JackB125

JackB125
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Tesla Stock Misunderstood: It's Undervalued  [View article]
    @riverside1993, I'm surprised at your high level of certainty. The reason that Randy's numbers show no correlation between Tesla sales & oil prices is because no one is buying Tesla's for better mileage. They're buying them because they are better cars.

    Have you driven a Model S for any period of time? A day or two? If not, how can you judge with such certainty?
    Feb 6, 2016. 11:32 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Stock Misunderstood: It's Undervalued  [View article]
    Listening to the 2016 Davos Energy meetings (all out on YouTube) was enlightening. It ends up that only about 4% of oil production goes to electrical utility energy production. So, while grid-parity renewable production is a very good thing; i.e., decreasing and ultimately eliminating Utility based CO2 emissions. It is the electrification of transportation that will have the big impact on decreasing oil demand.

    BTW, just to make sure everyone is on the same page here... The goal is to stop burning oil for energy due to the release of greenhouse gases. In other words, the goal is NOT & NEVER HAS BEEN to eliminate the oil industry. It's really the petrochemical industry & we'll need that non-burned 20% of the oil produced today -- forever (or until we have another dinosaur extinction level asteroid event, or perhaps a runaway super-intelligent AI). That oil is used for the asphalt on our streets & shingles on most of our houses; the plastics that add to the shelf-lives of everything, paint additives, lubricants, pharmaceuticals; the list goes on & on.

    Also, while good for the environment, the disruptions that would follow an 80% drop in oil demand, even if the drop occurs over two or three decades, are not without risk. Today's low prices are throwing turmoil into today's budgets of the oil producing countries.

    Saudi Aramco, arguably the World's most prominent over-producer, suffered significant cyber-attacks last year that caused significant damage -- see http://cnnmon.ie/1KwYxLY . The level of economic turmoil we may see is of the sort that have led to war in the past. Let us hope that we are wise enough to avoid that.

    In closing, I have no doubt that Randy is correct about the low price of oil having zero effect on Tesla vehicle sales. But, eight to ten years from now, I do expect the opposite cause/effect. I.e., I expect the electrification of transportation to be having quite a negative effect on oil sales.
    Feb 6, 2016. 10:16 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Stock Misunderstood: It's Undervalued  [View article]
    Tesla is the premier leader of the developing technologies, along with their concomitant first mover advantages, that are driving the price of oil down.

    Over 80% of extracted oil is used for energy production. Intermittent renewable utility energy production resources, solar and wind, are expected to reach or beat grid parity costs worldwide by the end of 2018, along with Tesla's BEV's expecting to reach ICEV cost parity by 2020. the Saudis and the Russians recognize there is an upcoming enormous drop in oil demand. Consequently, they are harvesting and selling all of the resources they can extract until that demand falls away.

    Tesla not the victim of falling oil prices -- it is largely the cause of those falling oil prices.
    Feb 3, 2016. 07:30 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Dirt Cheap Tesla That Isn't  [View article]
    I think it only fair to point out that Elon Musk is NOT a rent-seeker. Yes, he and his Tesla team have a fiduciary obligation to take advantage of the existing rules that are already in place. However, no matter how you add up the Tesla government benefits for BEV's, nearly all of which are available to any and all other vehicle manufacturers should they structure their businesses to take advantage of them; the government savings resulting for the far less expensive SpaceX launches will far exceed any ZEV or BEV government incentives.

    In fact, SpaceX, now that they have overcome the anti-competitive, rentier restrictions against competing with United Launch Alliance, will be saving $1B/year in infrastructure charges that ULA charged the Federal Government each year even if no launches were scheduled. Furthermore, I find it interesting that even with an annual $1B infrastructure fee, ULA was dependent on Russia for their large Atlas grade engines.

    Furthermore, beyond the annual infrastructure fee savings, a deep-orbit ULA launch starts at $300M minimum; a SpaceX launch, less than $150M. SpaceX low-orbit launches currently run ~$135M in the realm of paperwork intensive government restrictive payloads. If and when, the controlled first-stage reentry becomes reliable, those low-orbit launch costs should fall to about $40M -- less for the non-government restrictive payloads.

    Looking at Elon Musk’s net effects on government subsidies should have every self-proclaimed political conservative singing his praises -- in loud, clear voices.
    Feb 1, 2016. 10:27 AM | 20 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Disappoints With Q4 Deliveries  [View article]
    I can't help but wonder if an exuberant projection, followed by a ~5% miss, might be a setup for a "Smart Money" buying opportunity tomorrow.
    Jan 3, 2016. 02:52 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Disruption in the auto industry from east to west  [View news story]
    @Randy,

    I only regret that I have but one "like" to give for your comment.
    Nov 2, 2015. 12:56 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. The Lithium Oligopoly  [View article]
    Considering how its corrupt legislature handled Tesla, I'd say Texas is the least likely place for any TSLA investments.
    Sep 27, 2015. 01:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Possible Tesla Supercharging Partner In Europe  [View article]
    @LT,

    ' I guarantee you that if Tesla asks a deep-pocketed competitor for anything more than the price of electricity plus a tiny bid of D&A, that manufacturer will tell him "Thanks but no thanks-- we'll just build our own." '

    Imagine if each ICEV manufacturer required their customers to buy gas from the manufacturer's gas station. I.e., you buy a Mazda, you can only fill-up at a Mazda gas station; a Toyota, a Toyota gas station, etc.

    I once thought that there was nothing more annoying to the new vehicle consumer than being forced to undergo the dealership sales experience. If we somehow end up multiple proprietary charging networks, the forced dealership experience would move to #2 in automobile consumer annoyance.
    Sep 25, 2015. 05:20 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Possible Tesla Supercharging Partner In Europe  [View article]
    @LT,

    It sounds like you think that this is a "zero-sum" game -- an unfortunate, and often incorrect, financial industry meme.

    Re-read the second requirement...

    "Any company using Tesla's network must pay a proportionate share of costs based on vehicle usage..."

    Why would this not include capital investments for additional SuperCharger stations? It's going to be a while before the competitive BEV's are available. There will be plenty of time for additional SC construction prior to the new BEV's hitting the roads and causing the congestion you seem to be anticipating.

    I see this as an advantage for both companies. The partner company gets immediate access to the best network of fast DC chargers available today & Tesla will have an increased pool of compatible vehicles allowing for a faster, more ubiquitous build out of the network. It would be a self-reinforcing loop making it even more attractive to additional future partners.

    One last thought... If Tesla were to try to gouge SC partners at this time, those potential partners would be much more likely to take one of the other charging network routes. By offering good partnership terms now, Tesla helps create an environment where the Tesla SuperCharger becomes the de facto standard -- a good thing for investors.
    Sep 25, 2015. 04:59 PM | 20 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Audi Vs. Tesla's Supercharging Network: The $1 Billion Investment - Or $18 Billion?  [View article]
    Nodded off & hit the button on that last sentence @ http://seekingalpha.co... .

    I meant to say, "Thus, allowing a much higher current load by keeping the recharging conductors cool.
    Sep 22, 2015. 04:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Audi Vs. Tesla's Supercharging Network: The $1 Billion Investment - Or $18 Billion?  [View article]
    Hello joeliebig,

    I just stopped by a Tesla Supercharger in Bozeman, Montana 3 weeks ago. The next day, I stopped by another Supercharger in Big Timber, Montana about an hour away from Bozeman. The interesting thing about these two superchargers is that even tough they were relatively small I believe they Bozeman station had 4 stalls and the Big Spring station, 2. Each of the superchargers had two 100 kWh battery Power-Racks in place so they can get away with not leveling-down charge rates immediately after a second, third or fourth hooks up. To the charger. Also, they have added a water flexible jacket around the charging cable. from plugin-equipment. Thus, allowing miss Xyz to employ a variable,ibl st of speed
    Sep 22, 2015. 02:48 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Audi Vs. Tesla's Supercharging Network: The $1 Billion Investment - Or $18 Billion?  [View article]
    The Bolt will be in the <sarcasm>univers... loved</sarcasm> dealerships -- in very small numbers, with no viable fast DC charging network -- a few months? a year? before the Model 3. And, this is the "more relevant car?" I find myself suddenly reassured.
    Sep 21, 2015. 04:41 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Audi Vs. Tesla's Supercharging Network: The $1 Billion Investment - Or $18 Billion?  [View article]
    I too miss the more objective style of some of your earlier articles. But, I now understand that it is SOP to "talk your book."
    Sep 20, 2015. 07:41 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Model 3 Vulnerable To Low Oil Prices  [View article]
    Hello Andreas Hopf,

    As to point 1, when I wrote my comment, I was thinking Model 3 (topic of this article) when AntiBodian was clearly contrasting the Trans Am to a Model S – my bad.

    Note to Self: Not a good idea to comment from a cell phone in the middle of the night when you can’t sleep.

    Regarding point 2… Excellent point. This prompted me to Google world electricity rates. Please note that I consider the following more “additional information” for us to ponder, rather than a rebuttal. Here goes… The following had a nice graphic of world regions electricity rates -> http://bit.ly/167TDAT . The European countries, Japan, Brazil and Australia have average rates higher than the US. Russia, Canada, India and China have lower average rates. Note that China, with the fastest growing car market in the world, has the lowest average rate at $0.08/kWh.

    On point 3… I suspect that this is not an important consideration with AntiBodian considering his choice of vehicle for the described usage. And, although I have absolutely no data to support it, I suspect that electricity generation sources are a secondary consideration at best for most Tesla consumers. As a, hopefully, future Model 3 consumer, I can tell you that Safety & Reliability are my primary decision factors, followed by passenger & storage space, handling & performance and miscellaneous other conveniences inherent to BEV’s – e.g., no VOC’s, charging at home, infrequent required maintenance, etc.

    On point 4… Vehicles with short start/stop usage patterns are ideal for BEV’s. If Tesla had more capacity, I suspect that they would be pursuing those classes of vehicles now.

    On point 5… I’m not really knowledgeable on the cold weather performance. However, I know that the Model S has an optional cold weather package & I haven’t seen any big outcry from the Norway Model S owners. If you have any good data on this to the contrary, I would be interested.

    As to long distance travel, I believe that I already conceded this point in my original comment. IMO, BEV’s will need at least a 300 mile range @ 75 mph with a 5-10 minute recharge time before they could be considered roughly equivalent to ICEV’s in this one area.

    That said, my point remains that this type of long distance driving is the exception-to-the-rule for the typical US driving pattern. And, to get this long-range convenience, you have to give up a large margin of safety, reliability, passenger & storage space, handling, performance and other miscellaneous BEV conveniences.

    ALL of that said, I believe that folks should get the vehicle that they want. For most of us, our personal vehicles are the second most expensive items that we ever buy. If you and/or AntiBodian prefer the Trans Am, I certainly have no quarrel with that. Furthermore, being an older guy, I confess to a certain nostalgia for the VA-ROOM-ROOM characteristics of a classic muscle car. However, when the Model 3 CUV becomes available and it’s time to put my money down, my choice will be the BEV.

    Skipping ahead to point #7… I believe that the Model 3 is very close to meeting the “Accommodating 3-4 people with luggage at a €30k price point.” At the time of this writing, €30k is worth $33,925.50 – pretty close to $35,000. As to the “standard interior functionality amenities” – AMEN! What is the deal with no cup-holders?!?

    This seems like a good place to end. But, I haven’t addressed your 6th point. I have a lot to say about it & this comment is already too long. So, please forgive the delay. I’ll post a follow-up for #6 in a day or two.

    Best regards.
    Sep 18, 2015. 07:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Porsche And Audi Just Cemented Tesla's Lead  [View article]
    @paynie,

    Agreed! And by the time that "their hand is forced," they will need yet another bailout to go forward.
    Sep 16, 2015. 06:03 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
389 Comments
1,503 Likes