What's your take on Tesla?
Discussion
jet_noise said:
Any industry that is being subsidised by our taxes and policy is always going to have an advantage.
Until either taxes have to be spent on more immediate issues or policy changes.
I've not got this whole subsidy thing on hydrocarbons. Given the tax etc on petrol then how can it be subsidised? Or is the other components made cheaper by them? Until either taxes have to be spent on more immediate issues or policy changes.
the push for hydrogen and fuel cells is to try and maintain some similarity to the current model of fuel stations. however hydrogen is not the way forward, its electric. what is the power density with battery and hydrogen, what is the cost to produce 1000 miles of hydrogen compared to 1000 miles of electric motive power....
hydrogen is consumed so needs to be manufactured stored and delivered. that infrastructure needs to be developed. The electrical infrastructure is already there.
there are those that say our cables cant cope with the power increase, well they can. with clever upgrading we can increase the power capacity of the network. Add in a few wise upgrades then we can start to roll out clever charging. as said no trips to the petrol station. electric points available and you dial in what mileage you need and it does that instead of full charges all the time.
hydrogen is consumed so needs to be manufactured stored and delivered. that infrastructure needs to be developed. The electrical infrastructure is already there.
there are those that say our cables cant cope with the power increase, well they can. with clever upgrading we can increase the power capacity of the network. Add in a few wise upgrades then we can start to roll out clever charging. as said no trips to the petrol station. electric points available and you dial in what mileage you need and it does that instead of full charges all the time.
NRS said:
jet_noise said:
Any industry that is being subsidised by our taxes and policy is always going to have an advantage.
Until either taxes have to be spent on more immediate issues or policy changes.
I've not got this whole subsidy thing on hydrocarbons. Given the tax etc on petrol then how can it be subsidised? Or is the other components made cheaper by them? Until either taxes have to be spent on more immediate issues or policy changes.
It's the alternatives I object to, my taxes being gifted as subsidies.
Fossil fuels are indeed a huge tax benefit. Due to the, er, huge taxes on their sale!
But we digress...
jet_noise said:
Unclear on my part.
It's the alternatives I object to, my taxes being gifted as subsidies.
Fossil fuels are indeed a huge tax benefit. Due to the, er, huge taxes on their sale!
But we digress...
A government has an essential responsibility to plan for the future. In the case of private transport we all know that we must move away from oil, so the role of government is to use some of its money to invest and stimulate various potential, future alternatives. This means granting some funds to strategies such as EVs as well as hydrogen and hybrids. There is nothing wrong with that. It is exactly what governments should be doing. It's the alternatives I object to, my taxes being gifted as subsidies.
Fossil fuels are indeed a huge tax benefit. Due to the, er, huge taxes on their sale!
But we digress...
It is also a common misconception that it is your taxes. Our taxes are only a modest part of the overall income of State. The reality that most chose to ignore is that all but the wealthiest are net recipients of taxation regardless of what taxes they pay in. The typical person freeloads until 18, spends a few decades in employment never paying more in tax than they benefit from and then stops working and freeloads for a while before dying. This is something that people really need to come to terms with. That you receive more than you pay in.
DonkeyApple said:
At the moment EVs are a premium product. That means you get prima dona consumer self entitlement rage. And places like NY are capitals to such behaviour.
When EVs become cheap enough for the ‘people’ then you will see rapid roll out of charging points. For starters the car companies won’t be able to sell an EV to someone who hasn’t a charging point. I suspect that that installations will become part of the product purchase and many retail outlets and places of work will have to offer charging to retain consumers. I genuinely don’t see charging as an issue in the long run as there is electricity wherever there are people and all that is currently missing is the financial incentive to add taps.
Before Tesla, EVs were regarded by many as suitable only for the manic environmentalist, fit only for short, trundling urban journeys. The marketeers could attempt to repeat the rise of diesel in the UK, where it can now be difficult to spot the difference between petrol-powered or diesel. Bonus marks to the first punter who tries to refuel his EV with hydrocarbons.When EVs become cheap enough for the ‘people’ then you will see rapid roll out of charging points. For starters the car companies won’t be able to sell an EV to someone who hasn’t a charging point. I suspect that that installations will become part of the product purchase and many retail outlets and places of work will have to offer charging to retain consumers. I genuinely don’t see charging as an issue in the long run as there is electricity wherever there are people and all that is currently missing is the financial incentive to add taps.
How does a car dealer confirm that a prospective purchaser has a charging point? Such a scheme would create a market for fronters and resellers.
There may well be electricity where there are people, but will there be enough electricity?
DonkeyApple said:
jet_noise said:
Unclear on my part.
It's the alternatives I object to, my taxes being gifted as subsidies.
Fossil fuels are indeed a huge tax benefit. Due to the, er, huge taxes on their sale!
But we digress...
A government has an essential responsibility to plan for the future. In the case of private transport we all know that we must move away from oil, so the role of government is to use some of its money to invest and stimulate various potential, future alternatives. This means granting some funds to strategies such as EVs as well as hydrogen and hybrids. There is nothing wrong with that. It is exactly what governments should be doing. It's the alternatives I object to, my taxes being gifted as subsidies.
Fossil fuels are indeed a huge tax benefit. Due to the, er, huge taxes on their sale!
But we digress...
It is also a common misconception that it is your taxes. Our taxes are only a modest part of the overall income of State. The reality that most chose to ignore is that all but the wealthiest are net recipients of taxation regardless of what taxes they pay in. The typical person freeloads until 18, spends a few decades in employment never paying more in tax than they benefit from and then stops working and freeloads for a while before dying. This is something that people really need to come to terms with. That you receive more than you pay in.
NRS said:
I understand the subsidies for renewables. For example in Denmark there has been offers for windfarms that are subsidy free now due to the prices coming down through development after government spending previously/ companies wanting to corner the market). The thing I don't understand is how the oil industry is subsidised, when it generates such huge wealth. Or are people calling tax breaks from very high tax rates subsidies?
Is that what was meant? I’ve maybe missed the point as I thought it was a complaint regarding tax subsidies on alternatives to oil?DonkeyApple said:
Is that what was meant? I’ve maybe missed the point as I thought it was a complaint regarding tax subsidies on alternatives to oil?
Yes, it's the subsidies spent on alternatives to which I (and others) object.On the point of government spending for our future:
State interference is a bad thing. If there's a need then companies will provide.
The proportion of government funding that is our taxes is not the point. It all goes into and comes out of the same pot.
There is no need whatsoever to spend on alternative energy sources and transport.
There is a need for cheap energy and transport.
There is an, erm, vigorous
discussion in the future of power generation thread on this.jet_noise said:
There is no need whatsoever to spend on alternative energy sources and transport.
There is a need for cheap energy and transport.
Your point is well made. It's pretty crazy that the car market today is polarised into hulking SUVs (petrol V8 or spluttering diesel) and over-priced electrics which need a whole new electric power network. If everyone drove small, clean petrol cars or used a decent public transport system the "problem" simply wouldn't exist.There is a need for cheap energy and transport.
Compare Heathrow expansion. Essentially the big bet being made is that aircraft will continue to get cleaner and quieter - so no need for a new airport.
DonkeyApple said:
Is that what was meant? I’ve maybe missed the point as I thought it was a complaint regarding tax subsidies on alternatives to oil?
I've seen it referred to in places that there is lots of subsidies for the oil industry. That's what I'm puzzled about. Is there subsidies, or is it biased people trying to make a point by mistruths/ not understanding things properly?jet_noise said:
DonkeyApple said:
Is that what was meant? I’ve maybe missed the point as I thought it was a complaint regarding tax subsidies on alternatives to oil?
Yes, it's the subsidies spent on alternatives to which I (and others) object.On the point of government spending for our future:
State interference is a bad thing. If there's a need then companies will provide.
The proportion of government funding that is our taxes is not the point. It all goes into and comes out of the same pot.
There is no need whatsoever to spend on alternative energy sources and transport.
There is a need for cheap energy and transport.
There is an, erm, vigorous
discussion in the future of power generation thread on this.
If it was just the cheapest source of energy with no government input. Is that fine with you?
NRS said:
In that case you'd be wandering around like this:
If it was just the cheapest source of energy with no government input. Is that fine with you?
In that case there is a clear, obvious and immediate benefit in giving people the choice - smogs or not.If it was just the cheapest source of energy with no government input. Is that fine with you?
Did anyone object at the time, I'm not quite old enough to remember.
ruggedscotty said:
the push for hydrogen and fuel cells is to try and maintain some similarity to the current model of fuel stations. however hydrogen is not the way forward, its electric. what is the power density with battery and hydrogen, what is the cost to produce 1000 miles of hydrogen compared to 1000 miles of electric motive power....
hydrogen is consumed so needs to be manufactured stored and delivered. that infrastructure needs to be developed. The electrical infrastructure is already there.
there are those that say our cables cant cope with the power increase, well they can. with clever upgrading we can increase the power capacity of the network. Add in a few wise upgrades then we can start to roll out clever charging. as said no trips to the petrol station. electric points available and you dial in what mileage you need and it does that instead of full charges all the time.
Hydrogen is a dead end. It's an energy store (essentially a battery) but is very very inefficient. It's a bhydrogen is consumed so needs to be manufactured stored and delivered. that infrastructure needs to be developed. The electrical infrastructure is already there.
there are those that say our cables cant cope with the power increase, well they can. with clever upgrading we can increase the power capacity of the network. Add in a few wise upgrades then we can start to roll out clever charging. as said no trips to the petrol station. electric points available and you dial in what mileage you need and it does that instead of full charges all the time.
h to store as it needs to be pressured to 10,000 psi and it leaks out of everything.Very interesting announcement last night re Tesla:
‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
DonkeyApple said:
Very interesting announcement last night re Tesla:
‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
Indeed, video recap here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99FURfX4aKw‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
DonkeyApple said:
Very interesting announcement last night re Tesla:
‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
Hi DA‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
So what’s your take on this. The stock is up 15 percent since yesterday.
If you were to trade it, which way would it be?
shopper150 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Very interesting announcement last night re Tesla:
‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
Hi DA‘Shares in the electric carmaker jumped 10pc in after-hours trading this evening after Tesla said it could be "sustainably profitable" by the end of the year.
It reported a loss of $742m (£565m) for the three months to June 30, slightly down on its previous numbers. However, revenues rose to $4bn in the three months to June 30, up from $2.7bn, and its negative free cash flow came in at around $160m below analyst expectations, at $740m, as it burned much less cash than in recent quarters.
Tesla ended the second quarter with $2.2bn in cash, and said it expects this to grow in both its third and fourth quarters.
Going into the results, analysts had suggested it would need to raise additional funds before the end of the year, given the amount it was investing into production, with some predicting it would need up to $3bn.’
If they can achieve their 10k cars a week and don’t need to raise any more money then they are into the next phase.
So what’s your take on this. The stock is up 15 percent since yesterday.
If you were to trade it, which way would it be?
shopper150 said:
Hi DA
So what’s your take on this. The stock is up 15 percent since yesterday.
If you were to trade it, which way would it be?
I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t go anywhere near it. The time to invest in these sorts of stocks is at the outset and with pure venture capital unless you have a large portfolio and want to allocate a modest percentage and I mean modest. So what’s your take on this. The stock is up 15 percent since yesterday.
If you were to trade it, which way would it be?
I have clients who trade it for the short term and a few got caught out this morning with shorts but not badly.
For me, I currently see them as a stock that’s going to have its medium term future defined, maybe even its existence in its current structure over the next 6-12 months. If the 3 fails in any way then they will need money and it will be a desperation deal if they can find one. It makes the stock more like a ridiculously expensive option at the moment.
I guess the next week will see if continued upward pressure squeezes out the short positions and triggers a rally to previous highs. That might be the punter’s trade this month?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff