can't afford a solar system. So over time, the people that don't have solar are going to face skyrocketing rates. Actually they already are experiencing skyrocketing rates. Landlords aren't going to give a rip about the tenants paying sky-high electricity bills. As a side note, the poor people in the Central Valley subsidized electricity for the coastal residents because more electricity is required in the hot Central Valley areas where temperatures often exceed 100 degrees and Demands a lot of energy usage. On the coast, not as much electricity is needed to cool homes, hence those homes are less likely to step up into the higher-priced tiers.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Rebates for installation of rooftop solar. You have to be upper income to be able to afford a solar system. As you should be aware, California has tiered utility rates. So just like our income tax system, electricity and natural gas rates are progressive in nature. The more you use, the more you step up into higher rates for the incremental above-average usage. By purging the wealthy from the utility company revenue stream, the utility has to make up the lost revenue from the remaining customers who as you would expect probably can't afford a solar system. So over time, the people that don't have solar are going to face skyrocketing rates. Actually they already are experiencing skyrocketing rates. Landlords aren't going to give a rip about the tenants paying sky-high electricity bills. As a side note, the poor people in the Central Valley subsidized electricity for the coastal residents because more electricity is required in the hot Central Valley areas where temperatures often exceed 100 degrees and Demands a lot of energy usage. On the coast, not as much electricity is needed to cool homes, hence those homes are less likely to step up into the higher-priced tiers.

Here's the thing though. We can transition to solar tomorrow, with zero down, and own the system on a finance plan that would be based on a 12-month average of our electric bill. We've been discussing it for a couple months and will probably do so within another.

Homeowners can also get solar with zero outlay of money if they're willing to forego ownership of the system. The advantage with this approach is you never have to incur a single dollar of maintenance costs.

It's a fallacy that only the wealthy can afford it. It's simply not true. The burbs are riddled with rooftop solar panels.

And our rates have not increased appreciably for years. I'd swear I'm paying the same per kilowatt/hour rate I have been since I started making a concerted effort to reduce our bill four years ago. This despite the continued increase in solar installations. I know our utility is talking about a large rate hike, but don't forget - they're public utilities, and don't have carte blanche authority to raise rates - increases have to be approved by the PUC.

Also, I would think a decreased reliance on a centralized power grid would be in everyone's best interest. Except for the utilities, of course. It definitely is in the interest of our national security.

Lastly, California produces a full 20% of its electricity from renewal sources - solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric - and this amount is on the upswing. I imagine a continued transition to greater reliance on green, renewable energy sources is entirely consistent with the state's goals.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

I think Musk is somomething of a huckster.  But in my experience many successful people are.

And space x has finally offered some price competition versus ULA, which was badly needed.

A good friend of mine was at a dinner several years ago where Musk was in attendance. Afterward, he had the chance to talk to him, and asked him,"what was your number?"

Elon answered, "$10 million." My friend replied, "Well, you cashed out with $125 million from Paypal, so why did you keep going?"

Musk responded, "I don't want my grandkids to know what CO2 is."

Now... that could be interpreted two ways. Either he wants to try to make a planetary-level ecological change in humanity's best interest, or he just wants, like, really stupid grandkids. I wasn't there, but my buddy was pretty sure that he was referencing the environment.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never bought Tesla stock, that is a boondoggle.  Always has been.

 

Space X though is crazy innovative.  They cut the cost of space flight by 70%.  They are making crazy profits and will probably land someone on mars before a state backed space program even gets to the moon again.

Musk by any measure should be a hero in this country.  I don't care if Tesla goes broke, that's what happens when you take chances.   All his other innovation makes his reputation bulletproof.

Someone was dissing his idea to hyperloop idea.  COmparing that to spending billions on 18th century train tech which is what California morons are doing sure makes it look good.  Of course it might be hard, no one has done it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

Question is which automaker will buy the Tesla brand, and what remains of their assets?

Maybe GM?  Toyota?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Question is which automaker will buy the Tesla brand, and what remains of their assets?

Maybe GM?  Toyota?

Delorean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Here's the thing though. We can transition to solar tomorrow, with zero down, and own the system on a finance plan that would be based on a 12-month average of our electric bill. We've been discussing it for a couple months and will probably do so within another.

Homeowners can also get solar with zero outlay of money if they're willing to forego ownership of the system. The advantage with this approach is you never have to incur a single dollar of maintenance costs.

It's a fallacy that only the wealthy can afford it. It's simply not true. The burbs are riddled with rooftop solar panels.

And our rates have not increased appreciably for years. I'd swear I'm paying the same per kilowatt/hour rate I have been since I started making a concerted effort to reduce our bill four years ago. This despite the continued increase in solar installations. I know our utility is talking about a large rate hike, but don't forget - they're public utilities, and don't have carte blanche authority to raise rates - increases have to be approved by the PUC.

Also, I would think a decreased reliance on a centralized power grid would be in everyone's best interest. Except for the utilities, of course. It definitely is in the interest of our national security.

Lastly, California produces a full 20% of its electricity from renewal sources - solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric - and this amount is on the upswing. I imagine a continued transition to greater reliance on green, renewable energy sources is entirely consistent with the state's goals.

The power companies will run into the Baby Bell problems.  They have to support the infrastructure to provide service to virtually everyone in the country but fewer and fewer people are paying the bill.  Costs have to go up for those still paying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Question is which automaker will buy the Tesla brand, and what remains of their assets?

Maybe GM?  Toyota?

Something to note. Panasonic who also co owns the Tesla Giga Factory also has a major contract with Toyota which coincidentally owns land in the Reno Tahoe Industrial Park which The Gigi Factory also resides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nomascows said:

The power companies will run into the Baby Bell problems.  They have to support the infrastructure to provide service to virtually everyone in the country but fewer and fewer people are paying the bill.  Costs have to go up for those still paying.

Seems to me that a lot of our problems would be solved by treating the energy infrastructure like we treated the Interstate Highway system. The country needs to move to a smart grid nationally, but lacks the large-scale resources to do it. I know its bad having the government own stuff, but they already own water (yeah, Flint) and sewer not to mention the transportation system.

This is the kind of stuff I think of when I see government so focused on all the national building. Let's solve the problems at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tesla isn't going anywhere imo.  They still have a huge waiting list for cars and their cars seem to be well received.  But they won't be profitable for awhile and will take many years to grow.  

I do think that Tesla's stock price is way over inflated,  the fact they have a higher market cap than Ford is ridiculous. 

F - Mkt cap $42B, stock price $11,  $150B+ yearly revenue, EPS 1.93 and a 5% dividend.  
Tesla - Mkt cap $51B, stock price $300,  $12B yearly revenue in 2017, eps -$14 and obviously no dividend.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pokerider said:

Tesla isn't going anywhere imo.  They still have a huge waiting list for cars and their cars seem to be well received.  But they won't be profitable for awhile and will take many years to grow.  

I do think that Tesla's stock price is way over inflated,  the fact they have a higher market cap than Ford is ridiculous. 

F - Mkt cap $42B, stock price $11,  $150B+ yearly revenue, EPS 1.93 and a 5% dividend.  
Tesla - Mkt cap $51B, stock price $300,  $12B yearly revenue in 2017, eps -$14 and obviously no dividend.  

When you have negative cash flow from operations for as long as Tesla has had you are in danger of financial collapse real quick. They have a quick ratio of about .44meaning their current assets would only cover about 44% of their current liabilities. For comparison Ford is at 1.11. 

They will probably get bought out before or after bankruptcy because the Tesla brand has some worth. Better management could make them profitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...