The Lemon Fool

Is another of Tesla's claims now under threat from the Chinese government?

If Tesla has to submit all its driver data for Chinese drivers to the authorities in China and cannot "export" it back to the USA will this benefit Chinese developers of motoring AI and deprive Tesla of this data? The authorities will be able to pool the data with that from Chinese manufacturers - a massive resource?

Suppose China insists that all or some of the data collected by Teslas made in China and exported is also fed back.

Does this blow a pretty large hole in all the claims on this thread about the value of this data to Tesla?

regards

Howard

odysseus2000 wrote:Tesla haters will enjoy this James May rant on a problem with his model S (4:02 mins):

https://youtu.be/NsKwMryKqRE

Regards,

Hilarious last century design! Inspired by British Leyland? Legacy manufacturers must be amused by this.

regards

Howard (Not a hater but a sceptic )

Good video, it's amazing how much more balanced Munro is when the car can talk back, and knows more about the subject than he does!

odysseus2000 wrote:Super interesting interview between Munro and Jagdeep Singh ,founder and CEO of Quantum Scape who believe they have solved all the chemistry issues of solid state batteries and now the challenge is to produce the cells at scale, something that they believe will take a few years. They have a ongoing, but not binding, agreement with VW to build a solid state battery plant (video 1hr 3 mins)

You are conflating two different parts of the video. He says the tie up with VW is not exclusive, he doesn't say it isn't binding. VW have an agreement with QS for a 50/50 JV to produce cells exclusively for VW use and to be the first car company to take the tech to market.

QS can also strike agreements with other manufacturers, which would be a significant financial benefit to VW who are QS's largest shareholder.

When he mentioned not being bound he was talking about Ford and BMW in relation to SolidPower, and I believe his point was that they are free to pursue other channels as well, which given his breakdown of competing techs might not be a bad idea!

odysseus2000 wrote:Jagdeep comes over as a sincere and competent CEO and admits that being skeptical until they show mass production is a reasonable position, but if they deliver the price of the stock will be a lot higher.

What he actually said is that scepticism about their ability to scale the tech is fair enough because they haven't done that yet, but a lot of the FUD regarding the efficacy of the technology, the test results etc. or the outright accusations of fraud as seen earlier in this thread are not.

odysseus2000 wrote:Tesla haters will enjoy this James May rant on a problem with his model S (4:02 mins):

https://youtu.be/NsKwMryKqRE

Regards,

Just to add some balance... it seems the Waymo's don't get it right all the time either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKCQKB ... cksStudios

I missed the beginning, but it's having a real hard time with road works.

Looks like it's staying safe, but, yup, it's a definite fail.

And now the car is driving off before the safety driver (who's just arrived to assist) can get in!

I've not watched to the end yet, so not sure how it ends... though I suppose the guy survives to be able to upload.

Howard wrote:“buy a Tesla with a bitcoin and create the carbon output of 60 internal combustion engine cars”

Discuss

regards

Howard

Elon now agrees!

Tesla Suspends Bitcoin Payments Over "Concerns About Environmental Impact"

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/tesla ... tal-impact

Statement from Elon Musk on Bitcoin:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/139 ... 43203?s=20

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:Super interesting interview between Munro and Jagdeep Singh ,founder and CEO of Quantum Scape

Interesting stuff I hadn't come across before:

- I knew the separator ingredients weren't exotic from previous reading, but he explicitly says they are already commodities and QS's use would account for only a few percent of the total market.

- Feedback from onsite material testing within 24 hours of production.

- Continuous flow manufacture, not batch production.

- Looks like they are running 24/7.

Whilst it's good to see Musk backtrack on this, it does again shine a bright light on his questionable judgement, I'm afraid -

Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using bitcoin due to climate change concerns, its CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet.

Bitcoin fell by more than 10% after the tweet, while Tesla shares also dipped.

Tesla's announcement in March that it would accept the cryptocurrency was met with an outcry from some environmentalists and investors.

The electric carmaker had in February revealed it had bought $1.5bn (£1bn) of the world's biggest digital currency.

But on Thursday, it backtracked on its previous comments.

"We are concerned about rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, especially coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel," Mr Musk wrote.

"Cryptocurrency is a good idea... but this cannot come at great cost to the environment."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57096305

Whilst it's good to see some focus on the environmental impact of these digital currency mining operations, I'm sure there were better ways of doing that without damaging personal reputations in quite the same way....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May:

Tesla, off 18% in May alone:

https://twitter.com/0_ody/status/139286 ... 84610?s=20

Arkk, Cathie Wood, off 17% in May:

https://twitter.com/0_ody/status/139286 ... 63079?s=20

Ballie Gifford US growth, London Stock Exchange, USA growth, off 17% in May:

https://twitter.com/0_ody/status/139286 ... 92678?s=20

From what I am seeing around the trading tweets and such is the blessing that Arkk and Ballie are to shorts. There seems to be no trouble getting a borrow and they are all filled to the gunnels with US growth which no one currently wants.

The old argument that ETF are much safer than individual stocks is not holding up here.

Cathie Wood is getting a lesson she will not soon forget!

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:The old argument that ETF are much safer than individual stocks is not holding up here.

Don't Ark run without holding caps, thereby removing the fundamental argument in favour of any form of collective investment, diversity? If you're ETF is made up of 100% Tesla shares it is no safer than investing in Tesla.

BobbyD
Don't Ark run without holding caps, thereby removing the fundamental argument in favour of any form of collective investment, diversity? If you're ETF is made up of 100% Tesla shares it is no safer than investing in Tesla.

I believe ARKK do have no limits on individual stocks but the portfolio contains a lot more stuff than just Tesla. By comparison, Ballie Gifford do have limits on how much of any stock they can hold, but they are still off 17% like ARKK.

I have seen this happen many times. ETF like Unit Trusts and Investment Trusts et al do not protect against severe downside no matter how much the prospectives tell you that they do.

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:

BobbyD
Don't Ark run without holding caps, thereby removing the fundamental argument in favour of any form of collective investment, diversity? If you're ETF is made up of 100% Tesla shares it is no safer than investing in Tesla.

I believe ARKK do have no limits on individual stocks but the portfolio contains a lot more stuff than just Tesla. By comparison, Ballie Gifford do have limits on how much of any stock they can hold, but they are still off 17% like ARKK.

I have seen this happen many times. ETF like Unit Trusts and Investment Trusts et al do not protect against severe downside no matter how much the prospectives tell you that they do.

Regards,

100% was obviously an exaggeration made to make a point. I was going to add that if your portfolio is made up entirely of big tech, or disruptors, or... then obviously if they tale a hit so will you but my oven alarm went off and I had to rescue dinner.

There is no such thing as protection from 'downside', what these forms of investments have traditionally been used for is increasing market exposure thereby reducing exposure to the downside of any particular investment. The more diversified the product the more it reduces that exposure. A 'disruptor' fund will offer you some insulation from a dive in Tesla, but no protection against a fall in disruptor stocks more generally. A Tech fund will offer you some protection against a fall in disruptor companies, but no protection against a fall in tech more generally. A US fund...

BobbyD
There is no such thing as protection from 'downside', what these forms of investments have traditionally been used for is increasing market exposure thereby reducing exposure to the downside of any particular investment. The more diversified the product the more it reduces that exposure. A 'disruptor' fund will offer you some insulation from a dive in Tesla, but no protection against a fall in disruptor stocks more generally. A Tech fund will offer you some protection against a fall in disruptor companies, but no protection against a fall in tech more generally. A US fund...

Yes, but that is not how they are sold to investors.

Regards,

This thread seems to have drifted a bit OT, but TSLA is down 35% from ATH, whereas SMT is only down 20% or so.

But as I understand it 'trackers', whether ETFs or funds, simply allow for huge diversification without the 'frictional' costs of building a DIY portfolio or the management fees of active funds, yet tend to perform as well as or better than most managed funds. ITs/ETFs like SMT/AARK again give 'cheap' diversification, albeit over 'spicier' sectors. I have never seen a fund, ETF or IT stating it is immune to downside risk? They are just convenient instruments, and for small sums in particular, a far cheaper way of gaining diversified exposure to various sectors.

By the standards of this board, I have a modest pot, yet I own a share in literaly 1000's of companies plus other assets classes - for a potfolio of my size, transaction costs alone would have gobbled the lot without access to funds and ETFs. However I fully accept, it'll tank as hard as everything else in the next bear market, but not as hard as if I had put the lot on a small handful of badly chosen shares.

But back to Musk. Is BTC still the future of currency? Or does the fact such a big 'influencer' as Musk clearly spelt out the inherent problems make this less likely? I reckon he'll just start pumping (and dumping) PoS crypto now he's milked PoW and meme crypto for all it's worth.

Mr. Musk also said on Wednesday that Tesla was “looking at other cryptocurrencies” that use a fraction of the energy consumed by Bitcoin.

odysseus2000 wrote:
Yes, but that is not how they are sold to investors.

Somebody who is sold something is a customer not an investor.

NotSure wrote:But back to Musk. Is BTC still the future of currency? Or does the fact such a big 'influencer' as Musk clearly spelt out the inherent problems make this less likely? I reckon he'll just start pumping (and dumping) PoS crypto now he's milked PoW and meme crypto for all it's worth.

Rationality has its limits when it comes to the short term predictions, Musk and crypto. I'm not sure it would be rational to even hazard a guess as to whether or not Musk intends to switch crypto horses in the short term! Although the day before Tesla stopped taking BTC he was polling people to see whether they should start taking Dogecoin...

Notsure
By the standards of this board, I have a modest pot, yet I own a share in literaly 1000's of companies plus other assets classes - for a potfolio of my size, transaction costs alone would have gobbled the lot without access to funds and ETFs. However I fully accept, it'll tank as hard as everything else in the next bear market, but not as hard as if I had put the lot on a small handful of badly chosen shares.

Currently most US brokers do not charge any commission so that the overheads of buying a stock v buying an etf are the same. Although due to various regulation changes US brokers will no longer sell etf to non-US domicile investors. That aside, the investor who buys an etf has to absorb the management fees of the ETF before any return, something that a buyer of the company stock would not have to suffer.

Re Cryptos, there is some belief that the big money print by Prez Biden will lead to inflation. In times gone by the standard reaction was to buy gold and/or gold mining shares, but now there is the alternative of crypto currencies.

The cost of mining Bitcoin was extremely high, but the use of Application Specific Integrated Circuits brought the cost down and now its a bit of shouting match between extreme energy users and much less extreme, but there is no doubt that other technologies are less energy consuming although whether they are as safe if far from clear.

Then you have to add in the effect of inflation on the US $. If the $ is to be devalued then assets that are resistant to this: Crypto plus equities may rally hard while at the same treasuries could tank sending yields way up as happened in the 1970's.

Regards,

BobbyD wrote:

odysseus2000 wrote:
Yes, but that is not how they are sold to investors.

Somebody who is sold something is a customer not an investor.

Ha Ha, Do you work in the managed fund industry who know folk who do. They are in the business of selling stuff, not helping a potential buyer to become more prosperous.

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:Re Cryptos, there is some belief that the big money print by Prez Biden will lead to inflation. In times gone by the standard reaction was to buy gold and/or gold mining shares, but now there is the alternative of crypto currencies.

The cost of mining Bitcoin was extremely high, but the use of Application Specific Integrated Circuits brought the cost down and now its a bit of shouting match between extreme energy users and much less extreme, but there is no doubt that other technologies are less energy consuming although whether they are as safe if far from clear.

Then you have to add in the effect of inflation on the US $. If the $ is to be devalued then assets that are resistant to this: Crypto plus equities may rally hard while at the same treasuries could tank sending yields way up as happened in the 1970's.

Regards,

So.. so.. Musk has got it wrong ?!?

We may find out about whether BTC is a 'store of value' or a speculative 'risk asset' quite soon. Too early to say regarding inflation (as measured by CPI), but the upsaide risks seem to be in the ascendent. Will BTC sell off along with other risk assets if interest rates rise and risk-free returns become available, or will people looking to protect their wealth pile in? Only time will tell, but I personally suspect the former. 'Safe''? Over 50% mined in China, i.e. under the direct control of a single indivual who may not have the best interest of the West close to his heart. I am sure you are aware of what a '51% attack' is, and even BTC is open to this.....

odysseus2000 wrote:Currently most US brokers do not charge any commission so that the overheads of buying a stock v buying an etf are the same.

I am UK based and one fund I hold has an OCF of about 0.14% yet holds over 6,000 stocks including small caps in far flung places. It has no spread and no dealing cost. My holding is around £1,000. You are just being deliberately contrarian?

Edit. I do not wish to upset the excellent mods - this is not very Musk related. Passive investing, Investment Strategies or Investment Funds may be a more approriate venue?