Why I hate the stock market. Unprofitable Tesla is now worth more than profitable Ford which sells 28 x as many cars

webby wrote:

Hahaha. You think gas car and oil companies don't get taxpayer money?

Not really. Unlike a lot of wind/solar, they are net tax contributors

Production of lithium is not quite as scalable as silicon wafers. Just sayin'.One Tesla has ten thousand cell phone batteries. And cell phone batteries stressed the supply chain of rare earth elements. Anyone who thinks the path from 25,000 electric vehicles to 1,000,000 electric vehicles is easy does not understand mineral extraction.

you're amazingly dumb wrote:

No wrote:

Oh yeah that should happen any day now. Super easy to get 10x efficiency from a 200 year old technology. I'm sure they are just about to pop that technology out from some magic hat.

Umm, ever heard of Moore's law? Battery technology isn't far behind.

Flat Lining wrote:

But non-gasoline cars are the wave of the future. Tesla is taking an all-in approach to electric and is far ahead of the US automakers which are taking the wait-and-see approach.

You don't have to be an idiot climate-change denier to understand that the excess electricity required can't be supplied by clean sources in the foreseeable future.

It would have to come from largely from coal and fossil fuels, and be wasted every step of the way, from initial conversion in a generator, to transport over power lines (two thirds is lost!) and finally battery storage. No way does that have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car.

Elon Musk is a total fruitcake besides, thinks humans can live on Mars and all kinds of other crazy shit. Only faux-left liberal posers believe him. Urban Hollywood types.

Ultimate solution is to give up the luxuries. You don't have to travel all over the place. Use less energy.

zack348938 wrote:

Then why have multiple actual studies shown that 95-97% of scientists who actively publish in climate science journals believe in anthropogenic global warming? Specifically, the Anderegg study is a good example.

It's a hot topic that gets funding. that anderegg study might be one of the dumbest papers I have ever read. and that is coming from somebody who reads a lot psychology papers. no shit scientists who actively publish in "climate science" journals are supporting global warming. it's their job

Pay attention to the total capitalization of the companies inclusive of both the debt and equity outstanding.

On top of that look at their growth rates and cash flow reinvestment.

Then, you'll start to understand how the market values companies.

Bad Wigins wrote:

It would have to come from largely from coal and fossil fuels, and be wasted every step of the way, from initial conversion in a generator, to transport over power lines (two thirds is lost!) and finally battery storage. No way does that have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car.

It does actually have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car, though. This math has been done countless times.

cgoon wrote:

It's a hot topic that gets funding. that anderegg study might be one of the dumbest papers I have ever read. and that is coming from somebody who reads a lot psychology papers. no shit scientists who actively publish in "climate science" journals are supporting global warming. it's their job

1. What do scientists in the academy who are salaried and tenured have to gain from that funding? Surely you don't think those folks are getting to pocket grant money, do you?

2. You are poisoning the well of all the real experts here. You are saying that all of the people who study this the most don't count because it's their job to study this thing. Who are the experts, then?

3. Your original claim was that only people who have taken a single college-level science course believe in climate change. Obviously that's false, as 95-97% of scientists in relevant fields believe it.

government intrusion wrote:

zephito wrote:

Or maybe you don't like the fact that Tesla benefits from government intrusion, which may push its stock value up...but that's a government intrusion problem, not a stock market problem.

What makes you think that other American automakers don't benefit from government intrusion? They have been getting government intrusion help for far too many years to count. In fact, Trump is planning on easing clean fuel requirements that would not benefit Tesla but rather the major automakers. Government intrusion at its best.

I never said they didn't. That really wasn't my point. I'm just trying to figure out where he's coming from. I honestly have no clue. If he thinks the stock is over-valued, the he should obviously short sell, not whine on a message board. My government intrusion comment was just based on the theory that his real problem is that government subsidies are unfairly inflating Tesla's stock price. I have no idea if that's true or if rojo even thinks that. However, I can understand why someone might think that. That's a thing you can complain about. Evil Big Government, picking winners and losers and all that. I don't understand why someone would complain about giddy idiot investors buying up and overvaluing a stock; you can always take the other side of the bet.

1. it is obvious you haven't the slightest clue how academia works

2. that is not what I am saying

3. that was not my original claim.

it is no wonder you have trouble drawing accurate conclusions from studies. Anyway I'd love to stay up and keep you company all night kid but I have to fill out some paperwork. If you want to post some more studies I'd love to read them tomorrow. They are a big source of humor for me these days.

ShowerNOtGrower wrote:

Well then, why don't use use your logic, and rational thought to predict what the majority of people are going to do. This can easily make you some money in the stock market.

Best of luck you critical thinker, who denies what the overwhelming majority of scientists who don't work for BP and Shell state, but call yourself rational anyway.

Sorry bud, irrational people cannot be predicted, no crystal ball for you.

As for the percentage of scientists who are climate alarmists, you are clearly behind the times. I'm sure you're referencing the Cook et al paper that first spouted the 97% consensus garbage. That paper has been debunked repeatedly by actual climate scientists dozens of times. And no, Bill Nye is not an actual scientist. He is a fake scientist who used to do a pretty entertaining children's show.

If you are actually interested in educating yourself, I suggest you ready any of the peer reviewed papers linked in this blog post:

It's time to stop wetting the bed and to start thinking for yourself.

rojo wrote:

Tesla's market cap is 47 billion. Ford's is 45 billion.

Yet Ford made $4.8 billion last year and Tesla lost $773 million.

The stock market is about the future not the past. Once you learn that, the markets make a lot more sense. The thing with a company like tesla is that it is probably worth like 150 billion or 10 billion. The 45 billion is the weighting given to the various probabilities.

Howard Dean wrote:

Tesla play nicely into the carbon scam. People don't think rationally or logically when it comes to issues of climate. Tesla and others have done a phenomenal job of playing on the fears of the gullible.

I would pay $100 to watch you debate Elon Musk on climate change on live tv.

I know you wont do it, but its funny to imagine you getting there and when you speak, the audience will know that you dont know what ure talking about.

Right now tesla sells high end vehicles to sophisticated, well to do, intelligent buyers. These people drive and maintain better.

The mass market, even at a $35k price point, is a very different segment of the population...

Completely different model that will be difficult, if not impossible to scale prior to a significant market turndown.

krispy kremlin_._._. wrote:

Right now tesla sells high end vehicles to sophisticated, well to do, intelligent buyers. These people drive and maintain better.

Not necessarily. My neighbor bought a Tesla. He used money he inherited from his father. He he has a small business that he does okay with but isn't well to do otherwise. He has never paid for refueling the car. He drives to a nearby Tesla charging station and has lunch, or goes to a coffee shop and works, while the car charges. It has been a year since he bought the car and the same amount of time since he purchased fuel.

My daughter put down a deposit to buy one of the newer $35k models. She will install a charger at her home, and she wants to install one at out home as well. He plan is to never stop at a gas station ever again.

So, what value do people place on personal convenience?

zack348938 wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

It would have to come from largely from coal and fossil fuels, and be wasted every step of the way, from initial conversion in a generator, to transport over power lines (two thirds is lost!) and finally battery storage. No way does that have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car.

It does actually have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car, though. This math has been done countless times.

Link to this math, or I'll continue to be persuaded by the well-known inefficiency of electricity. It makes no sense at all to claim that fossil fuel use would be lower; I suspect some rely on calling the plants "cleaner," but there is also the environmental degradation caused by more extraction, not to mention mining and construction of the new infrastructure required.

There is no technological solution to environmental degradation. Cities are unsustainable.

KudzuRunner wrote:

I bought a few shares of Tesla about four years ago, and I occasionally buy another. I view Elon Musk as a genius on the order of a Thomas Edison. So I'm not the slightest bit worried by the ups and downs. He doesn't just think big, he thinks huge, and when all the chips finally fall into place--well, I'm holding aces.

You do understand that Nikola Tesla and Edison hated each other right? And that the Electric Chair was created by Edison to prove the dangers of AC power since he was so heavily invested in DC (which at the time was far inferior to AC). Edison was not technically a genius, he was just good at business and hard work, whereas Tesla was a genius who was poor at business.

Electric cars appeal to rich white people who are trying to clear their carbon conscience, not the public at large. They are a luxury item, and it is hard to imagine a luxury good being worth what the stock is valued at (especially since they are not a profitable company). With the high sticker price, very few mainstream Americans and foreigners will be buying these cars. They are a niche status symbol much like a Rolex or any other Luxury car. The stock is grossly over valued, and it is surprising that it is increasing in value with Trump in office, who would like to eliminate some of the tax credits that people use to buy these things and roll back a lot of Obamas climate regulations. It is wild that investors continue to flock to them even though their financials are worse today than they were in 2013 (in terms of how much money it is losing on each car it sells). All this in a bull market for luxury cars.

This isn't just a Tesla problem, but is reflective of the stock market as a whole right now. Stocks are inflated by speculation across the board, and the whole Trump rally has been fueled by the idea that he is going to roll back Obama era regulations on the financial sector and decrease taxes on capital gains and not by real gains in production, technology or industry. It looks like a bubble about to explode.

I'm curious. What year was this? I ask because I also held a negative view of the major auto companies in the 00s and into the financial crises. But for whatever reason, I started reading up on Ford 4 or 5 years ago. I came to be a convert to Ford. I saw how they have done a major corporate overhaul that started around 2007 when they hired Mulally from Boeing as CEO. They are still beholden to Union workers but they have much more flexibility to hire and fire workers than they did before the financial crises. The overall culture seems more positive. But that is just based on various things I have read. Admittedly I haven't seen a Ford workplace in person.

cgoon wrote:

1. it is obvious you haven't the slightest clue how academia works

2. that is not what I am saying

3. that was not my original claim.

it is no wonder you have trouble drawing accurate conclusions from studies. Anyway I'd love to stay up and keep you company all night kid but I have to fill out some paperwork. If you want to post some more studies I'd love to read them tomorrow. They are a big source of humor for me these days.

1. I certainly do understand how the academy works. I was very close to joining it, and I know many people who are in it quite well.

2. That is what you're saying. You're saying we shouldn't listen actual scientists who publish climate science papers in peer-reviewed journals.

3. Your words: "It is those who have only taken one college level science course that are likely to parrot the global warming headlines."

You can dismiss legitimate studies all you want, but unless you are a veritable climate science expert, you are a fool to dismiss such a strong consensus among the entire field.

cgoon wrote:

it is no wonder you have trouble drawing accurate conclusions from studies. Anyway I'd love to stay up and keep you company all night kid but I have to fill out some paperwork. If you want to post some more studies I'd love to read them tomorrow. They are a big source of humor for me these days.

Btw, are you now claiming that I am actually drawing the wrong conclusion from the Anderegg study? Also, I don't know why you are calling me "kid." I'm by no means a kid.

Assume for a second that climate change is a big lie created to anger clear-thinking conservatives. And assume that electric cars are as bad for the environment as you are told by the same conservatives who aren't worried about climate change anyway . . .

Electric cars are still the wave of the future because they are already faster, more fun to drive, and easier to maintain than similarly-priced gas cars. And the gap is increasing quickly.