Seeking Alpha

User 4542301

User 4542301
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View User 4542301's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    @mikestesla,

    I said 5 years, not the next one or two, for oil. And for the equity REITs and others who have increased their dividends reliably for decades, that in itself causes the share price to increase, at much less risk than investing in an unproven and speculative company like Tesla.

    Revenue may be increasing 50%, yet cash flow is terrible. That tells you expenses are growing at least the same rate or greater.
    Jul 22, 2015. 04:22 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Why The Smart Money Is Short [View article]
    And there is no "liability" section of the Income Statement. Liabilities are on the balance sheet.
    Jul 22, 2015. 04:09 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    "Thanks for your view. I just wonder why do you consider names that have no top line growth even if they pay 3-4% dividend? CVX, COP, JNJ, KMI , SO all have no growth, so that means no future stock appreciation."

    I don't agree that there will be no share price appreciation, especially after seeing the huge drop in the price of oil. I think the risk/reward for oil is there now to see significant appreciation over the next 5 years.

    All the companies I mentioned have consistently grown their dividends over decades. That in itself causes share price appreciation.
    Jul 21, 2015. 01:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    ""No, that is the risk that Tesla faces, being able to remain in business long enough to generate positive cash flow and profits." - They can do that now by sacrificing growth."

    That is an unsubstantiated claim. More hype.

    " 'IT's not FUD to notice things I consider "odd" or "unusual".' Haha people quitting a company is odd or unusual."

    In the middle of the company growing large enough to become profitable, yes, it seems "odd" to me. Especially after the auditors stated that its control over financial reporting and governance was inadequate, and that is a "risk" stated in the 10-Qs and 10-Ks. That in itself seems very "odd" to me. I can't say I've ever read that as a risk with any other company, can you? If everything were kosher, I would want to stay on at least until the company passed break even and started producing profits consistently. I would want to wait "full term" to see the baby, that I helped make, be born.

    Then the SEC told Tesla to stop emphasizing non-GAAP over GAAP, and a host of other matters in Dec. 2013. This was after Jonathan Weil's well written article at Bloomberg about the potential for cockroaches under Tesla's hood.

    And Tesla using illegitimate non-GAAP "crap" in its shareholder newsletters to make it look better than it is really doing performance wise.

    Maybe the CFO had had enough?

    Did Google ever do any of what I have just described?
    Jul 21, 2015. 01:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    ""If Tesla is around long enough to produce the Model 3. " - That is hype. "

    No, that is the risk that Tesla faces, being able to remain in business long enough to generate positive cash flow and profits.

    Tesla was about to go belly up at Xmas, 2008. The risk is real, not imagined.

    Tesla has not proved itself, no. No profits, no positive cash flow. You are stating things yet to be born out. "Tesla has already proved itself". No it hasn't. That is "hype".

    I didn't say something fishy was going on with the CFO leaving, but on the surface it doesn't look good. Again, you throw something of fact away, that may be of extreme significance in hind sight. IT's not FUD to notice things I consider "odd" or "unusual".

    It seems I have hit a nerve. Take it up with the President.
    Jul 21, 2015. 12:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    WFA,

    When you diss proven companies with track records in favor of an unproven company, that gets my ire up. Some of what is being said I consider hype.

    Tesla has many milestones to meet yet. One of those is starting to produce positive operating cash flow on a consistent basis. They aren't there yet. Better hope they get there by year end.

    "Almost anyone here also understands that the profit potential is much higher than P&G also."

    The other side of that is the loss potential is much greater. I made about a 40% return over less than 2 years with "O" and about a 40% return on OHI in about the same time frame. There was much less risk with those two companies versus Tesla. And I'll get back into them when their share prices get more inline with their funds from operations and sleep well at night.

    I honestly consider an investment in Tesla as a huge gamble.
    Jul 21, 2015. 12:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    If Tesla is around long enough to produce the Model 3. Time will tell.

    I like what Tesla is doing as far as developing an alternative to ICE vehicles. I don't care for the hype. Just produce and get 'er done.
    Jul 21, 2015. 12:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    "So Tesla is arguably less risky than other automakers."

    Not arguable at all at this point. No profits, and burning through their cash.

    Successful companies are backed up by operating performance. Tesla still has to prove itself.

    "KMI is your faith that Richard Kinder is doing the right thing and will continue to do so. It's all faith."

    No, it is operating performance combined with trust that the auditors are doing their job. I have no choice but to trust the SEC reports.

    Tesla uses non-GAAP numbers, based on no standards whatsoever. It makes them look alot better. Removing stock based compensation out of operating performance is not legitimate, and it is up in the air whether counting the resale value guarantee amounts as revenue now is valid. Not accruing for returns is not valid.

    Tesla still has to prove itself. The CFO left. Whether it was for what he said or he didn't like what was going on with the numbers, time will tell.
    Jul 21, 2015. 12:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    "Being profitable today is no reason to invest in a company. How profitable it will be tomorrow is. "

    I agree. Those companies will be around tomorrow. Tesla, it's too soon to know, so Tesla's profitability in the future is unknown, and very speculative. Saying they will be profitable is "faith" that currently is not backed up by anything but a "faith" in Tesla and EVs. They have yet to hit break even, are burning cash very fast, and will need more funding over the next 6 and 18 months. Dis proven companies all you want. It shows your bias in favor of an unproven company. I'll take the proven ones any day. I am retired. Risky investments are not part of my investment strategy.
    Jul 21, 2015. 09:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    KMI is profitable, Tesla is not. I am largely out of the market at present. I favor equity REITs, like "O", "OHI", and "HCN", but their share prices are to high at the moment for me to invest. I also may dip back into CVX and COP once this bottoming process in oil gets clearer. JNJ and SO are two others I would consider. These all pay a nice dividend because they are PROFITABLE, unlike Telsa.
    Jul 21, 2015. 09:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Crude oil dips below $50 on glut worries [View news story]
    My last post to you, mikestesla.

    My original post:
    "The rig count is about 55% less than a year ago.

    http://bit.ly/rAerHt

    However, according to Frank Billings, V.P. of the Williams Co., a rig today can produce the equivalent of two or three rigs of two or three years ago. (See 5:14 and later in link) That means the rig decline isn't going to have the impact some might think it would."

    Obviously, if productivity per rig were the same as two years ago, a 55% cut in the number of rigs would have a significant impact on the supply of oil. Instead, the supply remains about the same. That supports what Mr. Billings said, that rig productivity has increased, lessening the impact of a lower rig count. So, those who think the current rig count will have a significant impact on the supply in the near term, one to two years, may be in for a surprise.

    I never said that "oil will flow from the same oil well forever" or implied that. That is totally ridiculous. I said the rig productivity, how fast they can drill a new well, has increased.

    Some on SA said in January that oil would be back up in 3 months, then others said the same in March. Surprise. Now they are saying by the end of the year, not at $65, but $80. I don't think so.
    Jul 21, 2015. 07:06 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Crude oil dips below $50 on glut worries [View news story]
    And if that were the case, you would have thought a V.P. of a major producer would have stated that in the interview. He did not. A number of analysts see supply outstripping demand in 2016. Even those seeing oil rising at the end of this year only seeing it getting to $65 to $67. Whoopee. No $80/barrel on the horizon anytime soon. (Next two years)

    Eagle Ford and Bakken are not in OK.
    Jul 21, 2015. 06:44 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Crude oil dips below $50 on glut worries [View news story]
    I am saying they have figured out how to produce more oil from one rig on a daily basis, not that a well will produce forever. I am talking about the rig productivity, as is Frank Billings. View the damn video. I am just repeating what was said in it.

    I am through talking to you. You are ridiculous.
    Jul 21, 2015. 02:07 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    I think if you look at the prices of oil companies in March, the industry as a whole was doing better than it is now, even with the price of oil at $43 and $45. I think then the dip was seen as temporary, more so than now.

    Conoco Phillips was above $60 in March, it's now in mid to upper $50s, Linn Energy was at $11.50 to $12, it's now below $7, Marathon Oil was above $25 in March, it's now around $23, Exxon Mobil was trading around $2 a share higher in March than now, and Chevron was above $100 in March, now trading at $93. I think the price of oil could have something to do with it, but again, not familiar with KMI.

    And, again, you run a profit anytime you can. To say Tesla is running losses because they want to is not credible to me. IF they were operating at a profit right now, the share price would be even higher. Their cash flow is horrendous.
    Jul 21, 2015. 02:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Crude oil dips below $50 on glut worries [View news story]
    I assume forever. Fracking and advanced drilling techniques are the cause? as well as reduced Spud time. See the video. No stipulation on time limits.
    Jul 21, 2015. 01:44 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,878 Comments
5,744 Likes