1x Tsla Discussion Threads

[cfb2] 20/5/2024 17:10

Great article Simon.

US UAW line worker earns on average $200k, Chinese earns £10k. The only chance the US has of competing is to replace the line workers with robots that costs $10k or less to run and put up tariffs to stop the Chinese from dumping in the US.

If they're successful and can avoid the friend-shoring work around then the benefits from economies of scale should be similar.

[simon gordon] 20/5/2024 15:56

Kyle Chan - 16/5/24:

Will Biden's Chinese EV tariffs work?

Will tariffs give the US auto industry time to catch up to Chinese EVs? Or will the US become the Galapagos of the car world?

[simon gordon] 18/5/2024 06:24

Michael Dunne - 7/5/24:

When Every Car Is Made in China

Bracing for the ultimate global automotive disruption

Unthinkable, right? Think again.

China today has enough capacity to manufacture half of the world’s 80 million vehicles. By 2030, China’s capacity could climb to 75% of the world’s volume, according to Global Data.

This year China will export 6 million vehicles to more than 140 countries worldwide, blowing past Japan for global leadership.

Chinese brands like SAIC’s MG, Chery, Geely’s Volvo and BYD are leading the way, winning in every time zone from Brazil to Thailand, from the UK to Australia.

Call it the coming China car colossus.

Continued....

[cfb2] 17/5/2024 18:40

hosede: Each settlement was a combination of the share price and a goal. I agree that without the goal it's easy to manipulate. Just look at Mary Barra manipulating GM's share price with buybacks and dividends whilst decimating the long term prospects of the company.

[hosede] 17/5/2024 16:20

IMHO options should never be awarded on the basis of the share price - it's too easy to manipulate by buy backs etc. It should be on profits in some form

[cfb2] 17/5/2024 15:38

maurice: Over 70% of shares voted in favour of Musk's payment. The Judge took the payment away and gave 10% of Musk's money to a huddle of lawyers instead, earning them a fee of over $200k an hour. She then went onto say in her judgement that Musk has already earned enough money by the increase in the value of his shares.

In the prospectus I voted in, it was clearly laid out as a number of goals and associated increases in Tesla's market capitalisation for each of his settlements. These goals were aligned with mine. These goals were achieved and I benefited from the resulting increase in share price.

In my opinion, but clearly not shared in a Delaware court, this is overruling the shareholders.

[mauricemonkey] 17/5/2024 14:46

cfb2 doesn't get that the shareholders weren't overruled. The shareholders were lied to and so weren't able to make an informed decision.
And they're still being lied to on the re-vote and the same outcome is likely even if the vote is nominally successful.

[hosede] 16/5/2024 21:31

Simon
Positive decisive management!!

[cfb2] 16/5/2024 18:25

Johnwise: The comments against the video say it all...."worthless propaganda put out by the oil companies...". Not a single OEM is actually mentioned in the video.

I don't mean to be rude but you keep spamming these weird, irrelevant videos to a number of threads on ADVFN and everyone gives them thumbs down. I'm surprised you don't get the hint.

[johnwise] 16/5/2024 18:18

VIDEO

EV Makers in Crisis: The Market’s Loud Warning You Can’t Ignore! Electric Vehicles & The 6 Signs!

[cfb2] 16/5/2024 18:09

The management bench is an interesting one. A little while ago Musk promoted the management of Tesla because during the Twitter purchase analysts were saying Musk was a key man and therefore he had to concentrate on Tesla for it to be successful. Musk wanted to play with his new Twitter toy so he didn't like that.

Then the Judge overturns his $56bn settlement (something I personally disagree with because a Judge should not be able to overrule shareholders, especially when it results in the lawyers walking away with $6bn for overruling us!).

Suddenly, Musk wants his $56bn and 25% of Tesla he therefore has to prove that he is a key man for Tesla's survival. But wait, less than a year ago Musk said Tesla operates perfectly well without him.

How does Musk have it both ways?

[johnwise] 16/5/2024 18:06

VIDEO

Broken EVs Head Straight to Junkyards As Repair Costs Are Unbearable!

[cfb2] 16/5/2024 17:32

I don't get the purpose of the X thread. It's just lots of negative news stories about Musk. If he were as uptight as Seth Abramson says he is then Musk would have had them removed.

If anyone was in control of some many huge companies or were pushing so many frontiers of science there would be a similar shed load of stories.

As for SpaceX being slow to pay some of its bills. That's bad practise and will result in those contractors not wanting to work for SpaceX again, so everyone loses out.

Try doing a similar investigation into Trump and you'll see that he doesn't pay the majority of his bill or offers 10 cents on the dollar. I think the moral of the story is if you're a big company and rich you treat everyone else like sh*t so that you stay rich and everyone else stays poor.

[cfb2] 16/5/2024 10:32

I agree with Dan Wang's view that China, with it's manufacturing base, would come out best. However, the distribution of technology between the countries is a better mix than the manufacturing.

Trump becoming president worries me but then again both candidates are extremely poor!

In the six months since your article was written, the Chinese EV market is showing signs of overheating. They are producing substantially more vehicles than their domestic demand allows and Biden has put up 100% tariffs to protect them from being dumped in the US. Whether the US policy of promoting friend-shoring is good long term for US inflation, as it forces Americans to buy more expensive items, is questionable.

What happens to China's manufacturing and housing over the next six months will be interesting.

[simon gordon] 14/5/2024 16:30

Superb FT podcast - 14/5/24:

China's race to tech supremacy: Shenzhen speed

How did China go from tech imitator to innovator? The FT’s James Kynge reports from Shenzhen, known as China’s Silicon Valley, where he explores the city’s vast electronics markets with inventor Noah Zerkin, an American who’s based himself in China, visits robot start-up Youibot and hears from DJI about how it became the world’s biggest drone manufacturer. Plus, Matt Sheehan, a China watcher focused on technology at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Qi Zhou, a venture capitalist based in Shenzhen, explain why China’s tech success stories are turning established narratives on democratic freedoms and innovation on their head.

[hosede] 14/5/2024 15:59

Tesla doing a meme stock today - no reason for any rise -in fact as Simon has just posted the News keeps getting worse

[simon gordon] 14/5/2024 14:29

Bloomberg - 14/5/24:

...The desire to disentangle the US from dependency on China is well-established, and bipartisan. Biden’s calibration of his tariffs to specific technologies is, apart from managing the blowback on favored sectors, designed to differentiate him from his likely opponent this November, former president Donald Trump, who threatens blanket measures.

Economists and environmentalists alike are aghast. Reshoring clean tech supply chains cannot help but be inflationary, regardless of the IRA’s branding. New tariffs on EV batteries and battery-parts, in particular, will be more meaningful, since the US took about a fifth of Chinese battery exports by value last year, second only to the European Union. EV makers in the US, including Tesla Inc., will face an additional headwind on cost for the most expensive part of the vehicle, even as IRA domestic-content measures ratchet up, too. This as they must also reignite slowing demand for their pricey cars in the US.

Meanwhile, Detroit’s halting progress on electrification, plus memories of its squandering of prior protectionism against Japanese automotive imports decades ago, raises the risk of a domestic industry that delivers only a dribble of uncompetitive EVs. Unlike China, the US strategic pivot to clean tech is patchy, partisan and competes with a legacy, truck-heavy vehicle industry that is fed by the biggest oil producing sector in the world.

Biden will nonetheless take the risk. US trade policy is inherently strategic. Remember that the IRA effectively seeks to replicate China’s industrial policy, complete with protectionism, that fostered Beijing’s lead in clean tech in the first place. The free-trade paradigm that is now crumbling was set up in the ruins of World War II; not out of altruism but in order to rebuild allies to make common cause in containing the USSR. Even at the height of paranoia about the Japanese competitive threat to Detroit, among other sectors, in the 1980s, Japan remained a critical Cold War ally — unlike China, now the Pentagon’s designated pacing threat.

Only a month ago, White House climate envoy John Podesta essentially called for the creation of a new trading system targeting China on another front; namely, “carbon dumping” via the emissions embedded in exports (see this). It remains to be seen whether the administration can persuade like-minded, generally lower carbon-intensity nations to join such an effort. The EU, with its attachment to the World Trade Organization and more ambitious green targets, is the key region in this regard.

In any case, the direction of travel in Washington is unmistakable. While the tariffs grab headlines, possibly more consequential measures are taking shape in the background, not least the Commerce Department’s inquiry into “connected vehicles,” launched in February. Given the growing overlap between data-rich driver-assistance systems and all vehicles, including EVs, this could provide a far-reaching, national security justification for targeting models merely connected with Chinese companies, regardless of where the factory is sited.

The tension between cutting emissions and cutting supply chains, always there, is now reaching the point where trade-offs are inevitable. The coming election plays a big part in where the emphasis falls in 2024, but this presents a chronic headwind to the US energy transition for years to come. This is a case where, even if you don’t take Biden literally, you should take him seriously.

[johnwise] 13/5/2024 21:30

The Govenments Global Warming SCAM Update:

VIDEO

Net Zero Watch: The wheels are coming off the narrative of fear



Video: Mark Levin sussed the government scam
The truth about global warming


If Zero CO2 was ever achieved every tree on the planet would die
VIDEO: A Dearth of Carbon Dr. Patrick Moore