Musk endeavours

[odysseus2000]

dealtn
Ok I get that on occasions power is cheap, and on others it is more expensive. But if this "free arbitrage" existed in practice then it would be eroded away surely? At the moment when there are few cars to utilise this I can see how it would work, but scaling up to a million and beyond?

Who is supplying this cheap "power" to all the potential Tesla battery owners, and what is stopping them from keeping it themselves? Is there some kind of law/policy in place? I can understand how if you don't have a storage facility that it is better to sell at pennies than to lose it all, as that's a marginal gain, but why not create storage capacity? At it's extreme why not buy a million Teslas! You can store the "cheap" and sell the "expensive" yourself, why give all the profit to the car owners if it is such a profitable business opportunity.

All genuine question by the way.

The free arbitrage does not yet exist, it is coming rapidly.

You can create additional storage with a power wall, or build a big battery bank, but with a Tesla car you get both a car and a virtual power station for the same price as an internal combustion model. The latter just takes energy and it can't be sold back and petrol or diesel derived power would anyhow be way too expensive.

Only Tesla have so far got the battery tech and the software to handle the charge/discharge. This is a HUGE commercial advantage that everyone else in the auto space is trying to catch up with but so far they are falling well short.

Regards,

[dealtn]

Physics is the answer. Store power when wind/solar surplus exists. Sell when not. regards, dspp

I get that bit. I'm not a complete ignoramus when it comes to science!

But my question is why is the benefit of this "natural" business model only rewarding people such as Tesla owners?

If it is as profitable as suggested (and likely to be of immense benefit to Tesla as they sell millions of cars - each having this £ making feature) why isn't the non-Tesla private sector doing the same. As I jokingly say, why doesn't a company buy a million Teslas for this purpose (and make a bit of extra money renting them out as a secondary purpose when they don't require the battery storage as, say, cars). (I do get that Tesla benefits here too by the way, just trying to understand the wider point).

Why does Tesla sell the cars at all? Forget all that extra cost of wrapping them in metal and joining to a propulsion mechanism, just produce the batteries and use them in this wonderful business of storage.

I think this is the reason I can't get my head around Tesla (valuation and business model) at all. It might represent one of the leaders in the move from ICE to BEV, but in reality it isn't much of a car manufacturer. It can only be so valuable if it is (by some distance) leading and ultimately winning in the business of "storage". Or have I got it wrong?

[dealtn]

dealtn
Ok I get that on occasions power is cheap, and on others it is more expensive. But if this "free arbitrage" existed in practice then it would be eroded away surely? At the moment when there are few cars to utilise this I can see how it would work, but scaling up to a million and beyond?

Who is supplying this cheap "power" to all the potential Tesla battery owners, and what is stopping them from keeping it themselves? Is there some kind of law/policy in place? I can understand how if you don't have a storage facility that it is better to sell at pennies than to lose it all, as that's a marginal gain, but why not create storage capacity? At it's extreme why not buy a million Teslas! You can store the "cheap" and sell the "expensive" yourself, why give all the profit to the car owners if it is such a profitable business opportunity.

All genuine question by the way.

The free arbitrage does not yet exist, it is coming rapidly.

You can create additional storage with a power wall, or build a big battery bank, but with a Tesla car you get both a car and a virtual power station for the same price as an internal combustion model. The latter just takes energy and it can't be sold back and petrol or diesel derived power would anyhow be way too expensive.

Only Tesla have so far got the battery tech and the software to handle the charge/discharge. This is a HUGE commercial advantage that everyone else in the auto space is trying to catch up with but so far they are falling well short.

Regards,

So far. But even given that caveat. Why is Tesla giving this potential free arbitrage away? Stop making and selling cars, just be a battery company and make loads of money on the storage and stop losing money on the cars.

[odysseus2000]

dealtn

So far. But even given that caveat. Why is Tesla giving this potential free arbitrage away? Stop making and selling cars, just be a battery company and make loads of money on the storage and stop losing money on the cars.

Tesla are a huge battery company and are developing this rapidly.

Tesla are profitable, they made $16 million in the first half of 2020:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/2124 ... rus-profit

They are now following the Carneige model of using profits form one Giga factory to build the next Terra factory

As things now stand Tesla is on course to become a business that looks like Henry T Ford's and Rockerfella's Standard Oil.

I expect legacy auto to be obliterated by Tesla

Tesla is the greatest business opportunity that I currently know about and is imho capable of becoming the largest capitalisation business in the world.

Regards,

[dspp]

Physics is the answer. Store power when wind/solar surplus exists. Sell when not. regards, dspp

I get that bit. I'm not a complete ignoramus when it comes to science!

But my question is why is the benefit of this "natural" business model only rewarding people such as Tesla owners?

If it is as profitable as suggested (and likely to be of immense benefit to Tesla as they sell millions of cars - each having this £ making feature) why isn't the non-Tesla private sector doing the same. As I jokingly say, why doesn't a company buy a million Teslas for this purpose (and make a bit of extra money renting them out as a secondary purpose when they don't require the battery storage as, say, cars). (I do get that Tesla benefits here too by the way, just trying to understand the wider point).

Why does Tesla sell the cars at all? Forget all that extra cost of wrapping them in metal and joining to a propulsion mechanism, just produce the batteries and use them in this wonderful business of storage.

I think this is the reason I can't get my head around Tesla (valuation and business model) at all. It might represent one of the leaders in the move from ICE to BEV, but in reality it isn't much of a car manufacturer. It can only be so valuable if it is (by some distance) leading and ultimately winning in the business of "storage". Or have I got it wrong?

Well, you were pretending to be ignorant so I went along with it ...

There are no enduring barriers to entry preventing other businesses entering the same space at the same scale and the same profitability. But, just as with Apple, the barriers that Tesla are erecting, and the competitive advantages that Tesla are creating, are pretty compelling at present.

As to the right balance between Tesla focus on mobility vs Tesla focus on storage, or for that matter on autonomy, the answer is one of blending all three to create most overall value. This is not necessarily a zero sum game in capital allocation terms. The initial entry point in mobility has a higher GM% and so rightly got the most focus early on, but I expect that we will see the storage play become more visible over the next few years. And autonomy as a play is a free-ride on top of that. In all this there are network effects and scale effects, and they are beginning to come fairly visible as barriers that followers will have to overcome.

All this was known and visible to all of us in these industries. That at least was why I invested, back in the mid $200s as they went through the cash-generation barrier (and is why I did not, prior to that, as the risk was too great for me).

I personally am somewhat more sceptical regarding the short-term value to customer (as opposed to value to Tesla) of trading spare auto storage in the overnight market. To me it seems that Tesla will need to lay out the erosion of cyclic life calculations fairly transparently. So as a customer I don't expect to go along on that journey myself quite yet. As a shareholder I am very happy for others to do so.

regards, dspp

[dealtn]

dealtn

So far. But even given that caveat. Why is Tesla giving this potential free arbitrage away? Stop making and selling cars, just be a battery company and make loads of money on the storage and stop losing money on the cars.

Tesla are a huge battery company and are developing this rapidly.

Tesla are profitable, they made $16 million in the first half of 2020:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/2124 ... rus-profit

They are now following the Carneige model of using profits form one Giga factory to build the next Terra factory

As things now stand Tesla is on course to become a business that looks like Henry T Ford's and Rockerfella's Standard Oil.

I expect legacy auto to be obliterated by Tesla

Tesla is the greatest business opportunity that I currently know about and is imho capable of becoming the largest capitalisation business in the world.

Regards,

The profit is tiny, and created by financial engineering (although that is acknowledged in the article), and hasn't been a feature in most quarters of its existence.

But regardless, my point is why cars? They don't make money from them, don't build them to the spec and expectation of customers as evidenced elsewhere, and to scale up requires huge risky investment.

They don't have much of an advantage in cars, nor a moat.

What they do have (arguably as I am no expert, but it is conceded generally) is an edge in batteries/storage.

So again, why not just be the huge battery/storage business and "monopolise" or "Carnegie/Rockerfella" that business, ditch the auto.

[odysseus2000]

dealtn
The profit is tiny, and created by financial engineering (although that is acknowledged in the article), and hasn't been a feature in most quarters of its existence.

But regardless, my point is why cars? They don't make money from them, don't build them to the spec and expectation of customers as evidenced elsewhere, and to scale up requires huge risky investment.

They don't have much of an advantage in cars, nor a moat.

What they do have (arguably as I am no expert, but it is conceded generally) is an edge in batteries/storage.

So again, why not just be the huge battery/storage business and "monopolise" or "Carnegie/Rockerfella" that business, ditch the auto.

There are lots of bears who share your views.

If you believe Tesla have no advantages and their cars are poor then your logical position here would be to short Tesla.

I believe that Tesla is a huge secular growth business. So far it ticks all the boxes, that from my historical studies tell me have been important in previous secular growth and that it is only now beginning its rise and so I am long. I expect a huge rising tide in all of Tesla's markets that will rapidly lift this company to be a dominant business in all the markets it competes in.

Differing opinions are what make markets and I have studied many of the bear cases and found them lacking. Perhaps you would come to different conclusions and it is of course possible that I am wrong, so you have the option to short Tesla.

Regards,

[dealtn]

dealtn
The profit is tiny, and created by financial engineering (although that is acknowledged in the article), and hasn't been a feature in most quarters of its existence.

But regardless, my point is why cars? They don't make money from them, don't build them to the spec and expectation of customers as evidenced elsewhere, and to scale up requires huge risky investment.

They don't have much of an advantage in cars, nor a moat.

What they do have (arguably as I am no expert, but it is conceded generally) is an edge in batteries/storage.

So again, why not just be the huge battery/storage business and "monopolise" or "Carnegie/Rockerfella" that business, ditch the auto.

There are lots of bears who share your views.

If you believe Tesla have no advantages and their cars are poor then your logical position here would be to short Tesla.

I believe that Tesla is a huge secular growth business. So far it ticks all the boxes, that from my historical studies tell me have been important in previous secular growth and that it is only now beginning its rise and so I am long. I expect a huge rising tide in all of Tesla's markets that will rapidly lift this company to be a dominant business in all the markets it competes in.

Differing opinions are what make markets and I have studied many of the bear cases and found them lacking. Perhaps you would come to different conclusions and it is of course possible that I am wrong, so you have the option to short Tesla.

Regards,

I am coming to the conclusion you don't actually read what is written by others. Far from saying "Tesla have no advantages" I am seeing they have an edge in battery/storage, and asking legitimate questions about them to try and discover knowledge!

Why would I go short before understanding what that edge is, and what its value is (and then compare to the valuations I would make of the other bits and the "whole")?

I can't see the value in the auto side, but that isn't what I have been asking about.

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

[odysseus2000]

dealtn

I am coming to the conclusion you don't actually read what is written by others. Far from saying "Tesla have no advantages" I am seeing they have an edge in battery/storage, and asking legitimate questions about them to try and discover knowledge!

Why would I go short before understanding what that edge is, and what its value is (and then compare to the valuations I would make of the other bits and the "whole")?

I can't see the value in the auto side, but that isn't what I have been asking about.

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

The idea that the auto business has no value but that there's value in battery/storage, means that you have missed the whole point of the V2G and of Tesla and of valuation.

Tesla is currently autos, the battery business is developing and is being speeded by the development of V2G.

Tesla is a growth business, you can not expect to come to any sense about its worth based on valuation and measuring the business based on p/e gives a very misleading high value.

The edge in battery storages comes from several factors, not the least of which being that they adopted the 18650 cylinder, later 2170 cylinder battery when everyone else went for the sort of soft packages often found in smart phones which are not self constrained for the compression and expansion in use as are the 18650 battery. This edge developed from the needs of automotive and it from that base that they are developing the storage. As things now are the cells that don't make the specs for cars are re-used in storage. Now a big new recycling plant is being constructed to take Tesla car batteries which with heavy v2g will wear out faster. Suggesting only the storage may have value is completely misunderstanding Tesla.

Also as a Tesla long I should declare an interest in that the more folk who short Tesla the better for me as it has been the short squeezes that have allowed the fast price ramps we have seen.

Regards,

[dspp]

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

I've tried to, but you told me you knew it all.

I suggest you consider the difference between the price of wholesale electrical power (typical 5p/kWh) and the marginal cost of surplus renewables generation (~0p/kWh). If that doesn't whet your appetite then try the value difference between domestic price (~15p/kWh) and zero.

I have built many financial (and technical) models of this and similar hybrid renewable/conventional/storage/etc systems over the years. Simple ones and complex ones. Oh, and built real systems as well, and owned the companies that did this stuff & etc. The answer in all cases is "it depends". Build your own model, plug in your own variables, and draw your own conclusions, then go long, short, or sit on the fence. If you look through my many posts over many years on this subject you ought to find quite a few hints. I will be interested if you have any particular conclusions to share with quantified reasoning attached.

On the TSLA BEV auto product proposition I have posted buyer value assessments and found them to be attractive vs the dino-juice peers. On the consumer scale storage proposition I am much less convinced at this point, but as a marginal cost value-add to an existing auto I could become more convinced (and you do not seem to be asking about larger scale). On autonomy I watch with interest. On solar PV I watch with (lessening) concern. Overall, personally I went long on the overall TSLA share value at the ~$250 point which has (so far) proved to be one of my better calls.

- dspp

[dspp]

As things now are the cells that don't make the specs for cars are re-used in storage.,

Ody,

My understanding is that:

1. A relatively small amount of the auto-cells fail the QA test and get repurposed into storage. I have no hard evidence that any go this route.

2. Other substantial cell supplies from other sources get primarily used. These are either ones where the chemistry and/or form factor are not suited to auto, or where the auto-grade certification/qualification costs are not worth it. Both these factors come into play. There is abundant web evidence of this, some of which I have posted here before.

Clearly at each cell-supply ramp-point we may get to a stage where,

3. Surplus auto cells get switched across to storage, when there is an excess of auto cells. I don't think this has ever occurred to any material extent, but clearly it has considerable value as it allows TSLA (and their suppliers) to derisk capacity investment as they have two potential use-streams that can be independently throttled.

regards, dspp

[dspp]

As things now are the cells that don't make the specs for cars are re-used in storage.,

Ody,

My understanding is that:

1. A relatively small amount of the auto-cells fail the QA test and get repurposed into storage. I have no hard evidence that any go this route.

2. Other substantial cell supplies from other sources get primarily used. These are either ones where the chemistry and/or form factor are not suited to auto, or where the auto-grade certification/qualification costs are not worth it. Both these factors come into play. There is abundant web evidence of this, some of which I have posted here before.

Clearly at each cell-supply ramp-point we may get to a stage where,

3. Surplus auto cells get switched across to storage, when there is an excess of auto cells. I don't think this has ever occurred to any material extent, but clearly it has considerable value as it allows TSLA (and their suppliers) to derisk capacity investment as they have two potential use-streams that can be independently throttled.

regards, dspp

ody,
it being Friday I had a quick surf, and I think that for domestic powerwall 2 I may be wrong and you are correct, they are using sidestream auto cells in powerwall. See https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-powerwa ... tes-video/
I wonder if what I have been picking up are the cell sources for the commercial scale stuff, but I thought they were basically racked n stacked powerwalls, containerised with the aux systems. So it is possible that teslarati are wrong and my sources are correct.
regards,
dspp

[dspp]

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

I've tried to, but you told me you knew it all.

I suggest you consider the difference between the price of wholesale electrical power (typical 5p/kWh) and the marginal cost of surplus renewables generation (~0p/kWh). If that doesn't whet your appetite then try the value difference between domestic price (~15p/kWh) and zero.

I have built many financial (and technical) models of this and similar hybrid renewable/conventional/storage/etc systems over the years. Simple ones and complex ones. Oh, and built real systems as well, and owned the companies that did this stuff & etc. The answer in all cases is "it depends". Build your own model, plug in your own variables, and draw your own conclusions, then go long, short, or sit on the fence. If you look through my many posts over many years on this subject you ought to find quite a few hints. I will be interested if you have any particular conclusions to share with quantified reasoning attached.

On the TSLA BEV auto product proposition I have posted buyer value assessments and found them to be attractive vs the dino-juice peers. On the consumer scale storage proposition I am much less convinced at this point, but as a marginal cost value-add to an existing auto I could become more convinced (and you do not seem to be asking about larger scale). On autonomy I watch with interest. On solar PV I watch with (lessening) concern. Overall, personally I went long on the overall TSLA share value at the ~$250 point which has (so far) proved to be one of my better calls.

- dspp

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

GM% in TSLA auto 25.5% is higher than in TSLA storage, hence prioritisation of cells >> auto at present. Also there is a faster race being run in auto than in storage. Auto cells can provide storage, but stationary cells cannot deliver mobility. And auto is cell constrained most of the time it appears. All rational reasons for TSLA to be going down the blend path they are. At some point a rebalance may take place, indeed this rebalance seems to be slowly underway but is likely a 20-yr fade across to a more 50/50 outcome.

regards, dspp

[Howard]

dealtn
The profit is tiny, and created by financial engineering (although that is acknowledged in the article), and hasn't been a feature in most quarters of its existence.

But regardless, my point is why cars? They don't make money from them, don't build them to the spec and expectation of customers as evidenced elsewhere, and to scale up requires huge risky investment.

They don't have much of an advantage in cars, nor a moat.

What they do have (arguably as I am no expert, but it is conceded generally) is an edge in batteries/storage.

So again, why not just be the huge battery/storage business and "monopolise" or "Carnegie/Rockerfella" that business, ditch the auto.

There are lots of bears who share your views.

If you believe Tesla have no advantages and their cars are poor then your logical position here would be to short Tesla.

I believe that Tesla is a huge secular growth business. So far it ticks all the boxes, that from my historical studies tell me have been important in previous secular growth and that it is only now beginning its rise and so I am long. I expect a huge rising tide in all of Tesla's markets that will rapidly lift this company to be a dominant business in all the markets it competes in.

Differing opinions are what make markets and I have studied many of the bear cases and found them lacking. Perhaps you would come to different conclusions and it is of course possible that I am wrong, so you have the option to short Tesla.

Regards,

I am coming to the conclusion you don't actually read what is written by others. Far from saying "Tesla have no advantages" I am seeing they have an edge in battery/storage, and asking legitimate questions about them to try and discover knowledge!

Why would I go short before understanding what that edge is, and what its value is (and then compare to the valuations I would make of the other bits and the "whole")?

I can't see the value in the auto side, but that isn't what I have been asking about.

Maybe someone else with some actual knowledge might be along that can help.

Whatever the sophisticated technical explanations we are being fed in answer to your questions, you are probably right. Like most of Tesla’s forecasts, this wonderful money-making scheme won’t work. It will be quietly forgotten and replaced with an even more fanciful forecast.

Tesla haven’t yet demonstrated an ability to make quality cars let alone any other skill. This is demonstrated by their rank at the very bottom of the latest JD Power survey.

As this commentator suggests:

“Among the 32 automotive brands included in this year's IQS, Tesla ranked dead last with an average of 250 defects per 1000 vehicles. The industry average was 166 defects per 1000 vehicles.”

Rather than accept that Tesla has a poor quality record, Tesla supporters will quickly try to rubbish the JD Power survey. It is fascinating to watch this happen.

As the author of this article quotes further:

"The reason that these quality challenges persist come down to Tesla and its fans/investors emphasis on 'managing perceptions,' rather than fostering healthy feedback loops. The people who think they are helping Tesla most are often actually hurting it. This culture of minimizing problems instead of learning from them extends as far as Tesla denying JDP access to its registration data."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/435575 ... ent=link-2

As someone who has enjoyed reading this thread over the years, I would suggest that a lot of the comments from engineers (sprinkled with abstruse technical terms) about Tesla’s superior production processes have been shown to be deluded.

As the manufacturer with the poorest quality score in the USA (and in the “Which” car surveys in the UK) It would probably be accurate to describe Tesla’s current bodywork and paintwork skills as slightly better than British Leyland in the 1960s!

I'm not the expert you are looking for, but I'll stick my neck out with a forecast:

If we continue to enjoy reading this thread in the future, it might not surprise me to find, in a year or two, that all the predictions of making large profits from Tesla car batteries are quietly forgotten.

regards

Howard

[odysseus2000]

Howard
As someone who has enjoyed reading this thread over the years, I would suggest that a lot of the comments from engineers (sprinkled with abstruse technical terms) about Tesla’s superior production processes have been shown to be deluded.

As the manufacturer with the poorest quality score in the USA (and in the “Which” car surveys in the UK) It would probably be accurate to describe Tesla’s current bodywork and paintwork skills as slightly better than British Leyland in the 1960s!

I'm not the expert you are looking for, but I'll stick my neck out with a forecast:

If we continue to enjoy reading this thread in the future, it might not surprise me to find, in a year or two, that all the predictions of making large profits from Tesla car batteries are quietly forgotten.

regards

Howard

Thank you, this is the sort of stuff I love to read.

Gone are the days when it was said BEV could never work, that legacy auto would destroy Tesla, that Musk would be in the slammer after his claim of funding secured etc, and that the Tesla accounts are a fiction. But, they have happily been replaced with comments about body work and a disbelief in the arbitrage of getting power at very low cost and selling it for a lot more.

In the meantime Tesla have begun to make a profit and positive cash flow and they have sold around 1 million cars and investors have seen the shares rise many fold.

I imagine that in the future when the share price is a lot higher, the sales a lot higher and the profits also a lot higher, there will still be posts about body work, paint and all manner of other stuff that will once again show that the bears are clueless.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

For anyone who doesn't understand the potential of vehicle to grid and virtual power station, this video covers many of the aspects of this technology and estimates that a model 3 or y has an intrinsic value of about $32k with a million mile battery and that these batteries may be leased to the car owner, dropping the price of a model 3 or a y by this amount. The presenters note that a model 3 or y battery pack can be easily swapped out and that no other manufacture has this potential technology. Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP971PYzQJs

The investment case for Tesla is imho currently overwhelming combining, as I have noted before, the potential of Henry Ford and Rockefeller with the modus operandi of Carneige. Additionally it is now a dagger at the throat of legacy and at the throat of legacy fossil fuel peak power industries.

If you think I am talking nuts, please specify what I am getting wrong.

Regards,

[dealtn]

If you think I am talking nuts, please specify what I am getting wrong.

Given previous such posts I doubt you will listen!

[odysseus2000]

If you think I am talking nuts, please specify what I am getting wrong.

Given previous such posts I doubt you will listen!

I will listen to any well reasoned and articulate post that gives quantitative reasons.

Whether I will agree with it is a different matter.

In general I like to know both sides of any issue at a level that would allow me to argue either case and for this reason I seek out alternative views in case they have some weight that I have otherwise not properly considered.

The quality of the bear articles over the years has been noticeably weak, ill-informed, lacking substance and mostly fuelled by the authors having a personal loathing of Tesla. It is not surprising that many bears have lost a huge amount of money as they have let their own emotions override their logic and haven't bothered about the mood and prosperity of potential buyers, the political mood on the environment, the very poor efficiency of ICE and the much better efficiency of BEV and especially the loathing many have for legacy auto, notably VW following Dieselgate. Bears have argued that despite this corporate thieving of VW et al, legacy are the only folk who will be trusted by the population to make cars and the only ones who have the resources to develop BEV and bring them to consumers at an acceptable price with a network of dealers etc etc. In short a new entrant like Tesla hadn't a hope of success. There were all manner of arguments backed up by quantitive statements showing that Tesla could not possibly produce cars at the expected rate, virtually no one bothered to check what Ford did in a world with out machine tools and robots, those that did saw the whole process very differently.

Regards,

[dealtn]

If you think I am talking nuts, please specify what I am getting wrong.

Given previous such posts I doubt you will listen!

I will listen to any well reasoned and articulate post that gives quantitative reasons.

Whether I will agree with it is a different matter.

In general I like to know both sides of any issue at a level that would allow me to argue either case and for this reason I seek out alternative views in case they have some weight that I have otherwise not properly considered.

The quality of the bear articles over the years has been noticeably weak, ill-informed, lacking substance and mostly fuelled by the authors having a personal loathing of Tesla. It is not surprising that many bears have lost a huge amount of money as they have let their own emotions override their logic and haven't bothered about the mood and prosperity of potential buyers, the political mood on the environment, the very poor efficiency of ICE and the much better efficiency of BEV and especially the loathing many have for legacy auto, notably VW following Dieselgate. Bears have argued that despite this corporate thieving of VW et al, legacy are the only folk who will be trusted by the population to make cars and the only ones who have the resources to develop BEV and bring them to consumers at an acceptable price with a network of dealers etc etc. In short a new entrant like Tesla hadn't a hope of success. There were all manner of arguments backed up by quantitive statements showing that Tesla could not possibly produce cars at the expected rate, virtually no one bothered to check what Ford did in a world with out machine tools and robots, those that did saw the whole process very differently.

Regards,

Well evidence elsewhere doesn't back up your claim about openness to listen I'm afraid so the incentive to engage is pretty weak if I am honest.

I love how you describe others as "emotional" and literally in the next sentence use the phrase "corporate thieving" by the way. Clearly you don't see the irony in your own argument making!

[dspp]

Moderator Message:
Please tone down stuff. This is a board for discussing investments in a macro context, not a bar-room brawl. And my apologies if I have been a part of the problem. regards, dspp