Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:49 am We've dropped to lows not seen since Monday, February 3rd, 2020.

Ha, true. Today's range so far is $777 to $845, and back. In < 20 min. Craziness. Intuitively I know that a $90 swing at $900 is equivalent to a $30 swing at $300, but it sure feels more bazonkers.

LordMortis wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:49 am We've dropped to lows not seen since Monday, February 3rd, 2020.

I thought this was the Winter is Coming thread!

10% is 10%.

Interestingly, F and TSLA are both down 9.something% as I type this.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:59 am 10% is 10%.

Interestingly, F and TSLA are both down 9.something% as I type this.

Yeah, trust me. I know.

Twitter last night:

Would be interesting if they build the truck in the heart of truck country...

I have moved on to full on gambling mode. Having learned the UI for limit orders yesterday to sell one share at $900. I put in an order to buy a share if it fell below $745. I am back up to 2 shares! Retirement here I come!

LordMortis wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:10 pm I have moved on to full on gambling mode. Having learned the UI for limit orders yesterday to sell one share at $900. I put in an order to buy a share if it fell below $745. I am back up to 2 shares! Retirement here I come!

Hey, that's a good job. You have the same shares you had earlier this week, plus a couple hundred bucks. Similar to what I did with my call, only you didn't risk 100 shares to do it.

Of course had you sold above 900 and bought back in now, you'd be up what, 20k?

stessier wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:16 pm Of course had you sold above 900 and bought back in now, you'd be up what, 20k?

Sure, and had I bought the calls I had contemplated last week, I'd be retired. But hindsight is the theme of 2020 (see what I did there?). It was equally likely I'd have sold at 900 and had it go to $1100, and I'd be down $20k.

Parabolic curves are dangerous to try to time, if holding significant shares is in your goals list.

Also, taxable account complicates your math considerably.

You see it as equally likely, I do not. Thus our differing perspectives.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:20 pm Also, taxable account complicates your math considerably.

If you think it's going to run long, it would be nice to lock in the gains in smaller increments while taxes are low rather than a $1 million payout when the taxes will be significantly more. Although I guess it depends on your individual circumstance. If you're already in the higher tax brackets, it probably doesn't matter as much.

stessier wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:29 pm You see it as equally likely, I do not. Thus our differing perspectives.

Indeed. But to be clear, I'm talking independent of the company now. The recent rise was equally as likely to continue another day as to not. Margin calls are real, yo.

stessier wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:20 pm Also, taxable account complicates your math considerably.

If you think it's going to run long, it would be nice to lock in the gains in smaller increments while taxes are low rather than a $1 million payout when the taxes will be significantly more. Although I guess it depends on your individual circumstance. If you're already in the higher tax brackets, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Without getting too much into details, I'll just say that it matters, and in this case even with LT rates a $900 sale followed a day later by a $750 purchase is worse than a wash, and also resets the gains timer.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:19 pm (see what I did there?).

How very meta meta meta.

Which reminds me, if there is a cat in a box somewhere, am I both dead and alive now?

If I could take $150 every other day like that, I'd plotting the end of my work life. Especially if I could parlay that into something bigger. but I'm pretty happy with myself, even if this is just gambling with a quantity of money that I should not gamble with. But it began around $220 per share and I was comfortable with $220 being more investy and less gambly.

Having literally never sold a stock until the 2nd of this year, I won't understand the tax implication until later this year... and quite frankly next year, when I do my taxes and I learn that I didn't learn what I thought I learned ad the end of this year.

So what's up with this Jalopnik article:

Tesla Remotely Removes Autopilot Features From Customer's Used Tesla Without Any Notice

I don't see how that could be legal given their own description at the auction. I could see if you ordered a car without the FSD feature, and it showed up with it turned on, they could give you an either/or. But just turning it off after purchase? Is there some EULA that covers this?

Certainly seems shady as described.

Zaxxon wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:34 am Certainly seems shady as described.

+1 and you'd think the PR cost for them for $8000 would not be worth it for something that has no tangible cost to them in the scheme of things. Of course, as described is the key.

I know that when reselling a vehicle themselves, Tesla will often remove perks like FSD, free Supercharging, etc. But that's properly described on the vehicle spec sheet. I have no problem with that (though I know some do).

I wonder if this was just a mix-up on that front. In any case, it sure seems like the solution is to just re-enable everything in this case. For the PR points alone.

Zaxxon wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:07 am I know that when reselling a vehicle themselves, Tesla will often remove perks like FSD, free Supercharging, etc. But that's properly described on the vehicle spec sheet. I have no problem with that (though I know some do).

I have no problem with that either, which goes back to "as described." If the paperwork at auction by TESLA implies or is explicit about a feature but the feature was removed after the auction because the original owner never paid for it, then to me it's on TESLA. Irrespective of what any EULA says, it'd be a shitty way to do business and would establish a feeling of your car is "SaaS" that you have to pay for as if you owned it.

Full concurrence.

As to the as described goes... TD Ameritrade has posted the Japolinik article summary through Bazinga and then the summary further also summarizes a Verge OpEd (similar to my OpED):

Why It Matters

The driving assistance features in Tesla are a one-time purchase and not based on a subscription model. The features aren't to be renewed when a Tesla vehicle is resold.

According to The Verge, Tesla taking a unilateral decision to roll-back a feature from a car that it no longer owns sets a bad precedent.

Jalopnik noted that if an automaker had a physical feature from a car removed in such a manner, it may even have amounted to "theft."

Tesla has thus far used the over-the-air software upgrades to roll out new features, and not take back key features that it judged the users not to have paid for.

The point being, bad PR can spin out of control quickly. Especially for something that had no appreciable cost to TESLA (to my knowledge. They may have lifetime liability costs for all I know but that seems unlikely for something that is not a subscription)

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/tesla-s ... ering.html

...The company will offer 2.65 million Tesla shares through underwriters Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, with expected gross proceeds of $2.3 billion before discounts and expenses.

Tesla said it plans to use the proceeds “to further strengthen its balance sheet, as well as for general corporate purposes.”

Two weeks ago Musk declared that Tesla did not plan to raise any more capital because it was “spending money, I think, efficiently, and we’re not artificially limiting our progress.”

“It doesn’t make sense to raise money because we expect to generate cash despite this growth level,” Musk said.

Gotta love headlines. What actually happened is shares fell last night on the Model X 2016 steering bolt recall notice, then recovered this AM on the funding news.

Also gotta love Tesla's relationship with announcing raises. Generally when they say they might, they don't, and when they say they won't, they do.

I didn't want to talk about headlines or speculation. Just what caught me as interesting. I had no idea they planned to infuse 2 Billion dollars hot on the heels of announcing a huge securing of funding for a Chinese plant concurrent with announcing this time we're sustainably profitable.

Musk is almost Trumpesque with his ability to say one thing and then have reality be totally different.

Indeed. I've been hoping they'd do a raise, though, which probably colors my response. The last time the stock took a big jump, Tesla declined to do a raise. Then the stock tanked and they needed to do a raise on comparatively shitty terms. I like the raise coming on strength.

They've got ~$6B in the bank, which while that's a ton for them historically, as they continue to grow it's not huge.

Regarding the headline, that wasn't a dig at you but rather CNBC/general Tesla coverage. It's uniformly awful nearly everywhere.

Regarding the Trumpesque comment, it's also salient to note that while it feels like Musk just said no raise (and that's true--it was only a couple weeks ago), the stock has jumped another $200/share since then. Terms of a raise are materially better today than they would have been when that statement was made.

But I don't disagree on the whole that Musk does employ a reality distortion field at times.

Buried in all the share offering news today is that the 10-K also dropped this morning. For anyone who wants a long, scary slog of a read.

I didn't think of it as buried, but as you say, a slog of a read. I'm interest in learning to assign meaning to such things but... time... energy....

LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:25 am I didn't think of it as buried, but as you say, a slog of a read. I'm interest in learning to assign meaning to such things but... time... energy....

Buried was an overstatement, but normally this would be the headline news.

General rule when reading a 10-K is to understand that the risk factors section sounds scary for every company, as they are listing out every conceivable risk that could come to pass. It's especially scary for Tesla, given their historically precarious position.

Couldn't help myself. Selling one of my two shares @810 if the mark hits. Woo!!! Gambling!!!

Edit that was quick....

LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:47 pm Couldn't help myself. Selling one of my two shares @810 if the mark hits. Woo!!! Gambling!!!

Edit that was quick....

It's fun when it works out!

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:49 pm It's fun when it works out!

Like I said gambling because I have no idea what is going on. I can't see how announcing a 2% dilution in shares equates to 7% price increase. TESLA works by voodoo. There must have been magic in that 10-K.

LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:54 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:49 pm It's fun when it works out!

Like I said gambling because I have no idea what is going on. I can't see how announcing a 2% dilution in shares equates to 7% price increase. TESLA works by voodoo. There must have been magic in that 10-K.

It's not so much announcing a dilution as it is announcing that 'gonna run out of war chest' fears are even more unfounded than they've been shown to be lately. Similar to how most of what we heard in 2018 and 2019 involved Tesla killers coming, which have all been shown to be well behind Tesla in critical ways now that they're actually hitting the market.

Of course right after posting that, I found Munster stating it a whole lot better than me...

Zaxxon wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:37 am https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/2113 ... e-features

A prudent decision IMO. Change the process going forward, if you must. Set up something the similar to the way insurers won't let you do anything but PLPD after you total a car, no matter how much you put in to repairs... That's if you must. I still think pulling features from resale is sneaky and reeks of SaaS after paying.

LordMortis wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:07 am

Zaxxon wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:37 am https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/2113 ... e-features

A prudent decision IMO. Change the process going forward, if you must. Set up something the similar to the way insurers won't let you do anything but PLPD after you total a car, no matter how much you put in to repairs... That's if you must. I still think pulling features from resale is sneaky and reeks of SaaS after paying.

I don't mind the policy of pulling the features when the car is sold back to Tesla. That's totally their prerogative. But pulling them after selling to anyone else (even to a dealer as in this case) is baloney. Seems like what they really need is better internal controls to ensure that any changes are processed all the way down to the vehicle itself and all associated paperwork before it's listed for sale by Tesla.

Seems like what they really need is better internal controls to ensure that any changes are processed all the way down to the vehicle itself and all associated paperwork before it's listed for sale by Tesla.

From before it was declared as a miscommunication, this didn't sound like a lack of control. It sounded like a bullshit control. (Again, as reported or allegedly or whatever tag we put on when sourcing can be called in to question)


Also how do I get the $767 offering price so I can sell it at 800?